Wilson has little background for this mission but his wife-Valerie Plame-works for the CIA.

Wilson makes the preposterous claim he was sent on the mission by VP Cheney, later proved false by a Senate Intelligence Committee Investigation.

Wilson makes statements about his findings in Niger, later proved false, by a Senate Intelligence Committee Investigation.

Bob Novak writes a column in 2003, which mentions Valerie Plame's CIA position.

Wilson claims his wife was a covert CIA agent and that White House officials leaked her name to punish him and ruin his wife's career.

Several months later, Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage comes forward and acknowledges to the Justice Department that it was he who told Novak about Plame.

Wilson, as a result of the Senate Committee's findings, has been so discredited by his deceit, John Kerry drops him as a spokesman from the Kerry campaign.

Meanwhile, a special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald is appointed to investigate the leak.

Mr. Fitzgerald starts the Libby trial already knowing that Richard Armitage was the leaker.

There is no evidence to this day that Plame was covert, another Wilson falsehood. It's a virtual certainty she was not; therefore no crime has been committed.

End of story, right??

Wrong!!

Joe Wilson's Lies Kick Off A Trial Where It Is Known No Law Has Been Broken

Wilson's lies kick off a trial for Libby to see what Libby was saying to whom at the time, which as it turned out, had nothing to do with the Plame outing.

As far as who said what and when they said it, jurors later made sarcastic comments about the faulty memories of several key witnesses, especially reporter Judith Miller and former White House official, Ari Fleischer.

It seems as though the jury accepted Tim Russert's version over Libby's, relating to a conversation between those two, and that Libby was thus found guilty.

Interestingly, Russert at one point, testified, he did not know a lawyer could not accompany a witness before the grand jury. Soon thereafter, the defense produced three clips showing that Russert had said on the air, that a lawyer cannot go into the grand jury with his client. How's that for a memory loss?

So there were these terrible memory losses for key witnesses, some it seems that were worse than Libby's. There still is no proof that Libby was incorrect or lied in any way.

What motive could Mr. Libby have to cover up a non-crime? There was none!

It seems as though the jury just decided that in a discrepancy between Russert and Libby, in a conversation between those two, Russert had to be correct and truthful and Libby had to be incorrect and untruthful. Remember this all had to do with remembering months later, who said what to whom, about a non crime.

It gets worse.

The judge would not let the jury hear the Russert memory lapse about accompanying a witness before the grand jury.