Being a long time Slate reader, it has been quite a while since I saw an article on this site so devoid of actual facts and completely clouded in mistruths.

I will try to address Mr. Hitchens atricle point by point.

1. It is correct that Mr. Libby was not charged with breaking the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. He was charged and convicted of lying to the prosecutor investigating whether this law was broken. This point was mentioned by Hitchens just to obfuscate the real crime.

2. Mr. Fitzgerald was never able to ascertain whether the law was broken because of the lies in Libby's testimony. Being unable to prove a crime is not the same as determining that a crime never happened.

3. Since when is it wrong to investigate someone when there is probablecause a crime was committed? I didn't realize justice took a backseat when we're at war. In addition, the conviction wasn't about who leaked what information. The conviction was for lying during the course of an investigation.

4. I'm not sure I understand the logic on this point. Because he wasn't found guilty of two crimes, he must be innocent of the third?

5. This point is clearly intended to confuse the issue some more. The call is irrelevant other than the fact that Libby discussed the Plame matter on the phone. This connected Libby to the possible crime under investigation. When Libby was called to testify, he committed perjury.

6. Mr. Hitchens once again tries to make the reader think Libby was convicted under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Mr. Libby was convicted of lying about a crime under investigation. It doesn't matter if everyone in the world knew who Valerie Plame was. You can't lie to a grand jury.

Mr. Hitchens, please stop trying to deceive the readers and post relevant facts. There are a good number of reasons why Libby was given a raw deal, but you didn't address them. Please stick to the facts next time.