Indeed, Wannisky has now apologized to Rove, and addressed the following (http://wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=4498) to the prosecutor:
"What I’m now reading and hearing is that what you have come up with is, at best, a complaint against someone, perhaps not even in government, for having told one or more reporters that Plame was responsible for sending her husband to Niger to look for yellowcake, which she was not, and that she was a covert agent, which she clearly was not at the time. There are still some anti-war legal beagles who are splitting hairs, insisting she still fit the CIA’s definition of a covert agent – or the Justice Department would never have turned the case over to you if they didn’t think she was covert. But for you to chew up two years on these kinds of Mickey Mouse legalisms would be outrageous if this is all you have. John Tierney of the NYT calls this "Nadagate," a zero, and that`s what it`s beginning to look like to me.
"The public only needs to know from you who, if anyone, in the government knew a serious falsehood about yellowcake was inserted into the President’s 2003 State of the Union Speech, knowing the lie would elicit national support for a war that turned out to be unnecessary. And if you can’t clear that up, please do not ask the grand jury to issue a handful of indictments on the measly issue of Plame’s status at the CIA, only to justify the time you have wasted in this proceeding. If you not already read Frank Rich’s op-ed in today’s NYTimes, I urge you to do so forthwith..."
no subject
"What I’m now reading and hearing is that what you have come up with is, at best, a complaint against someone, perhaps not even in government, for having told one or more reporters that Plame was responsible for sending her husband to Niger to look for yellowcake, which she was not, and that she was a covert agent, which she clearly was not at the time. There are still some anti-war legal beagles who are splitting hairs, insisting she still fit the CIA’s definition of a covert agent – or the Justice Department would never have turned the case over to you if they didn’t think she was covert. But for you to chew up two years on these kinds of Mickey Mouse legalisms would be outrageous if this is all you have. John Tierney of the NYT calls this "Nadagate," a zero, and that`s what it`s beginning to look like to me.
"The public only needs to know from you who, if anyone, in the government knew a serious falsehood about yellowcake was inserted into the President’s 2003 State of the Union Speech, knowing the lie would elicit national support for a war that turned out to be unnecessary. And if you can’t clear that up, please do not ask the grand jury to issue a handful of indictments on the measly issue of Plame’s status at the CIA, only to justify the time you have wasted in this proceeding. If you not already read Frank Rich’s op-ed in today’s NYTimes, I urge you to do so forthwith..."