Your article:

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=40D51D3F-4F22-447C-BE3D-7D4EED87FF0A

quotes Mr. Rowan Scarborough as saying:

“Plame recommends her husband for a trip to Niger”

If you read the decision by Judge John Bates, now used by Plame-bashers to laugh at her, he corroborated the story that she DID NOT send Wilson.

From Bates decision:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2006cv1258-52

“19(e) At about the same time, Libby spoke with a senior officer at the CIA, who told Libby that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and was thought (ERRONEOUSLY) to have been responsible for Wilson’s trip.”

Walter Pincus:

“the CIA has maintained that Wilson was chosen for the trip by senior officials in the Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division (CPD”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081001918_pf.html

And more curious for you to determine is why Tom Davis was just told by the Intel Committee that in fact, Plame’s testimony to the House did NOT conflict with earlier testimony to investigators, despite the vain attempts to portray it otherwise.

Writers like Byron Yorke parse information to continue this story as Plame sent Wilson, and uses Kit Bond as his validation. Any logic student can identify the “appeal to Bond” fallacy here, because if Bond is wrong, then the assertion falls apart.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/

“officials told CNN Tuesday she had nothing to do with the decision. "She did not recommend him. It was not her idea to send him," said one official.”

But here’s the key part:

In the memo released in an attempt to prove Plame sent Wilson, Byron Yorke and Kit Bond failed to see the middle paragraph they printed for all of us which clearly reads:

“As you may recall, [redacted] of CP/[office 2] recently approached my husband to possibly use his contacts in Niger to investigate [a separate Niger matter].

So, which is it, was it the “redacted” officer who started the suggestion of Wilson, or Plame? Upstream from Plame’s comments that her husband “may be in a position to assist” indicate she was working based on the earlier recommendation, not one that started with Plame herself. And if all parties simply wish to emphasis her, then they are committing logical fallacy of weighing her comments heavier than those of other comments in the same record that indicate it was not Plame that sent Wilson. She also clearly stated she didn’t have the authority to send Wilson, which is the long howled cry of their critics.

I’ve read every document publically published, and what was clear is that someone mentioned Joe Wilson at CIA meeting on Niger matter, because he had gone before at their request.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it. But you are prolonging a fabrication of view here by publishing, without critical examination of Scarborough’s comments, falsehoods that undermine Mr. Scarborough’s Enemies at the CIA theories.

I have no comment on the remaining assertions he makes about the CIA. Only that the records support Plame’s testimony.

In close, Novak interviewed Tom Davis, and clearly published that Davis received feedback from the House Intel Committee that refuted his assertion she perjured herself. Why not get Bond to do the same thing, if he feels she committed perjury?

Novak writes:

“When it (house intel committee) responded she had been consistent in denying that she suggested her husband's mission, Davis was baffled in view of contradictory evidence”

. Baffled indeed, because there is no contradiction and he can’t catch up with the facts.

Please do a better job at your fact checking.