Think The UnthinkableJacob Weisberg writes:
No one disputes that Bush officials negligently and stupidly revealed Valerie Plame's undercover status. But after two years of digging, no evidence has emerged that anyone who worked for Bush and talked to reporters about Plame -- namely Rove or Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff -- knew she was undercover. And as nasty as they might be, it's not really thinkable that they would have known. You need a pretty low opinion of people in the White House to imagine they would knowingly foster the possible assassination of CIA assets in other countries for the sake of retaliation against someone who wrote an op-ed they didn't like in the New York Times.
Actually, there's plenty of evidence that Rove and Libby knew exactly what they were doing -- why else would they go to such lengths to conceal the fact that they were the sources of such information? If they thought Plame wasn't undercover, why wouldn't they pass along the information without demanding confidentiality and, in Libby's case, demanding a misleading attribution.
You can say that it's circumstantial evidence. You can say that there's evidence that contradicts it (although, as Weisberg would say, "no such evidence has emerged"). You can say that, to your mind, it's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But you can't say it's not evidence.
Of course, as others have already pointed out, the actual evidence -- sworn testimony and subpoenaed documents -- have not been made public. How can anyone say there's no evidence of a fact when they haven't seen the evidence?
These people, Mr. Weisberg, are people who sent -- and continue to send -- Americans to their deaths based on fraudulent WMD evidence and equally fraudulent concerns about democracy and homeland security. Why should they have any greater concern for the lives of Americans working for the CIA?
Update (10/21): Howie the Putz endorses Weisberg's "important piece."