« A fitting tribute | Main | Political Correctness Runs Amok »

Novak: Armitage Didn't Reveal Everything

Drudge has the scoop:

"When Richard Armitage finally acknowledged last week he was my source three years ago in revealing Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA employee, the former deputy secretary of state's interviews obscured what he really did," Bob Novak claims in a column set for Thursday release.


Novak, attempting to set the reocrd straight writes: "First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he 'thought' might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked, and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former Amb. Joseph Wilson. Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column."

Novak slams Armitage for holding back all this time.

Armitage's silence for "two and one-half years caused intense pain for his colleagues in government and enabled partisan Democrats in Congress to falsely accuse Rove of being my primary source. When Armitage now says he was mute because of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's request, that does not explain his silent three months between his claimed first realization that he was the source and Fitzgerald's appointment on Dec. 30. Armitage's tardy self-disclosure is tainted because it is deceptive."

Developing...


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Novak: Armitage Didn't Reveal Everything:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with A witch hunt or more?

» Conservative Outpost linked with Daily Summary

» Flopping Aces linked with Novak A Little Miffed At Armitage

» rightlinx.com linked with Novak Gets His Revenge

Comments (32)

Novak also could have saved... (Below threshold)
Bulldog:

Novak also could have saved everybody a lot of pain and money. This press confidentiality thing is just bull.
The cynical side of me would like to know when Armitage is going to be indicted and Fitzgerald disbarred. I'm not going to hold my breath. We all know there are different rules for Democrats.

I sincerely hope that Armit... (Below threshold)
Charles Bannerman:

I sincerely hope that Armitage gets fired for this. His disloyalty, and possibly Powell's, in a time of war are unforgivable. If all of this is true, he should be jailed.
Chuck

Charles: I believe the ter... (Below threshold)

Charles: I believe the term is "frog-marched". ;-)

Bulldog is right. There has... (Below threshold)
plainslow:

Bulldog is right. There has to be a point where there is a greater good, even for these idiots. Even if I was to believe in the reporters right as much as Novak, the moment Armitage lied to the press openly he should of said something.
And if Novak is right, and Armitage only told Fitzgerald what he told us this week, this is pergury. And if he told Fitzgerald everything, and he kept on the case, than thats fraud.
If Novak is right, heads have to roll.

I'm no fan of either Novak ... (Below threshold)

I'm no fan of either Novak or Armitage but you all are being just a tad ridiculous.

Charles: Armitage doesn't work at the State Department any more, having left in 2005.

Bulldog: what is Armitage going to be indicted for, doing things you don't like? If it wasn't a crime for Libby or Rove to discuss Plame with reporters, how was it a crime for Armitage to have done the same thing? And while Fitzgerald may have abused his prosecutorial discretion, that isn't something one gets disbarred for.

Plainslow: How would Novak know what Armitage told Fitzgerald?

I sincerely hope that Ar... (Below threshold)

I sincerely hope that Armitage gets fired for this.

Didn't he leave State when Powell did?

No big deal when its some o... (Below threshold)
jainphx:

No big deal when its some one that is allied with the left as regards the war,proof positive that the left can not be trusted with the controll of this country.They will destroy any one who dosent toe their political line.These are very dangerous people and should be treated accordingly,with the contempt diserved.

Yes he left when Powell did... (Below threshold)
ord:

Yes he left when Powell did.

Armitage tendered his resignation on November 16, 2004, the day after Powell announced his resignation as Secretary of State. Armitage left the post on February 22, 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage

I will bring Dick Cheney to... (Below threshold)
PJF:

I will bring Dick Cheney to his knees.

http://patrickjfitzgerald.blogspot.com

I think Armitage is still e... (Below threshold)
Charles Bannerman:

I think Armitage is still employed in the government. If he is he should be fired.

Maybe having him "jailed" as opposed to "frog marched" is too mild. I would actually prefer for him to be skinned with a dull knife.

In either case, I can't stand people who are not loyal. If they can't be supportive of their bosses, they should quit. I'm old fashioned that way. I also think the best way to get promoted is to get your boss promoted.
Chuck

Steve. . .They sho... (Below threshold)
harris:

Steve. . .

They should indict Armitage for the same thing Fitzgerald used to indict Libby. He apparently lied, lied, lied if, as another poster said, he told Fitzgerald the same story he so woefully told on CBS. Total hyprocrisy and malfeasance on the part of Fitzgerald if he does not.

I find it a bit fitting tha... (Below threshold)

I find it a bit fitting that a guy like Bush, who supposedly values loyalty - up and down the line - so highly, got screwed by Armitage and Powell, who Bush brought into the Adminstration not because Powell was loyal to Bush or in sync with Bush's ideas but out of the crass political assessment/hope of Bush's that Powell would help Bush with blacks and with the liberal establishment. This ought to be a lesson for everybody, both in and out of government: when you lower your standards, nothing good comes of it.

Wow! New mysteries to pond... (Below threshold)
Aubrey:

Wow! New mysteries to ponder, questions to ask, theories to spin. I can’t wait for “Just One Minute” to chime in.

Harris: you think armitage ... (Below threshold)

Harris: you think armitage lied to fitzgerald and fitzgerald decided not to indict Armitage because of? Could it be that if Armitage lied or withheld part of the story from Fitzgerald that Fitzgerald rightfully concluded that the lie/mistatement was immaterial to the investigation?

Armitage,Fitzgerald and Wil... (Below threshold)
914:

Armitage,Fitzgerald and Wilson should all be frog marched to their local slammers for concocting a scheme to try and bring down a sitting president.

Something they could not accomplish at the ballot box.

Could it be that i... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Could it be that if Armitage lied or withheld part of the story from Fitzgerald that Fitzgerald rightfully concluded that the lie/mistatement was immaterial to the investigation?

Even if Fitzgerald missed the mark then, he knows now that he was lied to. If Armitage perjured himself he should now be charged. Maybe we need another special prosecutor to find out what Fitzgerald knew and when he knew it.

While Novak is talking, he ... (Below threshold)
ordi:

While Novak is talking, he can tell us who approached him on the street asking questions, then went straight to Wilson.

Steve wrote:Cou... (Below threshold)
ordi:

Steve wrote:

Could it be that if Armitage lied or withheld part of the story from Fitzgerald that Fitzgerald rightfully concluded that the lie/mistatement was immaterial to the investigation?

It is possible that Novak filled Fitz in on Novak/Armitage conversation. If Armitage lied or withheld info it is called perjury and Obstruction of Justice. If you read the Fitz's Press conference he announced the Libby indictment, it is hard to see how or why Fitz would give Armitage a pass.

Read what I am talking about:

FITZGERALD: Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?

And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.

As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it.

So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make.

I also want to take away from the notion that somehow we should take an obstruction charge less seriously than a leak charge.

This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.

FITZGERALD: I will say this: Mr. Libby is presumed innocent. He would not be guilty unless and until a jury of 12 people came back and returned a verdict saying so.

But if what we allege in the indictment is true, then what is charged is a very, very serious crime that will vindicate the public interest in finding out what happened here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html

notwithstanding Fitzgerald'... (Below threshold)
steve sturm:

notwithstanding Fitzgerald's histrionics, a perjury or obstruction of justice charge must both be intentional and relate to something material and not something that has no impact on the investigation... it's a point I've made about Libby's indictment: even if Libby did what he is alleged to have done, I don't see how that was material in any sense of the word. It's the same point Clinton's defenders made for him, that his 'mistatements' were of no real importance (I'm not agreeing, merely passing on their legal argument). If Armitage 'forgot' to tell Fitzgerald that he had mentioned to Novak Plame's department or the reason that he mentioned it to Novak, what difference did it make to Fitzgerald's investigation?

Steve, I never said I knew ... (Below threshold)
plainslow:

Steve, I never said I knew what Armitage told Fitzgerald, thus the "if".
I also have no problem with them going after Libby with perjury charges. He lied to the court. Thats the point. I want the law to be the same for all of us, not just the ones who don't know which "is" they are talking about.

If everything I have heard ... (Below threshold)
comeonsense:

If everything I have heard is true, (big disclaimer here) then Fitz is the real person we should be upset with. According to Powell and Armitage, Fitzy ordered them to keep quiet under a grand jury subpoena. Which begs the question, what was his motive? I thought he was suppose to be one of our guys, a Republican.

If Armitage 'forgo... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
If Armitage 'forgot' to tell Fitzgerald that he had mentioned to Novak Plame's department or the reason that he mentioned it to Novak, what difference did it make to Fitzgerald's investigation?

I must have missed something. Wasn’t the primary purpose of the investigation to find out who leaked Plame’s name to Knovak? Being that we now know Armitage was the source, it seems anything Armitage said or didn’t say to Fitzgerald made an immense difference to Fitzgerald's investigation, and these matters should still be actionable.

So Steve accuses PlainSlow ... (Below threshold)

So Steve accuses PlainSlow of making a statement, ignoring the "ifs", then goes on to assert:

"..out of the crass political assessment/hope of Bush's that Powell would help Bush with blacks and with the liberal establishment."

I didn't see any "ifs" in there.

Steve, for one thing, reaching out to the other side of the aisle is not a "crass political assessment". As a matter of fact, in his first attempt by hiring Powell he pulled back a bloody stump and then liberals whine constantly that he won't reach out to the other side and accuse him of playing race politics. It's a lose/lose.

"If Patrick Fitzgerald beca... (Below threshold)
PJF:

"If Patrick Fitzgerald became a prosecutor to make friends and soak up applause, he made a very bad career decision. The guys who club baby seals have more defenders than he does."

"It will take a trial to establish Libby's criminal guilt or innocence. But the bulk of the evidence indicates that people high up in the White House did seek to punish Wilson by unmasking his wife, and that the vice president's chief of staff did his best to conceal this effort from the special prosecutor."

"For that evidence, we should thank the much-maligned Fitzgerald, whose only sin is doing his job conscientiously. But the only people who are grateful are those who put truth and accountability above their own narrow interests. And in Washington, that may be a party of one."

You can say that again..!

Just say "No, thank you!" to graft.

http://patrickjfitzgerald.blogspot.com

I love the conclusion that ... (Below threshold)
hermie:

I love the conclusion that because there was a perjury indictment, that Scooter Libby 'lied'.

We know that when he was questioned, his recollection of events did not match those of the journalists who were questioned. Basically, a difference in what each party remembered. What this boils down to is that members of the MSM can tell different stories without perjury accusations, while the target of the prosecutor is automatically indicted.

(off subject) FLASH!! Air A... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

(off subject) FLASH!! Air America goes under.

Steve,I think you ... (Below threshold)
ordi:

Steve,

I think you mistook the meaning of my post. I was not discussing whether anything Armitage may or may not have left out of his conversation with Fitz was material or immaterial. I was just pointing out Fitz’s words and how he behaved in regards to the Libby indictments. He was unhappy because he thought Libby had not told him everything and he thinks Libby threw "Sand" in his eyes. From what we know so far, it appears Armitage may have done the same thing Libby is accused of. Your question of what difference did it make to Fitzgerald's investigation is a great start on questions that need to be answered about this case.

The independent investigati... (Below threshold)
Dave:

The independent investigation should just be disbanded and Bush needs to pardon Libby of any crimes. (granted he might have to wait for him to be convicted. not sure of how the legals work on this...)

I also think that the specific members of the media that kept the "Rove/Cheney/Bush" leaked thing alive also need to be held to account.

The bigger story here isn't Armitage (although he is a big part for keeping his mouth shut) but the media that reported that Rove commited crimes, and as soon as one of their own was revealed to have done it, there all of a sudden was no crime.

Just goes to show you that in the eyes of the media, if you're not liberal, you're a criminal...

<a href="http://www.cheesea... (Below threshold)
Dave:
See this for what it was.Th... (Below threshold)
jainphx:

See this for what it was.This was a cleverly devised plan to bring down Bush.Not only was Armitage and Powell involved,the deeper secret was Chuck Shumer and the DSSC were also in this up to their necks.The fact that Bush won the election anyway dosen't diminish the fact that the attempt was made.Fitzgerald is the one that should be frog marched out of his office and prosecuted,there never was a crime here and he knew it.

mac:"I must have mis... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

mac:
"I must have missed something. Wasn’t the primary purpose of the investigation to find out who leaked Plame’s name to Knovak? "

No,no,no. The purpose of the 'investigation' was to find out if anyone in the *White House* 'leaked' Plame's name. (hat tip:JustOneMinute)If it was not, then we get to where we are today: a big ...Nevermind!

Fitz bought into the "revenge motive" bandied about by lyin' Joe Wilson, Chuck Shumer and the NYT from day one.

Why do people even take the Dems seriously anymore after this witch hunt?

<sarcasm>Thank heaven... (Below threshold)

<sarcasm>Thank heavens we have Bob Novak to tell us all what's not been revealed!</sarcasm>




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:

[email protected]

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