As a lawyer, I find this "Armitage was the leaker" talking point fascinating. Could Hitchens really be so absurdly uninformed that he believes Libby could not have leaked that which had already been leaked? Could he really believe that Armitage, by leaking, effectively declassified the information regarding Plame? Does he believe that once classified information is leaked it is therefore legal for one such as Libby to spout it to reporters, even though the information remains classified? Does he really believe that a prosecutor should have disregarded Libby's leaks merely because Armitage had already leaked to Novak, even though Libby's leaks occurred well before publication of Novak's column? Let me make this simple for Mr. Hitchens: Plame's identity was classified, it remained classified even after Mr. Armitage's gossipy disclosure, it remained classified while Libby was peddling it to Miller (which he did on multiple occasions prior to publication of Novak's column), and it remained classified even after Novak's column was published. As such, the information was "leaked" by Libby - recklessly, repeatedly, and purposefully. Please, Mr. Hitchens, it is bad enough that you truck with neocons. Is it really necessary for you to demonstrate to them that you are willing to sacrifice your dignity in service of their ridiculous lies?

Spending too much time on your liberal hate-blogs, haven't you, Tommy? Can't address the column without "neocons" and "lies". Your vile is quite apparent.

Libby should have his overturned. Go back to chasing ambulances.