Mr. Cooper also wrote about a

conversation he initiated with I. Lewis Libby, chief of staff for Vice

President Dick Cheney. Although it has been known that reporters spoke

to Mr. Libby, what he said was not known. His conversation with Mr.

Cooper is the first indication that Mr. Libby was aware of Ms. Wilson's

role in her husband's trip to Africa. When Mr. Cooper asked if Mr.

Libby knew of that, Mr. Libby said he had heard that as well, the

article said.

Now, we know Plame's role in the trip is strictly irrelvant to the

dislosure of Plame's identity and only an important issue insofar as it

helped (and helps) paint Wilson as a henpecked recipient of

nepotism.   But, as Josh has reminded us in "Upping the

Ante, Part I", Roberts' report is far from probelmatic and

shouldn't, in any case, be given total credulity, as it was in today's

Times piece.  In fact, it traffics in some highly debatable

information.   For example, remember the INR report that the

Senate Committee treated unskeptically that claimed the CIA meeting

where Wilson was chosen was "apparently was convened by Wilson's

wife"?  Well, here's the CIA on that report, according

to the Washington Post in December 2003:

CIA officials have challenged the

accuracy of the INR document, the

official said, because the agency officer identified as talking about

Plame's alleged role in arranging Wilson's trip could not have attended

the meeting.

And as long as we're at it, we might consider the extent to which the

Roberts report taints the Wilson trip in just the way the White House

originally inteded.  The suggestions of the committee report, like

Rove's discussions with reporters have a threefold effect: (1.) They

cast doubt on credibility of the trip by hinting it had untoward

origins (2.) They raise questions about Wilson's possible alterior

motives and (3.) They suggest Wilson has obligations in the matter

other than to country that might keep him from telling the truth.

Some examples of the report's defamation of Wilson:

• "The Committee does not fault the CIA for exploiting the access

  enjoyed by the spouse of a CIA employee travelling to Niger."

  (25)  As if it might fault them? What's with "access enjoyed"? In context, why does this sentence

  need the "spouse" clause in the first place? Couldn't it have been "a former Ambassador"? And doesn't "travelling to

  Niger" help create the impression that the CIA job is a tack-on to

  Wilson's otherwise shady trip?
  

• Related: "The former Ambassador was selected for [a previous CIA

  mission to Niger] after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her

  husband was planning a business trip to Niger" (39).  Imputation:

  money is Wilson's primary objective.
  

• "She approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him

  'there's this crazy report' on a purported deal for Niger to sell

  uranium to Iraq" (39).  Read: Wilson already knew what the "right

  answer" was and finding otherwise would have been disloyal to his wife,

  who got him the job in the first place. Imputation: commitment to wife

  makes commitment to country doubtful.

Roberts' report is a Republican document.  Can someone please inform Lorne and Manley?