September 01, 2006

WaPo Nails It

No conspiracy and no crime -- Armitage leaked Plame's name and Wilson lied about his Niger trip.

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. JeffreySmith, 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. 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.

Now, when will we see the prosecution of Joe Wilson for his treasonous lies in this matter -- and when will Scooter Libby be cleared of the accusations agaoinst him, which clearly stem from a faulty memory and not a conspiracy of any sort?

thescream.jpg
Oh, no! The only liar was Joe Wilson.

Posted by: Greg at 02:19 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 623 words, total size 4 kb.

1 WaPo seems to me to say that Wilson should have anticipated that if he criticized the ADmin. he should have expected someone to ask about his selection and implicitly that he should have realized that the Administration would disclose that his wife was at the CIA. I would think that Wilson should have been able to expect that this information would not be disclosed by the administration. To think otherwise would be to acknowledge that the Admin. is not serious about intelligence in the War on terror. I suppose that if I were against the admin. on many issues and had ties to the Islamic world but disliked terror and was willing to report on terror cells-- I should realize that attacking the Pres position on a issue would lead to my exposure. Really by this reasoning we should not blame the terrorist for any attacks. By doing things they dont like we have asked for it. it is our fault!!! The fact that you folks so readily embrace this absurd reasonng is scarry. In any other context you would spit it out as foul and stupid. You want a certain answer and will adopt this foolish sugestion as the ultimate truth if it leads to a conclusion you want.

Posted by: john henry at Fri Sep 15 09:01:35 2006 (09I0T)

2 Actually, given that she was a non-covert employee of the CIA, it can hardly be argued that her employment was a secret. Now, if you wish to argue that the war on terror means we should cover for an employee recommending her under-qualified spouse for a sensitive mission, then I have to disagree.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Sep 15 10:03:50 2006 (oXKzT)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
9kb generated in CPU 0.0054, elapsed 0.0126 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0084 seconds, 31 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]