Skip to comments.End of an Affair [Plame]
Posted on 08/31/2006 10:08:00 PM PDT by West Coast ConservativeEdited on 09/01/2006 5:56:51 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
WE'RE RELUCTANT to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, over the past three years. But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.
Mr. Armitage was one of the Bush administration officials who supported the invasion of Iraq only reluctantly. He was a political rival of the White House and Pentagon officials who championed the war and whom Mr. Wilson accused of twisting intelligence about Iraq and then plotting to destroy him. Unaware that Ms. Plame's identity was classified information, Mr. Armitage reportedly passed it along to columnist Robert D. Novak "in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip," according to a story this week by the Post's R. Jeffrey
Smith, who quoted a former colleague of Mr. Armitage.
It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue......
Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.
And that's why they buried the lead in the last graph. This story is a classic example of telling the truth in a way that won't attract the attention of an average reader who scans the headline and maybe the first 2 or 3 graphs.
Hmm...you might be right. If their civil suit doesn't get any traction John and Vanna may well be relegated to "non-person" status within The Party. Wait, that wasn't right - Jerry and Veronica? Jack and Victoria? Throw me a bone here...
If the case was to go forward.... Richard Holbrook will need to stock up on "Depends". Because he is the one who had the most to gain if John "Do You Know Who I am" Kerry won in 2004
Scooter was deposed, and allegedly lied about what he said to three reporters, per their testimony. That is the prosecutor's case - nothing more, nothing less.
After signaling that "we just need to move on", proceeded to bury the story on A20.
Hell froze over?!?!?
I wonder...has anyone told Fidel to pack his ice skates?!?
And Scooter and his attorneys beg to differ.
All I can say is this sucks big time
Depose them all and let's see who lies first.
"..our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband.."
How charitable of the Washing Compost to take this position. No doubt, lacking pertinent facts, they held back in condemnations of the Administration; does anyone know if they might have published one, two or even a couple more articles aimed at the Administration's heart?
the entire GJ was a perjury trap - but only for Libby and Rove.
That's what I'm thinking.
I did the exact same thing! :-)
Sad BUT true
As I recall, Libby told Fitzgerald/grand jury that he had talked to Russert. Russert denied it in a phone 'interview' w/Fitzgerald sans taking an oath to tell the truth, and Fitzgerald took Russert's uncorroborated word over Libby's assertion under oath. My question: who lied?
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.