Plame leaker finally revealed - Armitage

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

LotM,

I agree wholeheartedly.

[DanS]

Ooh. Scathing editorial by the WaPo. Doesn't make any difference in the rest of the US, but makes a difference in the Washington establishment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460.html

End of an Affair
It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband.

Friday, September 1, 2006; Page A20

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

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. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.

That's not to say that Mr. Libby and other White House officials are blameless. As prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has reported, when Mr. Wilson charged that intelligence about Iraq had been twisted to make a case for war, Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney reacted by inquiring about Ms. Plame's role in recommending Mr. Wilson for a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, where he investigated reports that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium. Mr. Libby then allegedly disclosed Ms. Plame's identity to journalists and lied to a grand jury when he said he had learned of her identity from one of those reporters. Mr. Libby and his boss, Mr. Cheney, were trying to discredit Mr. Wilson; if Mr. Fitzgerald's account is correct, they were careless about handling information that was classified.

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.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

From the depths of long dead threads, this latest add to the otherwise forgetable saga.

NOVAK: ARMITAGE DID NOT TELL ALL
Wed Sep 13 2006 08:37:07 ET

"When Richard Armitage finally acknowledged last week he was my source three years ago in revealing Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA employee, the former deputy secretary of state's interviews obscured what he really did," Bob Novak claims in a column set for Thursday release.

Novak, attempting to set the record straight, writes: "First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he 'thought' might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked, and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former Amb. Joseph Wilson. Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column."

Novak slams Armitage for holding back all this time.

Armitage's silence for "two and one-half years caused intense pain for his colleagues in government and enabled partisan Democrats in Congress to falsely accuse Rove of being my primary source," Novak explains.

"When Armitage now says he was mute because of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's request, that does not explain his silent three months between his claimed first realization that he was the source and Fitzgerald's appointment on Dec. 30. Armitage's tardy self-disclosure is tainted because it is deceptive."

Developing...

Drudge

[Berzerker]

It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband.

Of course they were punishing him, her identity was leaked so the WH could paint him as a liar. Wilson said he was sent by the CIA after an inquiry from Cheney's office. The Repubs turned that into "Wilson said Cheney sent him" and outed his wife because she was involved in sending him, not Cheney. Of course, Wilson couldn't say that in his NYT article or he'd be outing his own wife. Dont forget the newspaper with Cheney's handwriting where he asks "did she send him on a junket".

I fail to see how this changes anything, according to Novak Armitage wanted him to expose her role in Wilson's trip. Novak then went to Libby for confirmation and he got it. Two WH bigshots out an agent to the press and we're told it doesn't matter because the first leaker wasn't a fan of invading Iraq? So ******* what? Its clear the WH outed her and its clear why they did it, to smear Joe Wilson as a liar.

One more thing, what are the odds the same agent would be outed by at least 2 people in the White House? Nah, these leaks were designed to get Wilson. Thats called a conspiracy and both these men should be removed from office even if they cant get them for the leak because the standard of proof is too high.

[DinoDoc]

Come off it, Berz. The Whate House was royaly screwed by Powell in this whole affair but you refuse to let it go due to some unfathomable reason. I'm just curious why Armitage wasn't charged and Libby was.

[SpencerH]

Armitage wasnt charged for one simple reason, Plame was not a NOC. Therefore she wasnt 'outed' and therefore there was no crime. There is no other reasonable explanation.

Libby was charged with perjury.

[SpencerH]

What has become interesting in this story is the description of Armitage as a 'gossip'. He's never struck me in that manner and Novak has called him to task for the whole fiasco.

An interesting piece from an unusual source (I may ID him later)

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
Commentator: Drudge has a little blurb here of a Robert Novak column that is going to be published tomorrow. "'When Richard Armitage finally acknowledged last week that he was my source three years ago in revealing Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA employee, Armitage obscured what he really did,' Novak claims. Novak, attempting to set the record straight, writes this. 'First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something that he had heard and that he thought might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column.'"

Let's go back last week on the CBS Evening News, I think it was Thursday, Armitage, being interviewed by CBS reporter David Martin, and Martin says, "So what was it that made the light go on to you, Mr. Armitage?"

ARMITAGE: I was reading the newspaper column again of Mr. Novak, and he said he was told by a nonpartisan gunslinger. I almost immediately called Secretary Powell and said, "I'm sure that was me."

Commentator: I always thought that sounded odd. I mean, you know you told Novak, and then you read it in the newspaper and you see not a partisan gunslinger and you think it's you, when you know it's you. Novak is saying this is more obfuscation, this is not at all what happened. Then, he went on to say in the interview that it was Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, that told him to shut up and not say anything about this all during the nearly three-year period that this dragged on.

So again, Novak writes, "First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he thought might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked and said flatly that she did recommend the mission to Niger by her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson." They're still out there lying about that. Second, writes Novak, "Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column." Well, that's even more strange, he's saying, ah, I read Novak's column, partisan gunslinger, whoo, my God that might be me. When he knew it was him all along. Novak also slams Armitage for holding back all this time.

"Armitage's silence for two and one half years caused intense pain for his colleagues in government, and enabled partisan Democrats in Congress to falsely accuse Karl Rove of being my primary source, Novak explains. When Armitage now says that he was mute because of Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald's request, that does not explain his silent three months between his claimed first realization he was the source and Fitzgerald's appointment on December 30. Armitage's tardy self disclosure is tainted because it is deceptive."

Hmm, makes me wonder what Armitage was thinking going out there and speaking, knowing that Novak was going to contradict him, or could if he wanted to, and has apparently in a column that is going to run tomorrow.

[DanS]

This seems a little overheated to me. In order to hold it against Armitage, you have to believe that he had the foresight to work the silence to his advantage and that he wanted to screw the White House.

This doesn't seem like Armitage or Powell to me. Both Armitage and Powell are known as gossips around town. They talk to the press all the time, and Powell was known to have the best rolodex in town. They might have used the press to their advantage in trying to win the argument in the White House (as all seasoned Washington hands do), but they fell in line once their argument was lost.

[DanS]

Originally posted by SpencerH
What has become interesting in this story is the description of Armitage as a 'gossip'. He's never struck me in that manner and Novak has called him to task for the whole fiasco.

Both Powell and Armitage are known as gossips, in the best sense of the word. Normally, they don't have loose lips.

[chequita guevara]

So Novak writes a fourth version of the story and we're supposed to belive this time its true?

[chequita guevara]

From what I've read, Armitage "let slip" the name because suspicion was falling on State that they were responsible for Wilson and were trying to keep from falling further out with the White House. What Armitage claims he said was that Wilson's wife suggested him, and that was the extent of it. Novak did a little detective work and discovered she worked for CIA and what her name was.

Course, what she was working on was the Iranian nuclear program . . .

[Berzerker]

Come off it, Berz. The Whate House was royaly screwed by Powell in this whole affair but you refuse to let it go due to some unfathomable reason. I'm just curious why Armitage wasn't charged and Libby was.

I dont know why he wasn't charged, both of them should be charged if the prosecutor can make it stick. Hell, both should be prosecuted just to send a message to other miscreants thinking about outing agents. And this unfathomable reason is real simple: for political reasons - smearing a critic - people in the WH outed an agent. The law that says you can out agents 6 years after their assignments but not 5 years is arbitrary, the fact is and always will be that outing an agent jeopardises past contacts. The Russians (or whoever) aint gonna look for her contacts and tell them "its been 6 years, we forgive you". And this also tells future would-be double agents or foreign contacts the US agent they're talking with may be outed in the future by slimy US politicians so becoming a source for the US is even more dangerous, even your alleged friends will stab you in the back.

From what I've read, Armitage "let slip" the name because suspicion was falling on State that they were responsible for Wilson and were trying to keep from falling further out with the White House.

Sounds reasonable, or he was just in on the effort to out her. I'm sure the WH wanted to create "plausible denial" so before anyone connected with Bush or Cheney outed her, they had someone else out her who could create this plausible denial. Armitage wasn't a fan of invading Iraq, therefore he had no reason to out her for political reasons. And thats the story we're being told to exonerate other leakers. Libby confirmed her to Novak, so this aint like Armitage was a lone leaker and poor 'ol Libby and Cheney were innocent bystanders.

They're scum Dino, their actions put people in danger. Cheney should be impeached over this, and if there is any evidence Bush helped, he should be impeached.

[Berzerker]

Why Armitage just didn't tell his buds in the WH that state wasn't behind the mission makes that explanation a bit more suspect come to think of it. Why did he have to get Novak to write a column when he and Powell could have simply told Cheney Wilson's wife was in on the mission. Hell, even Cheney asked on that newspaper margin if she sent him on a junket... This is looking more like plausible denial at work

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DanS
This seems a little overheated to me. In order to hold it against Armitage, you have to believe that he had the foresight to work the silence to his advantage and that he wanted to screw the White House.

Isn't that exactly what happened?

[DanS]

Armitage told the State attorney and Powell the story, then the State attorney asked Gonzalez what details the White House wanted. Gonzalez didn't ask for any details, so what's Armitage to do? He must have thought the White House was taking the hit because of other reasons.

To read ill intent into this, you would have to argue that Armitage knew the White House wouldn't ask for the details and that the White House didn't have other reasons to take the hit. These Washington operators are good, but they aren't omniscient.