Even the most hardened political observer had to be stunned by the Republican efforts at damage control following the five-count indictment of Lewis “Scooter” Libby. In the past week, the usual spin was delivered with such cynicism that it descended to new levels of intellectual dishonesty. Let us take a look at what some of the prominent Republican apologists were saying last week:

1) Deborah Orin, New York Post. Certainly one of the more shameless commentaries of the week came from New York Post writer Deborah Orin, while interviewed by Chris Matthews on Hardball. Clearly, Orin had decided that with respect to Leakgate, the best defense of the administration was a good offense, with no regard for factual accuracy. Here is Orin:

“it appears that contrary to what a lot of people would like to claim, Valerie Plame was not a covert agent, nor was she outed…She was not covert. She was not covert. If she had been covert, there was law they could have charged under.”

At this point, an incredulous Matthews interjected, asking why an outraged CIA would have referred the matter to the Justice Department in the first place, if Plame’s status was not undercover. Responded Orin: “I'm saying that it is very unclear whether the CIA was telling the truth…”

So there you have it. According to Deborah Orin, the culprit here was not an irresponsible and malicious White House, but rather a dishonest CIA. This theme of blaming the CIA for White House corruption was first sounded on Meet the Press by pundit William Safire:

“…the most important thing is the whole basis of the political charge that came out of the CIA, which was desperate to try to cover up its own mistakes and its own huge failure in this case, this was an attempt by the CIA to get a Justice Department investigation of a law that had not been prosecuted in--once, perhaps in 25 years. And everybody is walking around thinking, "Well, you see? There was a conspiracy to undermine or uncover an agent." Well, there wasn't. It was not. And he said it very clearly. And so I think we ought to keep that in mind.”

So from the Orin/Safire perspective, there was a conspiracy, not by the White House, but astonishingly, by the CIA to misreport Plame’s status, with the goal of turning itself into sympathetic agency, at the expense of the White House. Fortunately, we have an impartial referee to whom we can turn on the matter of Valerie Plame’s status. Here is what Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had to say in his press conference:

“Before I talk about those charges [against Libby] and what the indictment alleges, I'd like to put the investigation into a little context.

Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.

The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.

Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.”

Fitzgerald couldn’t have put it an more clearly in his press conference: Valerie Plame was an undercover agent, who cover was “blown,” both by Robert Novak and those who passed the information to him. And yet, even in the face of Fitzgerald’s crystal clear statement, Deborah Orin, not to be deterred, brought out the right wing canard that “everyone in town knew about Valerie Plame":

“how come Hugh Sidey [Washington Editor of Time Magazine] submitted an affidavit trying to keep Matt Cooper from having to testify that said everybody in Washington knew it?”

Huh? The fact that Sidey was grasping at straws, trying to keep his colleague out of jail, hardly proves that there was any merit to his claim. To all those who allege—and they pop up repeatedly on FOX News—that Valerie Plame’s spy status was an open secret, I only have one thing to say: Name me one unauthorized person who knew Valerie Plame’s identity. I don’t need twenty; I don’t need a hundred, just one. I’d like to hear from that person.

2) William Safire, New York Times. As noted earlier, Bill Safire, the gold standard of Republican apologists, was in full throat on Meet the Press, offering this assessment of the Scooter Libby indictment:

“…everybody is walking around thinking, ‘Well, you see? There was a conspiracy to undermine or uncover an agent.’ Well, there wasn't. It was not. And he [Fitzgerald] said it very clearly. And so I think we ought to keep that in mind.”

Actually, Bill, Patrick Fitzgerald said nothing of the sort. Simply because the conduct of White House officials did not rise to the level of a criminal offense does not mean that there wasn’t a broad White House attempt to expose Valerie Plame. Safire’s remarks are akin to saying, “We all know that Al Capone was only convicted on tax evasion, so we can all rest assured that he never extorted any money, or killed anyone.” Further, it is worth remembering that presumed spy and right wing whipping boy Alger Hiss was never convicted of espionage, only perjury. Safire’s remarks notwithstanding, every common sense understanding of Leakgate tells us that there was a White House conspiracy afoot. Not a conspiracy that met all the standards of a federal criminal statute perhaps, but one despicable enough for the White House to try to hide it.

There are two provisions within the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 that make it devilishly difficult on which to convict someone. The first is that the law was principally designed to protect agents overseas. While not explicit in the statute, the legislative history of the law dictates that in order to fall under the law, an agent must have served overseas within the last five years. If an otherwise clandestine agent has been back in the U.S. on rotation for over five years, any scoundrel who acts to expose that agent can take legal refuge in that technicality. In such a case, while criminal sanctions would not apply, does that make the exposure any less heinous? Hardly. Secondly, based on the statute, the individual who outs the agent must clearly be aware of the agent’s covert status. Hence, the person who does the outing can get much legal mileage out of professing confusion as to the agent’s status. It was most likely through these two loopholes that Libby, Rove, and the rest of the White House, caught a break from the Special Prosecutor.

A few final words about the Plame case. Columnist Robert Novak not only exposed Plame’s identity, he maliciously took it one step further and named the front company that she used in her cover [note: If she were not covert, why would she even need a front company?]. It is likely that other agents scattered around the globe used that same company name for their cover. If true, the outing of Valerie Plame immediately tipped off hostile elements overseas as to whom our covert operatives were. Since these operatives would likely be, like Valerie Plame, “NOC’s”—those working with nonofficial cover—they would be completely on their own if found out by a hostile government, a truly frightening thought. While we will never know the extent of the damage caused by the leak, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame’s husband, recently pointed out on “60 Minutes” one additional repercussion from Leakgate. Because Wilson had served as Ambassador to several countries while his wife worked covertly for the CIA, as a result of the outing of Valerie Plame, no wives in our diplomatic corps will ever be viewed again in the same benign manner.

3) David Brooks. Let us conclude with David Brooks, the right-leaning New York Times columnist, who perhaps won the “Pollyanna of the week” award with his comments on Meet the Press:

“the American people have to know that the wave of hysteria, the wave of paranoia, the wave of charges and allegations about Karl Rove and everybody else so far is unsupported by the facts. So what we have is a serious indictment of a senior government official, but we do not have a cancer on the presidency.”

Oh yes we do, David, oh yes we do.