Plame leaker comes forward

[barrons]

<p>Sorry all who had Rove/Cheney convicted and fitted for the prison jumpsuit.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/[/url]”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[DRJ4]

<p>It is interesting that it was a moderate like Armitrage, as many suspected, and not the so-called neo-cons of the Bush Administration.</p>

<p>I have a hard time understanding why Armitrage didn’t publicly come forward for 3 years. He let everyone stew over this subject, including his colleagues in the Administration, reporters, the CIA, Valerie Plame, and his fellow Americans. That he put his own reputation first says a lot about his lack of character.</p>

[Lophopper]

<p>Armitage has not admitted to anything, and Novak refused to confirm or deny it on MTP today.</p>

<p>Also, we can keep the jumpsuits for Rove/Cheney for some of their other violations of the US Constitution.</p>

[barrons]

<p>Sure, right.</p>

[ariesathena]

<p>… but when the New York Times gets ahold of classified information about counter-intelligence operations and publishes it on their front page, that’s free speech and protecting the public interest. :)</p>

[Allmusic]

<p>Rove and Cheney (the <em>real</em> president) will never be in prison jumpsuits. They’re made of teflon, you know!</p>

[FountainSiren]

<p>

@AM

Rove and Cheney (the <em>real</em> president) will never be in prison jumpsuits. They’re made of teflon, you know!

It would seem ridiculous to make prison jump-suits out of Teflon…are you sure about your sources on this AM?</p>

[Allmusic]

<p>Does seem a bit “uncomfy”, when I think about it…yes.</p>

<p>Let me get back to you on this one, mmmkay?</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>Here is Christopher Hitchen’s take on the Plame case. He sums it up pretty well. I think the funiest thing about this is that all the people who bought Joe Wilson’s book now realize what a bunch of fiction he wrote about members of the Bush administration. There is a sucker born every minute in Joe Wilson land.
<a href=“http://www.slate.com/id/2148555[/url]”>http://www.slate.com/id/2148555&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[Strick11]

<p>“Armitage has not admitted to anything…”</p>

<p>That’s changed.</p>

<p>

Richard L. Armitage has acknowledged that he was the person who first identified Valerie Wilson as an officer in the C.I.A. to columnist Robert D. Novak.

[First</a> Source of C.I.A. Leak Admits Role–NYT](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/washington/30armitage.html]First”>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/washington/30armitage.html)</p>

<p>It’s been interesting following this as the whole thing unravels. I particularly liked this written by Davd Corn, one of the people most adamant that the White House was involved in a concerted effort to out Plame:

The Plame leak in Novak’s column has long been cited by Bush administration critics as a deliberate act of payback, orchestrated to punish and/or discredit Joe Wilson after he charged that the Bush administration had misled the American public about the prewar intelligence. The Armitage news does not fit neatly into that framework.

</p>

<p>“Does not fit neatly” is code for the wheels fall off.</p>

<p>Apparently Fitzgerald knew that Armitage was the leaker (THE leaker not just someone who said “Oh, you know that, too?” when a reporter called) from day one. After examining all the evidence and interviewing all the people involved, he not only determined that the leak was not deliberate, he convinced a Federal judge that the leaker was so innocent it was necessary to withhold his identity to keep from unduly harming his career in public service. No frog marches or orange jumpsuits required, no siree.</p>

[hoedown]

<p>

… but when the New York Times gets ahold of classified information about counter-intelligence operations and publishes it on their front page, that’s free speech and protecting the public interest.

</p>

<p>The thing about the Plame case is that it seemed to be old-fashioned mean-spiritedness that motivated it. I didn’t see the public interest in that revelation. </p>

<p>Whereas some of the reporting about counter-terrorism operations did have a public interest (IMHO) in that there are questions about constitutionality and civil liberties. This also has some negative consequences (making these efforts less effective) but I get the public interest angle.</p>

[driver]

<p>

The thing about the Plame case is that it seemed to be old-fashioned mean-spiritedness that motivated it.

I agree, the NYT was mean-spirited in its relentless flogging of this phony case. They are doing the same thing with the Duke “rape” case, btw.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>

I think the funiest thing about this is that all the people who bought Joe Wilson’s book now realize what a bunch of fiction he wrote about members of the Bush administration.

<br>
Do you really think that this is what they now realize? Perhaps, but for most who buy books like this the blinders are strapped on pretty tightly. I don’t think they let a few annoying facts get in the way of their Bush administration hatred.</p>

[2dsdad]

<p>“They (the NYT) are doing the same thing with the Duke “rape” case, btw.”</p>

<p>Their courage in exercising free speach is selective when it comes to defendants’ presumed innocence or national security issues it would seem:</p>

<p>New York Times Blocks Web Story
Associated Press
August 30, 2006; Page B3</p>

<p>NEW YORK – The New York Times’s Web site is blocking British readers from a news article detailing the investigation into the recent airline terror plot, turning its Internet ad-targeting technology into a means of complying with United Kingdom laws.</p>

<p>“We had clear legal advice that publication in the U.K. might run afoul of their law,” said New York Times Co. spokeswoman Diane McNulty. “It’s a country that doesn’t have the First Amendment, but it does have the free press. We felt we should respect their country’s law.”</p>

<p>Visitors who click on a link to the article, published Monday, instead got a notice explaining that British law “prohibits publication of prejudicial information about the defendants prior to trial.” The blocked article reveals evidence that authorities have in the alleged plot to use liquid explosives to down U.S. airliners over the Atlantic.
.
.
.
British readers could find excerpts posted on Web journals and other unblocked sites. In fact, the Daily Mail of London published an article on the case, attributing details to the Times.</p>

<p>Copyright © 2006 Associated Press</p>

<p>The Daily Mail of London, clearly under the jurisdiction of British laws, publishes the details but the NYT shies away?</p>

[Strick11]

<p>“I didn’t see the public interest in that revelation.”</p>

<p>You might want to read how the conversation went down again, it’s repeated in the news accounts. </p>

<p>You know, the reporter asks why the VP sent Wilson of all people to Niger; the reply, he didn’t, it happened at a low level – from what I hear Wilson’s wife works in the CIA and she sent him. </p>

<p>Where I come from, that sort of info would be of great public interest. Consider what the tabloids write about celebrities.</p>

<p>Then go back and re-read Novak’s article. His mention of Plame’s involvement is incidental to the larger story. He apparently didn’t think it rated much public interest, either, but hey, it rated some.</p>

[driver]

<p>Bush-bashing goobers: take note.

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.

<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html&lt;/a&gt;
Some of us had this figured out years ago.</p>

[barrons]

<p>BRAVO to the Post. It takes some guts for the media to admit they had it wrong.</p>

[ADREW5449]

<p>(In my best RoseAnne Roseannadanna voice) “Never mind…”</p>

[kluge]

<p>

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.

I’d say the Post is right on all counts, as to which the “Bush-bashers” and Administration loyalists alike might take due notice.</p>

[driver]

<p>Right on cue!</p>

<p>I do think that the Post was right on all counts, but that is an interesting formulation in that paragraph, no? A little liberal CYA, don’t you think? Did I already say “Bush-bashing goobers”? Yes, I thought so.</p>

<p>

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.

But, the Post tells us:

Mr. Libby and his boss, Mr. Cheney, were trying to discredit Mr. Wilson

Well, given the fact that the Post also tells us that

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

well, it sounds to me like discrediting a man who successfully manipulates public opinion on a massive scale by lying in the NYT about a supposedly classified mission is a good idea.</p>