Posted on 09/08/2006 3:16:58 PM PDT by Jean S
Richard Armitage knows a stand-up guy when he sees one.
On July 14, 2003, the day columnist Robert Novak published his now-famous column identifying Valerie Plame as a CIA “operative,” Armitage — who was Novak’s source — appeared on Fox News’ “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.”
Of course Van Susteren didn’t ask Armitage, then the number-two man at the State Department, about his leak to Novak. Nobody knew it at the time.
But she did ask Armitage about the day’s news, which was the controversy over the president’s statement that Iraq had sought to obtain uranium in Africa.
It was a mistake, Armitage said. What was really amazing, he continued, was that George Tenet, then the CIA director, stood up and admitted it.
“I think at least political Washington is quite shocked that someone like George Tenet, our excellent director of the Central Intelligence Agency, would stand up and actually accept responsibility for this,” Armitage said. “And they don’t know how to deal with it, and so they’re gumming it to death.”
“How does a mistake like that happen?” Van Susteren asked. “Is it the bureaucracy?”
“I think that’s exactly — it’s a mistake,” Armitage answered. “It’s not good. It was a bad thing, but it was a mistake. And it just happened. Someone took their eye off the ball. George Tenet accepted responsibility, and it’s a really stand-up thing to do.”
Fast-forward more than three years.
All this time, Armitage has known his leak to Novak — his mistake — was the source for the column that set off the CIA leak investigation, and he has never publicly accepted responsibility.
Even after he got word that he would not be charged in the case, he remained silent.
And even now, after the new book, “Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War,” by David Corn and Michael Isikoff, revealed his role, he has still said nothing.
Now, he told leak investigators all the way back in October 2003 —let’s remember that important fact. But he stood quietly by while Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Lewis Libby, and others faced a constant stream of attacks over the leak controversy.
You remember those attacks, don’t you?
You remember the time Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) appeared on the liberal radio network Air America and was asked, “Karl Rove is guilty of treason, isn’t he?”
Lautenberg answered, “Yes, I think so.”
You remember the time Doug Hattaway, a former spokesman for Al Gore, was asked about Rove on CNN and said, “The bottom line is, there’s a traitor in the White House who betrayed America …”
And you remember the hundreds of stories suggesting that Cheney, Rove, Libby, and perhaps others in the White House had conspired to out Valerie Plame to punish her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, for speaking out against the Iraq war?
Of course, Rove and Libby faced a lot more than public condemnation. Rove, who also told prosecutors in October 2003 that he had talked to Novak, was called before the grand jury investigating the case not one, not two, not three, not four, but five times. All under threat of criminal prosecution.
Libby was ultimately indicted on perjury and obstruction charges.
And don’t forget the reporters who were forced to testify about their sources in court. And former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who went to jail for 85 days before doing so.
Armitage had nothing to say publicly about all of that.
Perhaps Patrick Fitzgerald, the CIA leak prosecutor, asked Armitage not to talk. He’s done that with other witnesses.
Maybe Armitage thought that was the best thing to do — although he was under no obligation to do as Fitzgerald asked.
Still, he was silent.
And come to think of it, some other people are staying pretty quiet these days, too.
We haven’t heard anything from John Ashcroft, the former attorney general, who recused himself from the CIA case and whose top deputy, James Comey, appointed special prosecutor Fitzgerald.
They did all of that when they already knew who leaked to Novak.
Why? Nobody has said.
Of course we haven’t heard anything about this from Fitzgerald, either.
After his rather spectacular news conference announcing the Libby indictment, he has spoken only in court or in court papers.
At some point, though, it would be useful to hear why he spent three years on the CIA leak investigation even though he knew the identities of the CIA leakers on day one.
Don’t hold your breath to hear it, though. Unlike the old independent counsels, who were required by law to report on their investigations, Fitzgerald has no obligation to explain himself to anybody.
Neither does Ashcroft, or, for that matter, Armitage.
But the public has a right to know why all this happened. The key people involved ought to give some answers.
It would be a really stand-up thing to do.
"All this time, Armitage has known his leak to Novak — his mistake — was the source for the column that set off the CIA leak investigation, and he has never publicly accepted responsibility."
Just a swell guy, he is...trustworthy too! Gets my vote for, traitor of the year...
Neither does Ashcroft, or, for that matter, Armitage.
But the public has a right to know why all this happened. The key people involved ought to give some answers.
Either they are required to tell us, or else we do not have a right to know. One or the other.
"Comey should be investigated why he gave Fitzgerald unlimited powers when the leaker was already known."
Yeah. There's something really crooked going on with that one...
Dang, there's something bad wrong here. For three years, we've had to listen to that sorry, whining, conceited, publicity-seeking Joe Wilson, all that money spent on dragging decent men's names through the mud and ruining reputations for a Democraptic witch hunt. And Fitzgerald knew all along that it was Armitage and TOLD HIM TO SAY NOTHING!! This is absolutely appalling.
Any investigation should look into Fitzgerald's press conference, where he made the following statement:
"In fact, Mr. Libby was the **first official** known to have told a reporter [about Plame's CIA employment] when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson."
Yet the Washington Post used FOIA to get Armitage's calendars. Guess what they show? That Armitage met with Bob Woodward on 6/13/03, whereas the Libby-Miller discussion wasn't until 6/23/03. Woodward has admitted that someone told him about Plame in June 2003 and while he hasn't come out and said it was Armitage, Post editor Ben Bradlee has admitted that it probably was.
Is this why Fitzgerald didn't want Armitage to say anything to anyone? Because it wasn't a good story unless he could slam someone from the White House and claim that individual talked first even though it wasn't true?
I sure hope not, but I am having trouble seeing an innocent explanation.
There is no innocent explanation. It was a hoax, upon a hoax, upon a hoax.
You start with a fake investigation into uranium smuggling. Careful reading of Wilson's remarks makes it clear that he investigated nothing, and that he knew about Iraqi contacts in Niger, although he didn't mention them publicly.
Because, at the end of the day, it was never a secret that Iraq had made overtures to Niger, despite all the gallons of ink spilled to cloud the issue, it was never even controversial.
Plame's "outing" is another hoax. The CIA revealed her employment over the phone to reporters. If they give you up over the phone, you aren't "covert". The Armitage part of the story is neither here nor there.
The Fitz "investigation" is another hoax. Not only did he know where the original leak came from, he also knew that the CIA had given her up over the phone. So he's been paid for three years to investigate something he knew going in. Should he be sued for the return of his salary for the last three years? Taking a salary for a fake investigation sounds like fraud to me. Federal fraud. In the amounts of money we're talking about, it sounds like a felony. Maybe we should have someone investigate this for a couple of years, even though we already know the answer.
Colin Powell has had the exact same information for the same amount of time. Very unbecoming an officer and gentlemen.
COWARD!!!
My new tag line, and it's going to remain for a long time.
Absolutely not!! A pardon implies forgiveness for a crime committed. Libby never did anything wrong. Make Fitzgerald admit that the charges were bogus, or take him to trial, and let a jury laugh themselves silly.
But don't make him live with that shadow.
And, do let him sue Armitage, Fitzgerald, Powell, Novak, et al for his legal expenses and lost wages.
Who in the CIA gave up Plame over the phone?
An appropriate tagline, to say the least!!!
I agree; I'm surprised the judges haven't tossed the charges against Libby already. He should be cleared, the case dismissed, Fitzy should be indicted on legal malfaesence (sp)...unless of course there is something entirely else going on. Could it be the whole indictment is an ongoing sting operatioin? There are some really bad dudes (Clinton hold overs) in fbi,cia,doj and there will be those 22 indictments that Chrissy Matthews and David Schuster told us about, but those indictments will be against dnc insiders? HA! Maybe that is why chrissy is so confused...maybe he will be indicted along with his boss, Fat Tim.
I doubt it. The Bush Admin. seems to let all of the investigations play out to the end. They didn't really know how much of a farce this one was.
How do we know, that Powell knew that Armitage leaked info about Plame? Maybe I missed the thrust of your point. It does seem that Fitzgerald was into the perjury trap business.
This was a witchhunt from the word 'go'.
Fitzgerald knew who leaked on day 1, and knew that the Identities Protection Act had not been violated.
So, why did he continue?
Why call the other reporters? He knew who the leaker was and when it occured.
He called the other reporters, people he knew who talked off the record to administration officials, as a set-up.
This was a POLITICAL witch hunt. So he went after the politicians who had been talking to these reporters. Remember, Judith Miller and the other reporters hadn't written anything about Valerie Plame. All they had done was talk to the politicians.
He used fear, intimidation, and REPEATED trips before the Federal Grand Jury to try and trap Cheney, Rove, Libby, any administration figure that he could, in a perjury trap.
Think this through. There is zero, and I repeat, Z-E-R-O chance that this was anything other than a political witch-hunt.
According to Armitage, he immediately went to Powell and told him what he had done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.