Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent.

Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Fitz did not need to address the issue of Plame's covert status because it had to have been established at the time of the criminal referral. The argument as to Plame's "covert status" was made up whole-cloth by the RWNM.

First, it was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press. Early in the investigation, however, the critical issue remained as to precisely what the particular officials knew about Ms. Wilson’s status and what the officials intended when they disclosed her identity to the media.

In every era there are those who write alternative histories that seem to directly contradict the dominant narratives of the day. By alternative histories, I mean histories that introduce events, people and facts that are either excluded or are re-interpreted by those who dominate the narrative discourse at a point in time.

I learned one American History in high school. In college I learned another. My college experience led me to the conclusion that my high school education was intended to serve primarily as a form of mass socialization. Knowledge and independent thinking were secondary in importance if they were that. Even college didn't tell me everything I should have been told. It wasn't until after college when I read "Don't Know Much About History," by Kenneth Davis, Howard Zinn's "Peoples History of the United States," and "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" by Dee Brown, that I really began to understand the role that history plays in society.

That being said, I learned more about American society and culture from sci-fi authors, poets, comic book artists and other social thinkers working on the margins of society than I ever did from history.

Main stream history, like main stream media, is the dominant narrative of the ruling class. It always has been. It probably always will be. That does not mean that alternative narratives are not available for those who really and truly want to know what is going on. But you have to look in the right places. Places like this.

I think basically what it has accomplished is what Bill Maher (and perhaps others) have called "the wash." Maher's example was Kerry and Bush's respective Vietnam War records; the RWNM basically tore at it fact-free untli people just said, "Oh, whatever. There's no telling what the truth is."

Now, a certain percentage will always wonder whether about the CIA.

Is this what you meant?

Oddly, the Newsweek headline writers seem to realize the absurdity of this by contributing a "Was She or Wasn't She?" hed, and the authors do manage to inject qualifiers later in the story, as here:

Fitzgerald attempts to shoot down the idea that the agent's job was mostly analysis.

Maguire sees the word "attempts" as a qualifier. He is so obtuse that he doesn't realize that willful ignorance like his necessitates that any good reporting includes a mention that Fitzgerald might not succeed in getting the message across.

among the media giants. It's way past time the people took thier "fourth estate" back from corporations.

I have some suggestions for Congress if you're listening:

-Fine networks for perjury if more than 3 lies per hour are told during news or political shows. If the network has been given correct information that refutes the story and the story or lie continues to be fomented by a network- the fine should therefore be doubled, tripled each susequent offense.

(While some may count advertising as lies-commercials and ads would be exempt.)

-Networks/newspapers can sue public officials on a personal basis-(as opposed to branch of gov.)-if it is proven the govt. is purposely using the media for its' own political gain. (So Cheney or Libby could be sued if these laws were in place.)

These should be tried publicly in jury trials with them determining the fine amount.

-During campaign cycles-truth squads should be mandatory for each candidate. These people would keep track of opponents smear tactics-giving more than 1 lie per 2 min. a fine of $150,000 by the offender camp to the targetted campaign. They should also have to remake the commercial-with apology and true account.

-If a network reaches an extrmee amount of unethical and blatant falsehoods-the FCC should revoke thier license and suspend it until a heavy fine is paid.

This is for starters-sure I can think of more!

I haven't read the letters yet, but ask yourself these questions...

Since none of those questions add up to anything, because the "letters" that you haven't (won't, can't) read make it absolutely and unquivocally clear that you are simply factually in error, how about you ask yourself this question:

"Why can't I admit I'm wrong about this?"

and we're all gonna reap the dividends in a less-safe world forever ... god only knows how many covert nuclear weapon programs they have spawned.

I noted that one normally issues a retraction for original reporting, not commenting upon other people's news stories

This is pretty close to the standard mantra for excusing the flat out dihonesty and truth destruction of the noise machine propagandists (Sean Hannity is the penultimate example of this, although you even see it with actual journalist like Lou Dobbs and his refusal to correct the misinformation that he gets from white supremacists) ... they claim to be offering commentary and opinion, as if that somehow frees them from an ethical responisbility to honest discourse and factuality.