If this report is correct, one has to ask why Valerie Plame is not facing perjury charges. After all, her own memo seems to contradict her sworn testimony.

In her testimony before the House, Mrs. Wilson said flatly, “I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him.” She told the House committee that a 2004 Senate report, which concluded that she had indeed suggested her husband for the trip, was simply wrong. In particular, Mrs. Wilson pointed to a February 12, 2002, memo she had written, which the Senate said showed that she had suggested her husband for the trip, and claimed that the Senate had taken the memo “out of context” to “make it seem as though I had suggested or recommended him.”

The 2004 Senate report to which Mrs. Wilson referred had quoted a brief excerpt from her memo. In the new report, Sen. Bond publishes the whole thing, and it seems to indicate clearly that Mrs. Wilson suggested her husband for the trip. The memo was occasioned by a February 5, 2002 CIA intelligence report about Niger, Iraq, and uranium. The report had been circulating in the intelligence community for a week by February 12, and Mrs. Wilson headlined her memo, “Iraq-related Nuclear Report Makes a Splash.”

The report forwarded below has prompted me to send this on to you and request your comments and opinion. Briefly, it seems that Niger has signed a contract with Iraq to sell them uranium. The IC [Intelligence Community] is getting spun up about this for obvious reasons. The embassy in Niamey has taken the position that this report can’t be true — they have such cozy relations with the GON [Government of Niger] that they would know if something like this transpired.

So where do I fit in? As you may recall, [redacted] of CP/[office 2] recently approached my husband to possibly use his contacts in Niger to investigate [a separate Niger matter]. After many fits and starts, [redacted] finally advised that the station wished to pursue this with liaison. My husband is willing to help, if it makes sense, but no problem if not. End of story.

Now, with this report, it is clear that the IC is still wondering what is going on… my husband has good relations with both the PM and the former minister of mines, not to mention lots of French contacts, both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity. To be frank with you, I was somewhat embarrassed by the agency’s sloppy work last go-round, and I am hesitant to suggest anything again. However, [my husband] may be in a position to assist. Therefore, request your thoughts on what, if anything, to pursue here. Thank you for your time on this.

Now Byron York points out the obvious contradiction here -- them memo clearly puts forward her husband as a candidate for the mission to Niger, though admittedly she was not the first person to raise his name. however, she is clearly pushing his candidacy here, advocating for him to be selected. How can this be squared with her sworn testimony that she did not recommend her husband? After all, she is clearly laying out her husband's qualifications for the role -- the day before the vice president was briefed on the uranium matter and asked the questions that ostensibly led to her husband's mission.

There is also evidence that she made contacts abroad with US officials in Africa seeking concurrence for her husband's travel -- only hours after the Cheney briefing. However, there is no way that her timeline can be jibed with the contention that the vice president instigated her husband's trip to Niger -- because it is practically a done deal when she sent the cable, and she had already been putting forth her husband as a candidate to seek information in Niger on the previous day.

Now this leads to a very interesting problem for Plame and Wilson. They are now seeking damages based upon true statements made by executive branch officials trying to correct the record after her husband's statements in the press. We now know that Plame lied about her role in selecting her husband -- and have since the original Senate Committee report was issued. The matter is new even clear than it was at the time. Should this evidence not be the basis for dismissing the suit? Furthermore, should this not be the basis for trying Plame, and perhaps Wilson, on perjury charges?

Regardless, it is clearly a basis for appeal on the part of Scooter Libby -- assuming the president is unwilling to immediately do the honorable thing and issue a full, complete, and unconditional pardon. After all, any misstatements on Libby's parts were not material to the investigation conducted by Fitzgerald, the actual leaker was never prosecuted, and the one individual clearly guilty of perjury is the so-called victim in the case.

H/T Ace