Posted on 09/08/2006 9:22:14 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
So it was not Rove, Cheney, Bush or who the left thinks did it?
If he's not already, Armitage might as well be a gossipy woman.
Is there a law that you have to keep quiet about being guilty of a non-crime while the prosecutor invents crimes to convict other people?
What a jerk!
Notice he didn't apologize to anybody but the Wilsons.
So Fitz now has the admitted leaker. When do we suppose he will issue the appropriate charges?
"Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage on Thursday acknowledged being the original source in the leak of a CIA official's identity . . ."
"Armitage was the first person to discuss the identity of former CIA official Valerie Plame with reporters . . ."
"Knowingly disclosing the identity of a covert CIA agent is against the law . . ."
So why isn't this putz in jail?
And when did Valerie Plame's employment ever turn out to be a "state secret"?
Did she drive her Jag to Langley every day or not?
Did her blabbermouth hubby brag about who was paying for his business travels (3 trips to Niger, not 1) - or not?
Did blabbermouth Joe brag about his/her connections with "the Agency" to boost his consultant fees with every wannabe-potentate in central Africa- or not?
Popcorn bowl filled ..... feet up
The truth destroys CIA leak fantasy
The Australian ^ | August 31, 2006 | Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor
Posted on 08/30/2006 1:50:23 PM EDT by Laverne
AND so we learn it was former US deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage - Australia's best friend in the US - not the Bush White House who was the first to out Valerie Plame as a CIA employee.
With this knowledge is demolished yet another left-liberal fantasy about George W. Bush.
The ironies of the situation are endless, exquisite and, for some, extremely painful.
Ms Plame is the wife of Joseph Wilson, a former US diplomat who went to Niger before the Iraq war to examine allegations that Iraq had sought uranium there. From Mr Wilson's own account, his investigations were pretty cursory and he wrote an equivocal report on his return.
However, he subsequently became a fierce opponent of the US-led operation in Iraq.
It leaked out that Mr Wilson's wife was a CIA employee and, in one version, that she had been involved in getting him the commission to go to Iraq.
It then turned out that Ms Plame was a covert CIA operative, so leaking her identity was a serious matter, a criminal offence under US law.
Robert Novak first revealed Ms Plame's identity in a Washington Post column in July 2003.
All suspicion immediately fell on Mr Bush's closest aide, Karl Rove, or "turd blossom" as he is affectionately known by Mr Bush, and on Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice-President Dick Cheney's then chief of staff.
Mr Rove and Mr Libby's guilt was never in doubt. Mr Rove spoke with a Texas accent, Scooter had a silly name. What more proof was needed?
From Le Monde to the Guardian, from Balmain to Carlton, no right-thinking progressive ever doubted the conspiracy theory that the Bush White House had decided to punish Mr Wilson for becoming a critic of the war by outing his wife.
Of course, as a conspiracy theory it never made any sense. Far from damaging Mr Wilson and Ms Plame, the publicity made them celebrities.
Mr Wilson, furiously writing opinion pieces for The New York Times and boasting about his wife, did everything he could to draw attention to himself, not normally the way the spouses of covert agents maintain their covert status.
For what it's worth, White House sources tell me that to the extent that anyone ever discussed Mr Wilson and Ms Plame with the press, it was to deny the story allegedly being put round - some say ultimately by Mr Wilson himself - that he was Mr Cheney's personal choice for the mission to Niger.
Once Ms Plame's name was made public there can surely be no serious reservation about officials talking to the press in some limited way about her.
Has there ever been in any Western democracy a serious national security reporter who has not on occasion discussed classified information with a senior government source?
Normally Left liberals like maximum disclosure, don't they?
Mr Libby has been charged by the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, appointed to look into the whole matter. But as is always the case when these special prosecutors run amok, he has not been charged with the central offence - leaking Ms Plame's identity - but with the process offences of lying to the special prosecutor and obstructing justice.
Mr Libby has stood down from Mr Cheney's office and is vigorously defending the charges. He should never have been charged with anything. It is complete madness, the criminalisation of politics.
It has taken a bitter and terrible toll on Mr Libby's life, while Mr Wilson and Ms Plame have revelled in magazine fashion shoots, Left-liberal hero status and the rest.
There is another Australian connection with Mr Libby. A former US ambassador to Australia, Mel Sembler, is chairing the fundraising effort for his legal defence.
But what of Mr Armitage's role in all this? Why was he not charged with anything?
We do not yet know all the facts but, according to Newsweek, which broke the story, Mr Armitage revealed Ms Plame's identity in a casual conversation with Novak, and subsequently with the Washington Post's Bob Woodward, at a time when he did not know Ms Plame's status was covert.
When he found out, he told his then boss, Colin Powell, and the State Department's counsel.
I have heard that someone of Mr Armitage's rank, deputy secretary, is allowed to reveal information at his discretion.
In Woodward's books on the Bush administration there is much national security information that comes directly from interviews with the President himself. This is a normal part of democratic politics, even though it is information that if revealed by a lower-ranked official would be deemed illegal.
It is a matter of record that Mr Armitage was an administration opponent of the neo-conservatives and against going into Iraq when the US did so.
The Wall Street Journal has published a fierce polemic criticising Mr Armitage for not outing himself as the initial source and getting Mr Libby and Mr Rove off the hook.
But the crazy excesses of the special prosecutor would not have been satisfied by any such action, and his identity as Novak's source has been a poorly guarded secret for months.
Mr Armitage is a rambunctious, ebullient and infinitely brave man. I do not believe he could have saved his colleagues from the ravages of the special prosecutor.
But history should record one more conspiracy theory that has been proven, like most conspiracy theories, to be absolute bunk.
But he told the newspaper he kept quiet at the request of Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor investigating the leak.
So now the question is why did Fitzgerald want him quiet.....???
I heard on Fox 'n Friends this morning that the NYSlimes has a similar article buried on page 26.
"Former vice presidential aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby has been charged with lying to investigators as they sought to find out who leaked Plame's identity."
As they sought to find out? They knew the leaker from the get go!
Fitzgerald obviously wanted him to keep quiet so he could keep bleeding the US Treasury for more money to continue an investigation he already had the answer to and to keep suspicion on the bush administration. IMO Fitzgerald should be facing criminal indictment.
They are not referred to as the NY Slimes for trivial reasons....
THE most important question that should be on everybody's lips right now is WHY DID FITZGERALD KEEP INVESTIGATING THIS WHEN HE KNEW THE ANSWER?
Nice of him to NOW speak up.
There was never a crime committed for 2 reasons:
1. The leak was not intentional
2. The agent was not covert or undercover at the time.
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.