Posted on 09/02/2006 9:49:19 AM PDT by JerseyDvl
For discussion purposes, I'll set it at 9/17.
This needs emphasis. It's unsourced (naturally) but it sounds only too plausible.
So far the reaction to the Armitage revelation has been mainly to blame Armitage and the left wing press. But if this is true, then it PROVES that Fitzgerald was running a left-wing vendetta from the very first. Fitzgerald should be removed and prosecuted for abuse of his office.
It's now been reported that Armitage's calendars, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, show that he met with reporter Bob Woodward on 6/13/03; Woodward acknowledges that someone told him about Plame around that time, and while he hasn't said that it was Armitage, Post editor Ben Bradlee has said it's likely that Armitage was his source.
According to Fitzgerald, Libby's first mention of Plame to a reporter occured TEN DAYS LATER--to Judith Miller on 6/23/03.
Yet Fitzgerald stood up in front of the entire country and made the following statement at a press conference:
"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."
There is no reason to believe Fitzgerald was unaware that the Armitage-Woodward meeting preceded the Libby Miller discussion--it has been reported that Fitzgerald interrogated Armitage at great length.
Fitzgerald owes us a better explanation here than no comment.
My bad..my search was flawed.
Two important points:
1. Armitage sat quietly and let the SP go forward *knowing* he was the source. He deliberately chose not to inform the White House.
2. How long has the NYT known about this story? I say from the beginning.
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.