« No Child Left Behind | Main | Indifference to war »

September 07, 2006

Armitage, Plame case

So now that the Valerie Plame case has ended (9/2, A-2, “Plame case resurfaces: Richard Armitage is the focus of a new book that produces allegations of betrayal and criticism”) and we know that the Bush administration had nothing to do with the outing of her CIA identity — as it has honestly claimed all along — where are the apologies to Bush and Karl Rove, and where is the dismissal of charges against Lewis “Scooter” Libby?

More to the point, where is the redirection of the investigation? Where are the charges against Armitage (the real culprit, whose identity, as it turns out, was known the entire time by the investigator) for this formerly heinous crime against Plame?

The liberal press hates Bush and will do anything to get him, but when he’s proven to be right and had nothing to do with the charges, a three-year investigation becomes “never mind.” The liberal press has no principles other than hate for Bush.

Dave King
Kansas City

Comments

Arminius

CRD:

So Valerie Plame was one of those at the CIA who got things so wrong about Iraq's WMD? Maybe Libby deserves a medal for ending her career.

CRD

"Revenues are way up, employment is way down, the economy is doing very well, and the Bush administration has been frank and full of candor all along. There's no pattern of lying to the American people by this administration!"

Keep repeating it, Lloyd. You're starting to sound like Mark.

On that pattern of lies:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20031013/corn

By the way, the same book which disclosed Armitage's role in leaking Plame's identity also disclosed that Valerie Plame Wilson had been operations chief of the Joint Task Force on Iraq and had overseen espionage operations aimed at obtaining evidence about Saddam Hussein's supposed nuclear weapons program.

Rove and Libby jumping on the destruction bandwagon against Wilson and Plame definitely turned out to be a classic case of shooting ourselves in the foot -- by the highest placed administration officials, directly under the President and the Vice President, respectively.

To answer the question of what Valerie Plame really did at the CIA, see here:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060918/corn

"Valerie Wilson was no analyst or paper-pusher. She was an operations officer working on a top priority of the Bush Administration. Armitage, Rove and Libby had revealed information about a CIA officer who had searched for proof of the President's case. In doing so, they harmed her career and put at risk operations she had worked on and foreign agents and sources she had handled."

That's pretty goddamn serious, no matter what story you Bush apologists may concoct to make yourselves feel better.


CRD

Wow. That's some serious (and convoluted) denial going on there.

Have you been paying attention for the past 5 years, Lloyd?

Engineer

CRD
You have no proof at all of "An ongoing pattern of lying by administration officials". One man has been indited but the case has not been adjucated. One of the features of the American judicial system is that you are innocent until proven guilty. This a civil right, the violation of which you seem to embrace with relish.

Engineer

It seems unproductive to discuss hese things because even when the left has been shown to be completely wrong it will not even admit that there some question about their stand. For one thing, the prosecutor,
Fitzgerald, never stated in any of his speeches that the law regarding the "outing' of covert agents had been violated. He made a lot of references to how bad it was to "out" one, but he never identified Plame as a covert agent. Plame's tenure on a desk at Langley was common knowledge at the time the case first came up. If someone can present data showing that she was indeeed a covert agent, then I'll as why Fitzgerald never charged anyone for "outing" her. It really seems that this was just a witch hunt-if they knew from the first who had supplied the original information, why the investigation? I don't think it would take a highly talanted lawyer to get some tangled testimony from any really busy person if they got to work on it long enough and got to call the witness back enough times. Unless of course, the witness used the Hillary Clinton system of not remembering anything at all. But I no more expect people to admit mistakes anymore than I really expect Brian Ford to eat his hat as he pledged to do if Karl Rove was not intited.

CRD

An ongoing pattern of lying by administration officials is drooping sails?

Sorry, son, I think we deserve more from our elected representatives and their appointed underlings.

Sammy

Wow - Lots of people trying to blow some air into these drooping sails.

Time to move on dot org.

CRD

I suppose the best response is to repeat what's already been said:

The right-wing is glomming on the Armitage story like it lets Rove off the hook -- but the thing is, the record shows that Rove and Cheney's chief of staff I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby and others -- were furiously trying to get information about Wilson and Plame, then discussing it with reporters.

Then, when confronted about it, each claimed ignorance of the matter -- Libby before a grand jury, which got him charged with perjury.

Remember when Bush stated, unequivocally, that anyone found to have been involved in the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's name to the media would be fired? He later amended (flip-flopped?) his comments to say that anyone guilty of a criminal act would be fired.

There's a huge credibility issue, and rightly so. The American people don't like being lied to, and we have been time and again by this administration.

Politically Un-Correct

Stein, the CIA not only verified Plame’s employment to Novak, they failed to go beyond the perfunctory request not to publish. Experienced Washington journalists know that when the CIA really does not want something public, there are serious requests from the top, usually the director. Only the press office talked to Mr. Novak.

A little more than a year after Mr. Wilson went to Niger, he was permitted to tell all about this sensitive assignment in the New York Times. If the CIA really wanted Ms. Plame’s identity to be secret, it never would have permitted her spouse to write the op-ed. Didn’t they think her identity could be compromised if her husband wrote a piece discussing a foreign mission about an issue that focused on her expertise? After Mr. Novak asked why the CIA sent Wilson, the next obvious question was, “Who is Wilson?” On being told that Mr. Wilson’s wife suggested him for the mission, Novak went to the “Who’s Who” to find – voila! – Valerie Plame as Wilson’s spouse.

Plame is not the first CIA agent whose cover was blown by the media; but she must be the safest one in history. The case that the revelation was so terribly damaging to her was undermined by Ms. Plame and her husband's continual efforts at self-promotion.

Time for the left to back off and admit that they overdid it.

openmind

If the NYT had been responsible for outing her, you would never hear the end of it.

M. L. Stein

It seems that Politically Un-Correct isn't just uncorrect politically, but factually too.

Bush defense league members like PU find it convenient to forget that the CIA begged Novak not to publish Plame's name specifically.

Here're a couple of questions for Un-correct. If a person at the CIA has a desk job, does that mean that they will never embark on covert missions? Does that mean that they will never again interact with spy networks they may have set up?

Contrary to lies put out by the Bush propagandists, Plame's neighbors didn't know she was a CIA operative. Her career is over thanks to the vile Bush gang.

And finally PU, here's the kicker, if the leaker had been anybody outside the Republican sphere, would the Bush defense league be defending the outing of a covert intelligence agent? I sure hope not.

Politically Un-Correct

July 2003 is more than 5 years after Ms. Plame's 1997 return to her desk job, CRD. A woman whose "life is in jeopardy" (as Stein put it) would hardly pose, smiling in her Jaguar, for a national magazine a short time later. Her name was a secret only to those who don't read the "Who's Who".

jack

CRD: Remember, in the world of the right wing, dates come when most convenient to their arguements. Therefor, in this case, 01/2004 came BEFORE 07/2003.

You can do that when you are working directly for God.

CRD

Novak outed her in his July 14, 2003 column, which, according to a normal understanding of temporal relationships, predates the Plame/Wilson story in Vanity Fair.

At the time she was outed, she was engaged in covert work seeking out WMDs. Way to undercut our national security, Bushites!

Politically Un-Correct

In 1997 Valerie Plame “returned to CIA headquarters and joined the Counterproliferation Division." That was more than five years before Richard Armitage leaked her identity, too long for that disclosure to have violated the act. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060918/corn

Valerie Plame’s “life placed in jeopardy”? That’s a stretch. She posed for the January 2004 Vanity Fair magazine. Robert Novak got her name out of the ‘Who’s Who”.

Find another horse. Even the flies have lost interest in this one.

CRD

Richard Armitage has already apologized a number of times over for what may indeed have been an inadvertent leak of covert agent Valerie Plame's name to the press.

However, as David Corn writes in the Nation with "a rather simple question: When will Karl Rove do the same?

"He is no longer under investigation. But he did play a critical role in the leak case by confirming Armitage's information for Novak and then (before the Novak column appeared) leaking the same classified information to Matt Cooper of Time, as part of a campaign to discredit Joseph Wilson. . . . So will Rove now explain precisely what he did and why he did it, as Armitage has? Is he willing to admit he mishandled state secrets? Is he also sorry? Will he apologize to anyone?"

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=119240

The right-wing is glomming on the Armitage story like it lets Rove off the hook -- but the thing is, the record shows that Rove and Cheney's chief of staff I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby and others -- were furiously trying to get information about Wilson and Plame, then discussing it with reporters.

Then, when confronted about it, each claimed ignorance of the matter -- Libby before a grand jury, which got him charged with perjury.

Remember when Bush stated, unequivocally, that anyone found to have been involved in the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's name to the media would be fired? He later amended (flip-flopped?) his comments to say that anyone guilty of a criminal act would be fired.

There's a huge credibility issue, and rightly so. The American people don't like being lied to, and we have been time and again by this administration.

M. L. Stein

The Bush defense league is at it again, trying to deflect blame from their little tin god (ltg). Armitage is amember of the Bush administration. If he wasn't would they have protected him for 3 1/2 years.

Remember when ltg ordered his staff and administration to fully cooperate with the investigation. Did they forget? Or are they just programmed to lie and obstruct?

Valerie Plame's career was destroyed and life placed in jeopardy by this incompetent administration's thoughtless and infantile vindictiveness. Bush supporters who defend these actions are of the same ilk, vicious, small-minded, and ignorant.

If an apology is in order, let's hear one from ltg first. He should apologize to the American people for his lies, and incompetence. He should beg forgiveness from all of us, but mostly from the families of soldiers, sailors, and airmen who have died in his illegitimate war.

jack

Considering where the "buck stops" in the Bush Administration, at "not me", this letter is no surprise.

Who was Armitage working for? Hmmmh? Seems to me that if he was a member of the Bush administration, then he was working for the Bush administration.

Libby was not indicted for outing an agent. He was indicted for lieing to a grand jury.

Whether he leaked Plame's name has nothing to do with if he lied.

CRD

We've already discussed this issue to death. There's a lot of misinformation out there, Un-correct, and you seem to be simply repeating it.

See my post from last November:
http://blogs.kansascity.com/unfettered_letters/2005/11/right_desperate.html#comment-11004410

As I pointed out to Lloyd Weller (aka "Engineer") in a previous thread a week or so ago, http://blogs.kansascity.com/unfettered_letters/2005/10/perjury_ok.html#comments, he appears to be repeating misinformation spread by several right-wing media hosts, as well as numerous internet blogs.

The media watchdog group Mediamatters.org has a good overview of the basis for Fitzgerald's (and the CIA's) determination that Plame was indeed a covert agent as defined by the law. See here (and scroll down to the section on Plame's covert status):

http://mediamatters.org/items/200510260002

Also as I stated previously, I found the law to which Mr. Weller refers, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. Its full text is available here:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Intelligence_Identities_Protection_Act

It defines a "Covert Agent" as, among other things,

"a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States"

Now, the question Mr. Weller raises is whether Valarie Plame is indeed a "covert agent" under the law. Simply from common sense, one would think that Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in this case, is more than aware of this element of proof, and has taken ample care to verify it. Mr. Weller states that "she had worked at a desk in Langley for six years," but he gives no source for his contention, which seems to contradict that of most named sources.

For example, one former CIA official, Larry C. Johnson, identified Plame as a "non-official cover operative." He explained: "...that meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed."

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340

Of course, even if it were to turn out that Valerie Plame was not a "covert agent" as defined by the law when her name was leaked to the media, the charges against Libby, Dick Cheney's chief of staff, of obstruction of justice and perjury, have cast a serious pall over this administration. Charges such as those are not trivial -- they imply corruption at the highest levels of the Bush administration.

Posted by: CRD | Nov 8, 2005 8:17:48 AM

Politically Un-Correct

Larry - Valerie Plame wasn't a covert agent when her name was leaked. Hadn't been for about 5 years. Find another dead horse to beat.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright