It’s still scandalous

With this week’s revelations that former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage was Robert Novak’s other Valerie Plame source, supporters of the White House have done an odd kind of victory dance. Armitage’s role is proof, they say, that there was no concerted effort to punish Joseph Wilson and expose [tag]Plame[/tag]’s identity because [tag]Armitage[/tag] wasn’t even on the [tag]Rove[/tag]/[tag]Libby[/tag] side of the debate.

If there was a genuine conspiracy, Armitage would have been the last guy to join in. The WaPo editorial board embraced the conservative line of thinking today.

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.

I will concede that Armitage may have been a talkative gossip, with no real malicious intent, but the notion that the latest revelations let the Bush gang off the hook entirely seems badly misguided.

The truth is, we’re dealing with revelations that are not mutually exclusive — Armitage can be an inadvertent Novak source and White House leakers can be guilty of wrongdoing.

[A]s Media Matters noted, then-Time magazine White House correspondent Matthew Cooper, in his first-person account (subscription required) of his testimony before the grand jury in the CIA leak investigation, identified Rove as his original source for Plame’s identity and Libby as his confirming source. Former New York Times reporter Judith Miller identified Libby as her primary source for Plame’s identity. Corn noted in an August 27 entry on his Capital Games weblog for The Nation that Armitage’s role in the Plame leak — whatever it may have been — does not undermine the allegation that there was a “concerted action” by “multiple people in the White House” to “discredit, punish, or seek revenge against” Plame’s husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Wilson had accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence about Iraq’s purported weapons of mass destruction. Corn wrote:

The Armitage leak was not directly a part of the White House’s fierce anti-Wilson crusade. But as Hubris notes, it was, in a way, linked to the White House effort, for Amitage [sic] had been sent a key memo about Wilson’s trip that referred to his wife and her CIA connection, and this memo had been written, according to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald [who was appointed to investigate the Plame leak], at the request of I. Lewis Scooter Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff. Libby had asked for the memo because he was looking to protect his boss from the mounting criticism that Bush and Cheney had misrepresented the WMD intelligence to garner public support for the invasion of Iraq.

The memo included information on Valerie Wilson’s role in a meeting at the CIA that led to her husband’s trip. This critical memo was — as Hubris discloses — based on notes that were not accurate. (You’re going to have to read the book for more on this.) But because of Libby’s request, a memo did circulate among State Department officials, including Armitage, that briefly mentioned Wilson’s wife.

In addition, as Media Matters has noted, according to a July 12 column by Novak, Fitzgerald knew who Novak’s primary source was as early as January 12, 2004. Nevertheless, Fitzgerald wrote in court filings released on April 6 that “it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to ‘punish’ Wilson.” Fitzgerald has also alleged that Cheney and Libby were “acutely focused” on the Wilson column and on rebutting his criticisms of the White House’s handling of pre-Iraq war intelligence.

Further, as the Associated Press reported in an August 22 article that Armitage met with Libby a week prior to his meeting with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward in which he reportedly disclosed Plame’s identity. The meeting between Armitage and Libby also occurred prior to Armitage’s conversation with Novak during which he disclosed Plame’s identity.:

That meeting occurred as State officials were about to prepare a report outlining how Plame’s husband was sent to Niger before the Iraq war to check unverified intelligence that Iraq was seeking nuclear materials from Africa.

Armitage’s role aside, the public record is without question: senior White House aides wanted to use Valerie Wilson’s CIA employment against her husband. Rove leaked the information to Cooper, and Libby confirmed Rove’s leak to Cooper. Libby also disclosed information on Wilson’s wife to New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

This notion that somehow the White House has been “vindicated” is simply not true. Today’s Post op-ed suggests the entire scandal is a case of “no harm, no foul.” The record shows otherwise.

Too bad the American people can’t even be troubled to learn the facts about whether Saddam had WMDs or not when we invaded. Unfortunately, since there was no sex involved, the Plamegate scandal is too boring for our intrepid media to follow. It’s also too complicated for the general public to understand it, so the Republicans are enjoying this additional bit of mud in the water.

Once again, the deliberate dumbing down of the electorate has worked its magic.

  • What the hell did the Washington Post editorialize about the Clinton investigations? Waste of time and money? Does the WaPo want to now assume the mantle of “fair and balanced” in the newspaper world?

  • I really hope Richard Armitage never gets another job in the U.S. Government. What a sad disappointment this man has become, gossiping with Robert Novak of all people.

    As the White House hoped, the story is dead. Media Matters can try all they like to resurect it, but I don’t think they have a hope in hell of getting anywhere.

    That said, I still think it was a plot by Libby, Cheney and Rove to attack Wilson and silence all critics of the War before the 2004 elections.

  • It pains me that the Reps think we’re too stupid to see past the waving hands had shiny objects to the machinations behind the scenes. It pains me even more that they’re mostly right (what else could explain the popularity of Fox News?).

    I seem to have a yen to state the obvious today:

    If I want to make sure that something (true or not) gets widest possible distribution, I tell the office gossip. Is there anyone inside the Beltway that doesn’t know that Armitage has an abiding love of being Information Central? Could Scooter possibly be so High-Mach as to use a weakness like that to further the administration’s goals?

  • Poor Richard has been used by BushCo?
    Haven’t we all!
    The thought that those lying thieving scalliwags would use someone is not a shock.
    What would be news is if they had the opportunity but didn’t use someone.

  • Come on guys — just “move-on from” this one. Bush has much more of an underbelly on so many other issues… why waste mindshare with this issue which in all honesty, seems pretty harmless at this point.

    What is interesting is that a key member of Bush’s admin let his old colleagues (as well as his boss) hang out to dry for so long… where is W’s control???

  • …seems pretty harmless at this point. -JRS Jr

    That’s doesn’t absolve those guilty of an actual breach of national security. Plame worked in the mideast and had contacts in Iran. Too bad they all had to disappear after she was outed because we could sure use some accurate intel on them around now.

    It isn’t about getting Bush, it’s about holding those responsible for breaking the law accountable. It is not legal to reveal the identity of an undercover agent. Period. Someone did and that could’ve and may still cost the United States dearly.

    As an American, I am outraged.

  • I agree, so then go get Armitage and leave the rest of them out of it… But if you believe that there weren’t many people chasing this story down simply out to get Rove and/or W, then you are quite ignorant.

    “It’s about holding those responsible for breaking the law accountable.” So tell me Doubtful, when Clinton lied under oath (which is in fact breaking the law, did you also get so “outraged as an American??” Heck, Scooter has been charged with misleading investigators, didn’t Bill do that as well??

  • This is the worst sentence of the Post editorial: “Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame’s CIA career is Mr. Wilson.”

    Wilson was asking for it, see? How can we hold the Bush administration responsible for doing what anyone would have done when presented with a critic making charges — namely, smearing him and destroying his wife’s career (along with intelligence sources that could have been useful in avoiding Middle East nuclear proliferation)? Clearly Wilson should have known to keep his mouth shut, as all administration critics should. If anyone speaks up and has something unfortunate happen, well, they have only themselves to blame.

  • I wonder how the grand jury — which five times called Karl Rove to testify — feels about their work now. I don’t think for a minute that the revelation that Armitage took the fall means everyone else is pure as the driven snow. Nor do I think the “kiss and make up” stance of the WaPo’s editorial board does anything for its credibility as a serious newspaper.

  • On one level, WaPo is right. Public criticism of the Bush Admin is akin to sticking your hand in a tank full of hungry barracuda. Just what do you expect to happen?

  • Iucaffiend, the difference of course is that those in the Bush administration are human beings and so are moral actors. We don’t put barracudas on trial for their actions or otherwise hold them responsible.

    Even if some in the administration have had their consciences surgically removed, we can hold them responsible for having the surgery.

  • KC, from a moral perspective, you’re correct, but the words ‘Bush’ and ‘moral’ don’t fit together very well in my personal lexicon.

    Having interacted closely with political conservtives and barracuda (not at the same time) I generally prefer the company of the latter.

  • Steve, I read your post on C & L and the link to Media Matters. I don’t see how the media can ignore all the damaging information that came out with Libby’s requests for disclosure from Fitzgerald through the court. Cheney’s marginal scribble is just one tiny example. It’s a big pile of shit in the middle of the road that the media is walking around and ignoring. Thanks for bringing out the truth. I’ve been very interested in this story for at least a year, but I hope mastermind Rove is not using it now to deflect from election year issues.

  • JRS Jr.,

    Bush has much more of an underbelly on so many other issues

    Such as? I know what I think those issues are, but as you and I obviously are not near each other on the political spectrum, I’d love to hear what issues you think Bush is vulnerable on. Seriously.

    As for this issue, when can we expect to see Armitage fired? That is what Bush promised right? Or is the State department now not part of the executive branch?

  • JRS Jr – So tell me Doubtful, when Clinton lied under oath (which is in fact breaking the law, did you also get so “outraged as an American?

    Only if you can tell me whether you believe lying about having “sexual relations” with an intern(I suppose I should make sure you know I am referencing Clinton, where nothing else happened as a result of Presidential-Intern relations) and outing a CIA operative amount to the same “level of crime.”

  • …does not undermine the allegation that there was a “concerted action” by “multiple people in the White House” to “discredit, punish, or seek revenge against” Plame’s husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Wilson had accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence about wIraq’s purported weapons of mass destruction.

    I remember May, 2004.

    If you went to Joe Wilson’s website at http://www.restorehonesty.com (check out ‘the Wayback machine’…)– it was re-directed to John Kerry’s campaign website.

    After the “bi-partisan” 9/11 Commission completely debunked all of Joe Wilson’s claims from his NYT editorial- Joe Wilson was suddenly a “non-person” to the Kerry campaign- and the entire ‘domain’ was just… “gone”!

    And Kerry never said another word about Joe…

    Must be another one of those “fake, but accurate” things.

  • Where in the 9/11 Commission report is Joe Wilson even mentioned? Or Iraq’s attempt to obtain uranium?

    Don’t believe me? Go to:

    http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

    Now, if you have Adobe Reader, you can search the entire document for any word. So go to the little binocular icon, then type in “Joseph (or Joe) Wilson” and “yellow cake”. Go ahead.

    Now if you meant the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report,
    ( http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf ), the bipartisan part of the report did not “debunk” anything Wilson said.

    The so-called “debunking” was the Additional Views (pgs. 442-443) in the Senate report provided by (suprise, suprise) Orrin Hatch(R-UT), Pat Roberts(R-KS), and Christopher Bond (R-MO). Please note the Rs by their names.

    So, the criticism of Joe Wilson in the Senate report did not come from the “bipartisan” part, but instead from an opinion section by the Republicans.

    As for Wilson’s support for Kerry, are you either suggesting that Kerry secretly tried to use Wilson’s criticism as an attack on Bush?
    Considering the clean campaign Rove ran against Kerry, that would have been just wrong.
    Or is Joe Wilson, a private citizen in 2004, not allowed to show support for a presidential candidate that you oppose?

  • Where are Katie Graham and her tits when we need them?

    Comment by Jim Strain — 9/1/2006 @ 11:58 am

    beautiful, jim. just beautiful.

    we can only assume they’re spinning in her grave with the rest of her body.

    your pal,
    blake

  • As for Wilson’s support for Kerry, are you either suggesting that Kerry secretly tried to use Wilson’s criticism as an attack on Bush?

    Umm… the whole point was Kerry’s support of Joe Wilson! The stupid traitor that was the Democratic nominee in the last Presidential election was “proud” to be allied with Joe Wilson- until he decided to throw him under the bus when Wilson’s credibility was in tatters..

    If even a total moron like John F. (Do you know who I am?) Kerry could figure out that Joe Wilson was a liability in Aug 2004… why does the “reality-based community” still think there’s a “there” there?

    Or is Joe Wilson, a private citizen in 2004, not allowed to show support for a presidential candidate that you oppose?

    Again, it is not Wilson’s support of Kerry that is in question. Why did Kerry completely support Joe W. thru Aug 2004-with links and redirects between Kerry’s Campaign site and Joe W’s “I a whining crybaby” site – and then suddenly drop him like a hot rock?

    I blame Karl Rove…

  • Comments are closed.