« Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners | Main | A new definition of "neutrality" »

Another Plame Outrage

I have argued over the past few years that the coverage of the Valerie Plame story amounted to journalistic malpractice. Is it also a example of prosecutorial malpractice? There is an argument to be made in light of recent revelations. The Texas Rainmaker asks:

So, Armitage admitted being the leaker and was promptly investigated by the Justice Department investigators... even "aggresively investigated" by special counsel Fitzgerald.

Within months of Novak's article, investigators knew exactly who had leaked... and had "found no evidence" that an "outing" was intentional. So the big question now is why did Fitzgerald continue his investigation for another two years until he was able to indict an administration official for a bad memory?

Maybe another investigation should be launched...

When I first posted evidence of Armitage as the leaker, some readers asked why they should care. Captain Ed tells us with much more on the significance of recent revelations.
The more I think about this, the angrier I get -- and not just at Patrick Fitzgerald. Richard Armitage confessed to the DoJ in October 2003, and then sat on his ass for the next three years as the media and the Left play this into a paranoid fantasy of conspiracies and revenge. I know Armitage dislikes Rove, Libby, Cheney, and Bush, but what kind of man sits around while the world accuses people of a "crime" that he himself committed? Armitage did nothing while the nation spent years and millions of dollars chasing a series of red herrings, never speaking out to remove the mystery and end the witch hunt. Even three years later, Armitage hasn't mustered the testicular fortitude to publicly admit that he leaked Plame's identity and status; he has Isikoff and Corn do it for him.

Armitage should be through in politics, but he'll catch on with a presidential campaign this year. Watch very carefully to see which one has him as an "advisor" on foreign affairs. It'll reflect poorly on the candidate who continues an association with this bitter apparatchik.

For those who missed my recent post, John McCain has listed Armitage as one of his foreign policy advisors.

Sister Toldjah has a great post on this story with lots of updates.



Comments (25)

Captain Eds Timeline is a l... (Below threshold)
G:

Captain Eds Timeline is a little off. Go read yesterdays Corner.

I believe Robert Novak dese... (Below threshold)
Buckeye:

I believe Robert Novak deserves some of the blame for this spectacle as well. He could have alleviated some of these theatrics long ago.

Novak is the central villai... (Below threshold)
sanssoucy:

Novak is the central villain in this. He should have publicly said, the moment this silly tempest-in-teapot arose, "It ain't Bush. It ain't Cheney. It ain't Rove. It ain't Libby. So tuck your little pink peckers back in your pants, lefties, and find some other shitwit fantasy to get hysterical about."

And the indictment against Libby should be *instantly* quashed. That Fitzgerald pursued such an abomination when he knew fucking-A well that Libby didn't leak shit is just unconscionable.

SS

sanssoucy:Gee, how... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

sanssoucy:

Gee, how quickly you righties forget. Ummm, lets see as i remember it Libby has been indicted for, amongst other things, perjury. Now if I remember further back the Boogie Man you guys love to hate the most was tried by the Senate for the same thing. Aren't you folks the law and order party? The party of personal responsibility? Or just the party of hypocrisy?

If you must respond try not to spew filth - unless of course you know no other way.

Hey hugh baby there's one t... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Hey hugh baby there's one thing we ain't--
asskissing, bootlicking cowards like you "lefties".
(P. S. -how do you like that "filth"?)
Oh and have a good day.

jhow:I'm laughing ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

jhow:

I'm laughing all the way to November

Remember now boys and girls... (Below threshold)
scrapiron:

Remember now boys and girls, Fitz was a known left winger (on average not too smart) when he was appointed. He could just need some of the millions of dollars he's been able to siphon off from the government or it could have taken him this long to get through the alphabet to 'N', for 'no' one comitted a crime.

jhow66, i'm sure you can come up with something better or just add some more 'truths' about the left wing. I didn't see traitors and terrorists supporters enabling/encouraging the death of American GI's, which a majority of them are, and lately some are calling for the terrorist to attack America again so they can blame it on President Bush (they know 9-11 is Slicks legacy). BDS has destroyed their mind.

Either way you slice it, th... (Below threshold)
bone:

Either way you slice it, the Richard Armitage angle to the Plame story is yet another blow to the administration’s tattered credibility.

If we roll with the righty spin and say that the Plame affair began with just a simple case of a chatty Deputy Secretary of State, then the fact that Armitage retained his job despite a reputation for such careless disregard for national security secrecy is pure hypocrisy in the face of this administration’s own attacks on the media and critics of it’s extra-constitutional surveillance by casting such critics as loose-lipped and guilty of aiding and abetting the enemy.

On a more realistic track, one has to ask why the name & status of such a low-profile covert operative should rise to the level of being the topic of Executive gossip in the first place. Oh yeah, that’s right- because the chicken-hawks were looking to attack her husband. If Joe Wilson were not on the forefront of their minds, then his wife would have not been the subject of Armitage’s gossip in the first place. This new development does nothing but reinforce Fitzgerald’s assertion that Cheney, Libby and company were very preoccupied with Wilson.

So it comes back to the unnatural attention spent on a single critic by this administration at a time when such attention should have been focused on planning and prosecuting the war they pushed so hard for. We are now paying in treasure, life and prestige for their misplaced attention and failure to stay focused on the important issue at hand: WINNING THE WAR!

Now if I remember furthe... (Below threshold)
sanssoucy:

Now if I remember further back the Boogie Man you guys love to hate the most was tried by the Senate for the same thing.

Listen, motard; you know from fuck-all about whom I "hate," so why don't you just shut the fuck up before you embarrass yourself further?

SS

If we roll with the righ... (Below threshold)
sanssoucy:

If we roll with the righty spin and say that the Plame affair began with just a simple case of a chatty Deputy Secretary of State, then the fact that Armitage retained his job despite a reputation for such careless disregard for national security secrecy is [...]"

You know, some leftist dumbsquat would have a hell of a lot more credibility mouthing empty bullshit like "careless disregard for national security" if the American left hadn't spent the last half-century cheerfully splashing *real* details of *real* national secrets all over the pages of the NY Times?

From the Pentagon Papers to K129 to NSA wiretapping to the Church Commission to SWIFT to Iran-Contra to Gitmo; you assclowns never met a covert operation you weren't positively panting to expose - so long as a Republican was in office, that is - until Valerie Plame waddled into view.

Now - with breathtaking hypocrisy - you're puffing and blowing about "national security."

Scumbag.

SS

Now we know what goes on at... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Now we know what goes on at the State Department.

A bunch of gossiping old women.

The Plame affair is an exam... (Below threshold)
bone:

The Plame affair is an example of the short attantion span of this administration and how their lack of focus on the important issues has cost us so dearly. You righties who still defend this failure of a president need to wind the clock back to when it all went wrong.

We lost the war the day Bush decided to forsake the real battle in Afghanistan and turned his sights onto Iraq. We had unfinished business in Afghanistan, which done right, could have set the tone for a smart, sincere & successful terror war.

On the eve of our invasion of Afghanistan, the non-Taliban Afghani people were unanimous in one request: that we not forsake them as they perceived us to have done following the Soviet withdrawal. That sentiment gave us license to move a huge presence into that country and keep that force there indefinitely. They didn't want us to abandon them.

Making Afghanistan the focus of our war would have put the bulk of our military strategically at the bridge between East and Middle East, on Russia’s doorstep and close to Europe. This is a strategist's dream spot. We could have used the country of Afghanistan as a large mega-base for as long as we wanted. The result would have been the complete eradication of the Taliban and Al Kaida there (a process which would have battle-hardened our fighting people in a far more friendly and stable country than Iraq) as well eradicating as the opium growers-Did you know that 87% of the world's opium for heroin still comes from Afghanistan? What do you think the proceeds from that drug business is financing? Look at what region the London terror plot came from. Feel safer?

Money would have come from the numerous military bases we could have put in Afghanistan. That money would have trickled down and been a shot in the arm to their fledgling economy. This would have eliminated Afghanistan's reliance on opium, made them very welcoming of our presence, and newfound prosperity among Afghanis could have been a beacon to the world of our intentions, morality, success, and power. The long range result of such a plan, had we a President with the wisdom and restraint to pursue it, would be a massive, well trained and equipped army situated at the crossroads of the world. In light of this, any "Clinton Military" blameisms fall flat. Recruiting for Afghanistan in the wake of 911 was through the roof. Hell, we had heroes like Tillman walking away from his multimillion dollar contract to join the fight. We would have had the advantage of America having the respect and leverage of the global community behind our next venture and the army to carry it out right.

Had we followed that plan, we could have taken Iraq, not with B.S. storys of WMD's, drones, BioLabs, and nuclear evidence-all of which has been cast into serious doubt or wholly debunked. We could have come honestly to the UN and given the real reasons that we all know of why Saddam needed removed from power. It would have taken at least two or more years to have properly built up the invasion force and work and diplomacy to gather world support for an invasion of Iraq, but the end result would have not been an embarrassing quagmire that will haunt and tarnish us into the foreseeable future.

The same truthful approach we could have taken toward the world community should have also been applied toward Americans like me and you. That honesty, along with a clear distinction between the terror war & the Iraq war would have resulted in the die-hard support of myself and the rest of the truth-based community. Imagine Left and Right both united without controversy behind the president. It could have been.

If we had a president with the insight to see what a strategic gift Afghanistan truly was and who would have taken the obvious step of conducting a massive buildup there in preparation for the coming Iraq invasion, we could have taken Iraq with far more than the forces we had or even the forces wise voices like Chinseki called for, but far, far more. Enough to render Iran and Syria irrelevant, muzzled and cornered. We could have went in with enough to have allowed William Wallace to double back and get the Fedayeen (a major nucleus of what would become the insurgency) when he requested to do so. We would have had troops to spare to prevent looting, force order from the get-go and crush the insurgency before it had a chance to crystallize. And Osama would probably be dead now, too.

We would have gone to a war we were prepared for, not with a Rumsfeldian "army you have, not the one you wish you had". That remark is ridiculous in the face of the fact that WE chose the timing of the war and even then we had the resources to provide Chinseki's 500,000. That remark alone should be grounds for Rumsfeld's immediate dismissal.

A young wolf once said to his father "Let's run down there and get one of those sheep". To which the wise, patient father replied "No son, let's walk down and get them all."

You can still quibble about the details; issues like Plame, but step back for a minute and look at the big picture of what's actually went on these past 5 years since 911. When I think about what could have been; how and why we blew our generation's historic call to greatness, it just plain disgusts me.

We lost the war the day ... (Below threshold)
sanssoucy:

We lost the war the day Bush decided to forsake the real battle in Afghanistan [...]

Ah, yes, the lefty's tedious refrain. I guess I musta missed all that patriotic, pro-Bush, "go get 'em in Afghanistan," cheerleading back before we routed the Taliban.

[PS: It's *Shinseki*, not "Chinseki," you imbecile...]

I respect intelligent conse... (Below threshold)
bone:

I respect intelligent conservatives and enjoy debating with them and sharing ideas.

But Sanssoucy, if you can't not write like a retard, then don't bother. You are only hurting your cause.

As has been pointed out pre... (Below threshold)

As has been pointed out previously, Plame's publicly listed address in 1992 was the US Embassy in Athens. There is ZERO chance she was ever "covert" after that time, because an embassy address ensures the other security services all know about an operative.

As for her lying punk husband, Wilson's own report showed Iraqis attempting to make some "trade" arrangement with Niger, which was rebuffed. What do you think Saddam might have wanted that Niger has?

Libby's alleged "perjury" consists of telling the FBI and the Grand Jury, twice each, that he first heard of Plame's employment from Tim Russert. Apparently it was actually from Bob Woodward. Wow, a guy who gets 200 phone calls a week gets his celebrity journalists mixed up - hang 'im!

Of course, if he had merely had sex in his office with an employee, the moonbats would be okay with that.

So why is not Armitages ugl... (Below threshold)
914:

So why is not Armitages ugly ass in jail?

"From the Pentagon Papers t... (Below threshold)
DDT:

"From the Pentagon Papers to K129 to NSA wiretapping to the Church Commission to SWIFT to Iran-Contra-"

Stop right there.

Iran Contra was blown open when a CIA operative Euegene Hasenfus and his cargo plane was shot down in Nicaragua. Aside from containing illegal arms, also found was a little black book with some very damaging phone numbers in it -- confirming that the Reagan administration was engaged in a series of criminal acts amounting to illegal war, piracy and murder in attempting to overthrow the legitimate government of Nicaragua.

Vast liberal conspiracy?
Yawn.

From David Corn's blog:... (Below threshold)
Unrepentant Masshole:

From David Corn's blog:

"Shortly after Novak spoke with Armitage, he told Rove that he had heard that Valerie Wilson had been behind her husband's trip to Niger, and Rove said that he knew that, too. So a leak from Armitage (a war skeptic not bent on revenge against Wilson) was confirmed by Rove (a Bush defender trying to take down Wilson). And days later--before the Novak column came out--Rove told Time magazine's Matt Cooper that Wilson's wife was a CIA employee and involved in his trip."

And more...

"The outing of Armitage does change the contours of the leak case. The initial leaker was not plotting vengeance. He and Powell had not been gung-ho supporters of the war. Yet Bush backers cannot claim the leak was merely an innocent slip. Rove confirmed the classified information to Novak and then leaked it himself as part of an effort to undermine a White House critic. Afterward, the White House falsely insisted that neither Rove nor Libby had been involved in the leak and vowed that anyone who had participated in it would be bounced from the administration. Yet when Isikoff and Newsweek in July 2005 revealed a Matt Cooper email showing that Rove had leaked to Cooper, the White House refused to acknowledge this damning evidence, declined to comment on the case, and did not dismiss Rove. To date, the president has not addressed Rove's role in the leak. It remains a story of ugly and unethical politics, stonewalling, and lies."

You guys are pulling an ol' "Gore invented the Internet" style context cherry-pick here. Armitage leaked it, Rove confirmed it. Rove leaked it, Libby confirmed it. Libby LIED about his leaking it to the Grand Jury, and from initial reports, Rove came damn close. Armitage, though, was forthright about his mistake, and therefore avoided greater scrutiny. He's a dumbass for doing so, and probably deserving of some public humiliation for being a chatty-deputy-secretary-of-state-cathy, but this isn't a vindication or Rove or Libby

When did David Corn become ... (Below threshold)
scsiwuzzy:

When did David Corn become a credible source?
I esp like the assertion that Rove was trying to "take down Wilson", w/o a fact in site to back it up. I love the assumption of motives that make everything right or wrong in Corn's world... and Masshole's belief that Rove came close to lying, becasue rumors about what was in grand jury testimony lead him to that conclusion.
Initial reports must be right, right?

DDT: you've gotten a good ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

DDT: you've gotten a good case of DDT or something, if you think the Ortega dictatorship was the "legitimate government of Nicaragua." I'm married to a Nica and have been there over 10 times of late, and you are seriously into liberal lah-lah land with that one.

Masshole: it confirms there was not conspiracy to "out" Ms. Plame as her bumptious, foppish husband alleged, after lying in this op-ed in the NYT. Read the 9/11 Commission report about Wilson's lying; he's a lying liar. The Bushies all told the truth: Plame suggested her husband, and both of them had an obvious bias against Bush and the idea that Saddam had or was seeking WMD--and you know what, he did and he was.

So, your little tempest in a teapot exposed the Wilson/Plame/Corn liars, and the Bush/Republican truth-tellers.

Get over it. Or, should I say, "Moveon.org"

I've been edited! Without ... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

I've been edited! Without comment or notice.
And I'm not even an employee of E&P!

I guess somebody cannot take a playful dig, even from an ostensible friend.

"When did David Corn become... (Below threshold)
Unrepentant Masshole:

"When did David Corn become a credible source?"

The "tempest in a teapot" that you guys are currently talking about is the story by Isikoff and Corn, which is the first published confirmation of his leaking. Corn can't be a liar and the source you are citing for confirmation of Armitage's leak at the same time.

And I'll admit, I can't say there's a conspiracy. Neither can you. That's why there's an investigation. I can say that when 3 high ranking administration officials tell 3 different members of the press about something that is of questionable legality and pertinence, during a time when the administration is pressing hard to make it's case for preemptive war on shaky intelligence which all turned out to be wrong.

And Mitchell, I have read the 9/11 report, cover-to-cover. So I was a bit corn-fused when you made the statement about the report debunking Wilson, cause I didn't remember that at all. I found a bunch of other red-blogs espousing this bit of knowledge, but the found this:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=4505

So, it wasn't the 9/11 commision, but rather the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, chaired by Pat Roberts, and backed up by Christopher Bond and Orrin Hatch. And it was an addendum report. So, my quyestion is;

Did you read it?

And I'll admit, I can't ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

And I'll admit, I can't say there's a conspiracy. Neither can you. That's why there's an investigation.

Rove cleared. Bush cleared. Cheney cleared.

And an investigation that basically was TOLD what happened and STILL kept digging, wasting tons of money in the process, is a shoddy investigation.

I can say that when 3 high ranking administration officials tell 3 different members of the press about something that is of questionable legality and pertinence, during a time when the administration is pressing hard to make it's case for preemptive war on shaky intelligence which all turned out to be wrong.

They didn't. Rove was asked "Is it true?". He answered "you heard that too?". Like it or not, that isn't revealing anything.

And Armitage has NOT been a Bush ally in a long, long time. So if you think he did anything FOR Bush, you're delusional.

And Libby has only been indicted. The odds of him being convicted, generously, are virtually nil.
-=Mike

Alright Masshole, assuming ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Alright Masshole, assuming you're correct about which report spelled out Wilson's compulsive lying, how does it feel to know your man, Wilson, has been shown to be and outright liar by a bipartisan Senate panel?

You're more worried about my spelling and punctuation than you are the reality. So typical.

"...assuming you're correct... (Below threshold)
Unrepentant Masshole:

"...assuming you're correct..."

I am. You are not. See, I have read this material before I have posted to respond on this. And if you did the same, you would know that the "bipartisan" report you are referring to is this document:

"Senate Intelligence Chairman Pat Roberts (R.-Kan.) placed the text of these conclusions, and an explanation of why he believed they were necessary, in an addendum he attached to the report. Senators Christopher Bond (R.-Mo.) and Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) joined him in this addendum."

If R.=3 & D.=0 then "Bipartisan"=False

There is the reality.

And when did I ever mention punctuation or spelling? Mine is usually terrible, so I'm not apt to go down that path.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy