From today's editorial on the Libby commutation on the "conservative" San Diego Union-Tribune editorial page.

Libby – and Cheney, too – were highly reckless in leaking the name of CIA official Valerie Plame as part of a payback scheme aimed at her husband, an administration critic.

Apparently no one was following the case closely. There is zero -- and by zero I mean zilch, nada, zippo -- evidence or testimony to the effect that Plame's name was "leaked" as part of a payback scheme. That's Joe Wilson's standard lament -- echoed by the likes of Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews -- but that doesn't make it the truth.

The characterization of Wilson as merely an administraiton "critic" is also either incomplete or dishonest.

Some facts for those who are interested in them:

• Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger at the behest of his wife.
• Wilson lied when he said he was sent by the Vice President's office
• Wilson lied about what he found in Niger.
• Wilson lied about what he told the CIA about what he found.
• Wilson lied when he said his wife was not involved with sending him on the trip.
• Wilson lied when he told the public that he had debunked some forged documents because "the names were wrong and the dates were wrong." Wilson had never seen the documents.

In an effort to push back against all of these lies, the administration tried telling the truth. Unfortunately for the Wilson/Plame cabal, one of those truths is prompted by the question any reporter would ask: "If you say the vice president didn't send Wilson on this mission, then who sent him?"

The answer to that is "his wife."

This was part of a "payback scheme?" It's a pretty poor payback scheme if, as the editorial notes, it didn't work because no one Libby or Vice President Cheney actually "leaked" to ever reported the leak. The leaker was Richard Armitage and he wasn't part of the "scheme."

By the way, the editorial is titled "Another mistake." I'm not sure you can expect a correction on this one.