Christopher Hitchens has written some incredible pieces on the Plame story, and his latest is no exception. Some readers are tired of hearing about it, but I think it is important that the record be set straight.
I had a feeling that I might slightly regret the title (“Case Closed”) of my July 25 column on the Niger uranium story. I have now presented thousands of words of evidence and argument to the effect that, yes, the Saddam Hussein regime did send an important Iraqi nuclear diplomat to Niger in early 1999. And I have not so far received any rebuttal from any source on this crucial point of contention. But there was always another layer to the Joseph Wilson fantasy. Easy enough as it was to prove that he had completely missed the West African evidence that was staring him in the face, there remained the charge that his nonreport on a real threat had led to a government-sponsored vendetta against him and his wife, Valerie Plame.
In his July 12 column in the Washington Post, Robert Novak had already partly exposed this paranoid myth by stating plainly that nobody had leaked anything, or outed anyone, to him. On the contrary, it was he who approached sources within the administration and the CIA and not the other way around. But now we have the final word on who did disclose the name and occupation of Valerie Plame, and it turns out to be someone whose opposition to the Bush policy in Iraq has–like Robert Novak’s–long been a byword in Washington. It is particularly satisfying that this admission comes from two of the journalists–Michael Isikoff and David Corn–who did the most to get the story wrong in the first place and the most to keep it going long beyond the span of its natural life.The Democrats spent years pounding the President and those in his administration over the supposed intentional outing of a covert agent. It was stated as settled fact by almost every network journalist who reported the story that Joe Wilson proved the President lied in his 16 words in the State of the Union about Saddam seeking uranium from Africa. It was also stated as fact that Valerie Plame was a covert agent whose life was endangered as a result of her outing and that the outing was intentional and done by the administration as an act of revenge against Joe Wilson who dared to expose the President’s lie. All of that was wrong, and it was disputed by statements from Novak at the time, but it was swallowed hook, line and sinker by a media desperate to destroy the Bush presidency.
If the media payed anywhere close to as much attention to recent revelations that have shown Joe Wilson and others to have been lying (or at the very least, guilty of malicious disregard for the truth) then Democrats who capitalized on those accusations would be paying dearly for it now. Of course, if journalists covered recent revelations as prominently as they played the original story, there would be some journalists paying with their credibility for the misinformation they passed on to their audiences.
Update: Sister Toldjah has some lying Wilson video and asks the question I thought I had asked in my post, but see that I left out, which is how do you think Wilson/Plame’s book deal will be affected by this.
Forget the book, will this kill the movie deal? I guess they could always keep the script the same and just cast Jon Lovitz as Wilson. Yeah, that’s the ticket. They could even cast his wife, Morgan Fairchild, as Valerie Plame.
Update II: The Wall Street Journal says the Armitage revelation shows the “internal dysfunction of the Bush Administration and the lack of loyalty among some of its most senior officials” and wonders why the President has allowed such insubordination to his policies.
And why shouldn’t the Admin. be allowed to “discredit Wilson for his public attacks” which turned out to be lies? Is he off-limits because his wife was an analyst at CIA?
I don’t think so. We have an open system in this country, and if someone tries to unfairly tarnish another, he is himself open to scrutiny.
We don’t live in a police state where you get a pass if you work for the Stasi.
Teaching Civics class to you little boys is beneath this board. Repeat 5th Grade, please.
Hugh, if you could make a point worth making, rather than regurgitating some conclusory argument, you’d be worthy of debate.
As it is, you need to get back to your in-basket at the DMV.
I only act pompous when I have to suffer fools like you.
You are intellectually and morally confused by your pathological fear of the real world and Mr. Bush. Seek help.
OMG, Hugh you MORON.
Assuming you are writing about Count One, since none of the other contain the paragraph length required . . .
Paragraph 17, the only passage that refers to Plame . . .
Sort of damning, but hardly a smoking gun, and nothing that states that she was a CIA Officer.
Paragraph 20, nothing that refers to Plame or her status. In FACT, you moron it specifically states that there was no revelation.
Paragraph 21, again, no disclosure by Libby . . .
Paragraph 23, again no disclosure that originates from Libby, but confirmation of a rumor . . .
Paragraphs 31, 32 and 33 are charges that will have to be proven in the court to support the First Count. Again, nothing that can be used as fact without supporting evidence.
You really should learn to read and comprehend a little better. Your own link has been used to slap you stupid, oops, dumber!
I think we all agree that Government’s rights need protecting, that the privacy of Government is supreme, that Government needs to be protected from unreasonable investigation and above all else, that Government’s right, nay duty, to tell the people what they need to know must not be abridged. If America doesn’t stand for this, what does it stand for?
What this case needs is a couple of opportunistic state troopers to enlarge and fabricate some facts, an eccentric, reclusive newspaper heir to fund a partisan investigation, a partisan publication to print every rumor and innuendo and a partisan prosecutor selected by a partisan judge with subpoena power, no scruples about badgering witnesses, an unlimited budget and the willingness to imprison people who won’t say what he wants them to say for years; to supervise the whole investigation, then you’ll get to the bottom of it.
Sejanus
No, Herman, you’re wrong, and you’re wrong in the exact same way that you’ve been wrong when I and others have argued with you on other websites, because
1) You don’t understand the IIPA.
2) Everytime it’s explained to you, you refuse to understand, or deliberately pretend that your error doesn’t matter. I can’t tell which.
In the first place, under IIPA, there can only be 1 leaker of the identity. Once it gets to the press, it cannot be leaked again, after the fact.
At least 1 reporter knew about Plame’s identity and job, and probably MANY reporters, already knew it by the time Rove and Libby “leaked”. This is old ground and your refusal to accept it does not change the legalities involved.
The CIA designation as “classified” is NOT the same as the IIPA designation “covert”. The terms of the “covert” designation under IIPA have been explained in detail, MANY times, and she doesn’t fit ANY of them. This is old ground and your refusal to come off the description “classified” is a Leftist subterfuge, and it also does not change the legalities involved.
It’s very simple. Fitzgerald was supposed to investigate whether anyone violated any Federal law by leaking Plame’s name and/or position. That’s it. Armitage’s accidental disclosure, not (apparently) aware whether she was covered under IIPA, and she wasn’t in any event, closes the case in the 1st week of the investigation, with NO guilty parties. If the 1st disclosure is accidental, it does not matter legally what succeeding disclosures there were or were not. The secret is out. Game over.
That’s why the succeeding investigation that resulted in the Libby indictment is a sham. Sooner of later, that indictment will be tossed as unprosecutable, either because the discovery process will prove too damaging to the prosecution’s case by attacking the credibity of its puported witnesses, or because they will refuse to allow certain information necessary for the defense to be available for discovery, or because the prosecution cannot go forward because of the classified information needed to be used that cannot be made public.
Even assuming Armitage’s disclosure was the first inkling any member of the press had of her “identity”, and it wasn’t, the succeeding “disclosures” or “confirmations” are NOT illegal, and cannot be made to be illegal, even if you hold your breath until your face turns blue.
The Left called this “Treasongate”. There was no treason. So then they moved the goalposts, calling it an illegal consiracy. It isn’t. So now, the party of Clinton, Clinton, Carville, Begala, and Blumenthal is going to move the goalposts again, by fulminating about “dirty tricks” and “frat boys”. Why don’t you throw in “fascist state” and Chimpy McHitler while you’re at it, and sprinkle a few Cheneys, Haliburtons and Illegal Wiretappings on top. It’s just as intellectually cogent, and it don’t cost a penny more, except maybe in expiring brain cells.
It would all be so laughable if it weren’t so damaging to the President, the necessary war effort, and to the national security.
Evan3457, you are spot on. Well said.
I’m waiting for the Libs to demand Armitage be tried for “treason” and “frog-marched” to federal lock-up. Ain’t gonna happen, because it doesn’t fit their delusion that this is some conspiracy to burn a red-bloodied covert CIA spy for whatever nefarious purpose the McBushHitler squad was dreaming up.
What a bunch of know-nothing hypocrites.
Evan3457,
Putting aside your stupid little IIPA nonsense, (which is BUT ONE of the potential laws that may apply in this case), we can define leak in a not altogether unreasonable way: the disclosure of classified information.
Fitz HIMSELF indicates that Ms. Wilson’s employment status at the CIA was classified, a point you don’t dispute.
So then, the number of people who disclosed Ms. Wilson’s CIA status is the number of leakers, which would mean that there were at least three leakers (or would you have us believe that in disclosing classified information to Woodward, Armitage thereby declassified Ms. Plame’s status??? — That’s ridiculous)
So there were three leakers, not one, as I indicated earlier.
If Karl Rove didn’t do any leaking, Evan3457, and if Ms. Wilson’s employment was not classified, then explain this comment found in one of Matt Cooper’s emails:
“Spoke to Rove on double super secret background t Cooper’s emails, …”
Then explain why (according to Cooper) Karl Rove ends his conversation with Cooper saying, “I’ve already said too much,”
and then explain why Bush’s CIA requested a criminal investigation to begin with after having explicitly begged Novak not to go public,
and then explain why today’s New York Times reports that Ms. Wilson was indeed “covert”
and finally explain Fitz’s statement (Oct. 2005), “VALERIE WILSON’s COVER WAS BLOWN IN JULY 2003.”
You got a lot of explaining to do, Evan3457. Get to it, if you’re capable.
OK, Herman, I’ll give it a go…
No, that is NOT the defiinition of a leak. A leak can be classified or unclassified information. It can be legal or illegal. Not every leak is illegal.
She may well have been classified, but that is not covert, as defined under IIPA. The leaks of this “classified information” are by now, well-known to Mr. Fitzgerald. If they were, in and of themselves, illegal, he’d have proferred charges. Since he did not, then they are not. To wit: if Libby’s “leaks” are illegal under ANY law, then why were those counts not included in the indictments against him? That would make his case more compelling, if not actually stronger. Answer: because the prosecutor knows they aren’t illegal.
No, Armitage’s leak doesn’t declassify Ms. Plame’s status, but it does render all future leaks unprosecutable under IIPA. That’s what I said, and that’s what you would not or could not follow.
Matt Cooper’s characteriztion or Karl Rove’s confirmation is not categorized as a crime under the law, any more than Dean Wormer’s placing of Delta House under Double Secret Probation is a catgorization under the law. In other words, it does not matter to the law what Cooper called it.
I don’t why Rove said it, do you? In any event, Rove was once again there confirming something the reporter already knew…
Part II
…There could be many reasons why the CIA, or some faction within it, requested the investigation. What your side never wants to uncover is who requested the investigation and why, because it might lead to some embarassment for, not to mention prosecution of, the guys you have deluded youself into believing were the “good guys” in this sorry affair. You want to leave that question unanswered and focus on the fact itself, even though that fact is not proof of anything.
Novak himself answers why the CIA asked him not to publish Plame’s name. It was apparently to avoid diplomatic embarassment, not because it could be costly in terms of assets or information:
“(Harlow) told the (Washington) Post reporters he had “warned” me that if I “did write about it, her name should not be revealed.” That is meaningless. Once it was determined that Wilson’s wife suggested the mission, she could be identified as “Valerie Plame” by reading her husband’s entry in “Who’s Who in America.”
Harlow said to the Post that he did not tell me Mrs. Wilson “was undercover because that was classified.” What he did say was, as I reported in a previous column, “she probably never again would be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause ‘difficulties.'” According to CIA sources, she was brought home from foreign assignments in 1997, when Agency officials feared she had been “outed” by the traitor Aldrich Ames.
I have previously said that I never would have written those sentences if Bill Harlow, then CIA Director George Tenet or anybody else from the Agency had told me that Valerie Plame Wilson’s disclosure would endanger herself or anybody.”
Apparently, they never did. But that didn’t stop Leftists from claiming the disclosure put her life in danger, and other similar balderdash.
The New York Times is simply wrong. It isn’t the first time, and it won’t be the last. She does not qualify under just about ANY of the provision of the IIPA…
Part III
…If her “cover was blown”, then why didn’t he get that indictment from the jury? Answer: because he knows he can’t get it, either because he lacks the evidence to sustain that charge, or that charge doesn’t amount to an actual violation of the law or both. He also knows how piddling and inconsequential his indictments for perjury against Libby look, and he knows what a sap he looks like, and how pathetic his investigation seems, and so he has to dress it publicly with any plausible (non-indictment) charge.
Mark Levin’s Blog at NRO takes on the details. First Fitzgerald’s statement that you are so proud of quoting:
“Valerie Wilson’s cover was blown in July 2003.“
Here’s what Levin said at the time:
“What I resent about this press conference is the effort by Fitzgerald to paint Lewis Libby as outing a covert CIA operative, jeopardize national security, and harm CIA recruitment. As many times as I have now read this indictment, I see obstruction, perjury and false statements. I see no charges relating to any of this rhetoric.”
Later, he added:
“…you bet Fitzgerald smeared Libby during his press conference. All the talk about violations of national security, outing a CIA official, and harming CIA recruitment was nothing more than a well-rehearsed public relations speech intended to paint these indictments as something more than they are (albeit serious in their own right). And that is why, I believe, we have strained efforts now to accuse Libby of passing classified information without the benefit of an actual charge.”
And finally, in the pretrial procedings, Libby’s counsel asked Fitzgerald for “Any assessment done of the damage (if any) caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilson’s status as a CIA employee.”
Fitzgerald’s reply: “We have neither sought, much less obtained, ‘all documents, regardless of when created, relating to whether Valerie Wilson’s status as a CIA employee, or any aspect of that status, was classified at any time between May 6, 2003 and July 14, 2003.” In other words, as a legal matter, Fitzgerald asserted her status as classified in the press conference, but when pressed for the evidence of that status by Libby’s lawyers, said, in essence: “I know nuthink! I see nuthink! I hear nuthink!”
Further, as to the damage “revealing her status” caused the CIA, he replied to the request of Libby’s counsel for an assessment of such damage: “A formal assessment has not been done of the damage caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilson’s status as a CIA employee, and thus we possess no such document.” And this statement contadicts Fitzgerald himself, who, at the annoucement of the indictments played up the serious damage the disclosure of this “classified status” did to the CIA and our national security.
When was he lying, Herman, to the press, or to Libby’s counsel? If the latter, that in itself is grounds for dismissal of the charges.
Levin concludes:
“And now, in his formal responses to Libby’s counsel, Fitzgerald himself disputes and rejects his own very public comments about Libby and the significance of his case. Fitzgerald now admits no assessment of any purported harm by Libby was undertaken, meaning his rhetoric at the press conference was without any basis on this point. Indeed, he now argues that an assessment wasn’t even relevant to the charges. I find this utterly irresponsible. And as to the all important question of whether Plame’s “undercover” or otherwise “classified” status was leaked by Libby or anyone else, Fitzgerald never even sought documentary evidence (at least for the relevant time period) to make a determination.”
Is that enough, Herman?
Read the WashPo this am and get a sense of reality starting to settle in among some of the more responsible liberals.
It all ends with Joe Wilson. A fraud and a fop.
Was Valerie Phlame a covert officer before she married Joseph Wilson? And, when did he learn this? From whom? Did she tell him? did she have permission to tell him? Did she “out” herself? Whom else did she tell?
In my opinion, now that so much has been disclosed, Mr. Fitzgerald should quickly and publicly drop ALL charges against Mr. Libby, and appologize to him. At least he should say that he misunderstood/misinterpreted his (Libby’s) actions and testimony.
Wonder how Joe’s lawsuit against the VP is going? HA HA HA!!
Where are all the dimorats that were hot to use the Plame outing as an impeachment tool to drag the president out and hang him? Conyers was one that i’ll get a message to if he’s not hiding under the same rock with his best buddy Osama. Why would the president knowing the truth not come out with it, simple, he had the stupid impeachment dimorats by the short hair and they weren’t smart enough to figure it out. Ninety nine percent of the dimorats in congress have proven themselves fools and liars and it’s only Sept. What will happen in Oct that sinks their ship? It’s coming and it’s not going to be pretty. I’m betting on the ‘truth’ that saddam had piles of WMD to go with the 500+ items found by the U.S. military, you know that stuff that the U.N. inspectors wasted millions of dollars hiding for Saddam. Several Blogger’s have proven by going through the captured documents that massive amounts of WMD was and may still be there.
Herman (the nonreading idiot) said
“VALERIE PLAME was NEVER a covert agent” — Gayle
Actually, funny you should bring that up, because today’s New York Times reports that she was. (I would provide the link, but a password is required).
“
Gee Herman what about this transcript from CNN with JOE WILSON
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/14/wbr.01.html
WILSON: But the fact of the matter is, of course, that this is not a Joe Wilson or Valerie Wilson issue. This is an issue of whether or not somebody leaked classified information to the press, who then published it, thereby putting covert operations and a covert officer at some risk.
”
(Gee I guess if it is a democrat who leak classified ongoing operations to the NY Times then it doesnt count right, funny I dont see you complaining about that)
WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity
Damn Herman maybe you should call Joe Wilson up and tell him to stop telling lies to CNN about the covert status of his wife.
Idiots. You have to love them even when you show them how stupid they are.
Someone please tell me where all the democrats are calling for Armitage to be hauled off to jail in handcuffs and distribute his perp shot pictures.
We heard for the last 3 years how serious this matter was and here we have the person who admits he is the one who did it and you hear birds chirping from Kennedy, Biden, Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Byrd, etc etc etc.
Do you mean to tell me that these great unbiased reporters cant get one of these folks on the record to comment on these revelations. The story was front page news on and off for 3 years and you still have democrats on this board trying to hang Rove and Bush for this but what about the guy who ADMITS HE DID IT?
Not a peep.
Q: Why it is a smear for Rove to answer a reporter’s leading question on a subject with a simple acknowledgement that he heard the same thing, but NOT a smear for Armitage to directly tell the reporter the same things directly?
A: When the second party is not a Bush ally, and thus cannot be used to attack Bush, there is no need to cry smear, since only Republicans were targeted by this charade.
The Democrats and the media have subjected the President to a witch-hunt for 3 years, all the while knowing it was a concoction, and all the while accusing the Bush administration of every form of lying and trickery imaginable, and using those accusations to weaken the will of the US to pursure terrorists, and to undermine its legitimacy in doing so.
Now suddenly it is time to move on.
So I am going to move on… on to a phase of my political maturation where (after once voting for Al Gore) I will not vote for a Democrat for dog-catcher, much less any position that has responsibility for my family’s security. The Democrats have demonstrated that they suffer from the same set of misplaced sense of entitlement that the media does – their power and interests are more important to them than any sworn duty they have to others or to the truth.
Democrats are traitors. Every one of them has the blood of soldiers on their hands because they have done eveything possible to prevent victory – and the Plame farce demonstrates clearly that they have not done so out of any integrity, only opportunism.