And he's upset by those who look upon his three-year silence as a betrayal of President Bush and the American people.

Mr. Armitage, who has been criticized for keeping his silence for nearly three years, said he had wanted to disclose his role as soon as he realized that he was the main source for Robert D. Novak’s column on July 14, 2003, which identified Ms. Wilson. But he held back at the request of Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor. “He requested that I remain silent,” Mr. Armitage said.

He expressed irritation over assertions in some editorials and blogs that, by his silence, he had been disloyal to the Bush administration, saying he had followed President Bush’s repeated instruction that administration officials cooperate with the Fitzgerald inquiry. “I felt like I was doing exactly what he wanted,” he said.

Mr. Armitage testified three times before the grand jury, the last time in December 2005. “I was never subpoenaed,” he said. “I was a cooperating witness from the beginning.”

He never hired a lawyer and did not believe he needed one. “I had made an inadvertent mistake, but a mistake in any event,” he said. “I deserved whatever was coming to me. And I didn’t need an attorney to tell the truth.”

Only two problems with that apologia. It requires us to accept the notion that his failure to resign from office in October or November 2003 -- before there even was a special prosecutor -- was not not in and of itself an act of disloyalty to the President and the American people. The President had promised to fire the leaker -- and Armitage hid out and covered his ass for two full months. Furthermore, his compliance with Fitzgerald's request resulted in the undermining of the nation's confidence in the Commander-in-Chief while the nation was (and is) at war. The American people had a right to know the truth -- especially as the 2004 election rolled around. There was a higher obligation than cooperation with the Fitzgerald investigation -- it was to preserve the faith of the American people in the American government. Fitzgerald had no right, morally or legally, to undermine something so fundamental by swearing the guilty party to silence.

And by the way -- Armitage admits giving inaccurate information regarding his conversation with Bob Woodward, yet walked away scot-free from the entire affair despite being the individual guilty of the leak. Yet Scooter Libby was indicted for essentially the same offense. Why the disparity?

Posted by: Greg at 12:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 425 words, total size 3 kb.