Perhaps. I’d kind of like to hear it Scylla’s own words, though. Alas, I see by the grey dot by his name that he’s away from the board at the time of this posting. I had originally tried submitting #273 a couple of hours ago, but my internet connection was down. Good luck for me that it came back before I shitcanned the content; bad luck that I didn’t get to post it until prit-near midnight his time.
I’ll check the status in the morning.
One thing (one other thing) that’s been nagging at me throughout this thread: What “retribution” is anyone talking about? ISTM that “retribution” would be something like trumping up a charge of “unauthorized disssemination of classified materials*” against Wilson, and tossing him in the cooler. The insinuations that arose out of the Novak piece strike me as falling under the general heading of “discrediting the source.”
As “retribution,” making Joe Wilson look like a leftist shill stumping for an anti-war agenda would work how, I wonder? By seeing to it that Joe Wilson never again got called out of retirement for a pro bono** fact-finding mission? How does that work against his interests/aspiratons? But for “discrediting the source,” if there’s a perception within the WH that Wilson’s piece tends to weaken the case for war, there is a distinct advantage to the WH in making it appear that the piece cannot be relied upon to be reporting objective facts.
Opportunistically taking advantage of the leak about to appear in Novak’s column to volunteer the information to other reporters strikes me as an effective (and coolly efficient) mechanism for achieving the discrediting of Wilson’s Op-Ed piece, and reaping the benefits therefrom.
So, Scylla once again I’d be grateful for some clarification from you as to the thesis of your OP: do you distinguish between “Discrediting an inimical source” and “exacting retribution upon an enemy” in your catalog of what cannot be laid at the door of the Cheney-Rove-Libby troika?
If you intend to characterize them as seperate line items, then I commend you for not engaging in a quixotic effort to demonstrate that discrediting Joe Wilson as a reliable reporter was not among the White House’s motivations; and sticking to the “destroying-Joe-Wilson’s-reputation-and-seeing-to-it-that-the-remainder-of-his-days-were-spent-in-bitter-isolation-from-all-men-of-good-report-type revenge” line. 'Cos, I agree with you, they’ll never be able to pin that one on Messrs. Cheney, Rove, and Libby.
In fact, I can’t even see why anyone would want to, what with the juiciness of the other one, that will never quite be disproved. But shame on you for trying, if you did.
*(okay, Scylla, while operating a motor vehicle with a cracked tail-light, if you insist that it be accompanied by a side order of “other infraction”. 
)
** I gathered from the Vice President’s handwritten notation that he, at least, believed that Wilson was not paid for his efforts. If I’m mistaken, then I will admit that I was wrong to rely on Vice President Cheney’s words to learn the facts of the matter. Any of them.