'Imperial Hubris' CIA payback to Bush administration for outing agent?

Factual Questions
1

Am I reading this correctly?

Joseph Wilson writes an intelligence report saying the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq are bunk. The White House is displeased, and someone responds by outing his wife, Valerie Plame, to Robert Novak. The CIA may or may not have compelled a Langley analyst who goes by the nom de plume “Anonymous” write Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror which discloses that Osama bin Laden is not on the run and that the invasion of Iraq has not made the United States safer.

The whole “Anonymous” thing is an unnecessary smokescreen that the author doesn’t need to protect the CIA from political reprisals?

DAMN!

Okay, okay – I guess my question is – does this ring true to anyone? And what the hell else is in ‘Imperial Hubris’? How much of it can we verify?

2

Here’s the Boston Phoenix article in it’s entirety.

3

And here’s the GD thread on the guy.

In the interview linked in the GD OP, Anonymous makes a couple of odd errors that suggest either that:

  • he is not an agent specialising in Islamist terrorism, as the article says he is; or
  • he just doesn’t understand his targets well.

Either way, I’d take his statements with a grain of salt.