Now go! And lie no more......

End of an Affair
It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband.

Friday, September 1, 2006; A20



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. Jeffrey

Smith, 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.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

It seems that all the officials involved made the same error about Plame's job classification with the CIA.  The error appears in only one memo that was then passed on by all White House staff involved.  This indicates they were all getting their information from the same memo.  

I believe this is the White House cover story about it, and they took a long time to develop it, too.  Fitzgerald's staff (unlike Starr's) is watertight.  This had to have come from the White House.  

The yellow-cake story was simply not true and hardly and act justifying a war in any case.  It's a long process to go from yellow-cake to being able to launch missiles in 25-45 minutes.  It takes over 16,000 centerfuges cascaded to process yellow-cake to weapons grade 80 percent enriched.  You're not going to do it with a score of unassembled tubes.  In other words, the case about the WMD's in Iraq was deliberately falsified.  However, it's extremely likely to me now that it wasn't Bush. I think he's a useful idiot, a front, a figurehead.  The real power behind him is Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Neo-Cons.  They were, however, truly unelectible.  It's why they needed Bush.  He doesn't have the mental capacity to question them.        

BTW, Iran has 164 centerfuges.  Almost enough to enrich Uranium to civilian grade 2 percent enrichment. It's hardly the 80 percent weapons grade enrichment.  It's hard to figure out Iran's brinkmenship over this point. My theory is that 1) they think Bush is actually making the decisions and 2) they are emboldened by the Iraq debacle and think they can gall Bush into another military blunder.  

Unfortunately, with what I've already said, this is a major miscalculation on their part.  One that might get them nuked.

the primary point is, as the Post so elegantly states::::
""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.""

Did you see that???

The charge is UNTRUE and nothing you have states alters that.

The question I have is why are you not concerned about these traitors, Plame and Wilson, lying to undermine our CIC in a time of war?

AS bad as he may be, these liars no better....

I told you I thought it came from a White House cover story.  That's what I still think.  The statement, no matter how boldly made in the "liberal" press needs to be taken skeptically.  Something that conservatives are found of pointing out.  I don't believe the article does well to support what it's saying, but the story it referred to might.  

Not liking the Wilsons is irrelevant.  As for lies, I need to ask which lie or mistakes were most costly.  Let's see, the Wilsons' lie or mistake cost what?  The White House's lies or mistakes cost what?

Moreover, the Wilsons' are out of office; my perceptions of them doesn't count anymore.

We got us some weapons grade bullshit being fired around here.

The 911 Commission did confirm that an Iraqi official was in Nigeria seeking uranium. British intelligence still stands by that assertion. But, this is just another example of willful disregard of the facts by the second guessers. Meanwhile, using only one hand, the moonbats continue to play Fantasy West Wing in the basement while the nonagenarian parents snore upstairs.

For all the hysterics screaming treason about Plame being "outed," what does Sandy Berger's thievery qualify as?

against Scooter Libby have been dismissed?

Just asking.

Libby lied to the Grand Jury--which just so happens to be exactly what he has been charged with. Obviously you do not think that perjury is a big deal. By the way, last I heard Armitage was still part of the Bush administration.

"The Post also argued that since Armitage was a reluctant supporter of the Iraq War, “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 – is untrue.”

But – as with the corrupt prison warden in “Shawshank Redemption” – it’s hard to believe that national journalists could be this obtuse.

As we explain below, the evidence is overwhelming that the White House assault on Wilson was planned weeks before he published an Op-Ed on July 6, 2003, accusing Bush of twisting the yellowcake claim – and that Bush’s operatives responded by pointing journalists toward Plame’s identity.

Indeed, the available evidence doesn’t even fully support the contention that Novak first learned about Plame from his interview with Armitage on July 8, 2003. According to the Times’ own reporting, Novak apparently had been primed to ask a question on this topic.

The Times buries this crucial point in its Sept. 2 story that questions whether Fitzgerald “properly exercised his prosecutorial discretion.” In the last sentence of the 17th paragraph, the Times reports that Armitage disclosed Plame’s possible role in arranging Wilson’s Niger trip “in reply to a question.”

In other words, Armitage didn’t just toss out Plame’s CIA connection as “gossip,” as the Post editorial assumes. He apparently mentioned it in response to Novak’s question about how the Niger trip had been arranged, which begs the additional question of who might have suggested that Novak ask that.

The distinction is important because other evidence indicates that Bush’s aides were pushing reporters to ask about the circumstances behind the Niger trip, knowing that line of questioning would lead to Plame’s identity."

"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."

What's their basis for this assesment anway?  One of the people who leaked Plame's name was a 'reluctant' supporter of the war....which is absolutely irrelevant to the "organized campaign" charge.

At least _Three_ other administration officials leaked Plame's name to reporters before the Novak column was written.  That sounds an awful lot like a coordinated campaign.

And "Unaware that Ms. Plame's identity was classified information"...how, exactly, would he know about what Plame was doing at the CIA, but NOT know that she was working under-cover?

JB-Of course none of it means anything to you. That's the way of it for you and yours. Which is why I don't understand my posting of this piece. I'd like to give up trying to "get through" but I don't seem to be able to help myself. You may doubt the source since it's from that conservative hellhole Slate, and written by the well known Marxist right-winger Christopher Hitchens.

See: I'm doing it again.

Plame was NOT covert so no crime was committed. Or else why wasn't someone indicted for it?

Or (BUSH LIED) is the fact that NO ONE was indicted prove that (BUSH LIED) someone is GUILTY, and that Fitzie (BUSH LIED) was in the tank (BUSH LIED) from the start. And, not only that but Bush lied. (BUSH LIED)  

PS-I looked through the Parry piece. I can't find anyplace where even he says disclosing Plame's identity is a crime. He does say it's vicious, it's political retaliation, etc. But it's key that it's not a crime, don't you think? Or do you want to jail people (Republicans only, of course) for rough politics?  


-- Modified on 9/5/2006 6:46:43 AM

Libby lied to the Grand Jury. I am sure that he had a good reason. By the way, since Patrick Fitzgerald is a Republican I would not be surprised if he were in the tank. Finally, throwing out Christopher Hitchens name means you have not read anything of his in the past 6 years. He's a neocon. Then again, I guess that facts are not your friend.

Unlike that example, I think my skepticism is reasonable and flexible.  I'm doing what Conservatives advise: I'm being being skeptical about the media.  I don't find that article to be well-written.  It states its thesis, but it doesn't support it well.  Believe me, I'm capable of changing my mind about this.

The only indictment is a procedural one.  Scooter Libby lied and impeded an investigation.  He didn't leak.

Valerie Plame was not covert nor overseas.  She was a glorified admin. who got her husband on this assignment to fuck with Bush.  Wilson and Plame lied and were caught.  She was not overseas- not covert!  She was not undercover and never has been undercover- not covert! She was not qualified for  covert assignments.  She pushed a pencil in DC and everyone knew who she was from the beginning. Novak just asked Armitage for confirmation of what EVERYBODY already knew.  She was about as covert as you with your TER handle.  The difference being you don't have your spouse all over the media drawing attention to himself and in extention.....her.  

you'd think the charges would be dismiisssed but bvecause this is all part of a DemoNAzi inquisition, i doubt it will.

you can't end a witch hunt without burning a witch.

just hope for mysake these witchburning lib-o-nazis never come to power

well, bush did'nt lie but wilson did.

that means by default, wilsons were worse

we need to summons a firing squad for him

that's why we impeached the shit out of head of the clinton crime family, bill.

it is with great delight i watch you throw Armitage in front of the bus to prevent you from having to be a man and admit you put your hairy foot in your mouth by accusing Rove of "outing" plame.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

I say again, WHAT IS YOUR SOURCE?

Why do you think this is a witch hunt?

Yes, Libby was charged with lying to the grand jury. Let's see what happens. If he's convicted he should do some jail time, in my view.

By what definition is CH a neocon? Because he was for invading Iraq? He is in favor of tossing out all fascist dictators, and has been since the 60's. That once was an iron clad liberal position, back when the liberals had balls. So now CH is a neocon? Wait until he finds out. He'll be pissed, lumped in with Pearl and Wolfie.

My how the tide has turned for poor PatFitz. Once he was a liberal love object,(back when there were still great hopes that Rove would be frog marched--remember those heady times)and now he's denounced as a Republican. When he had his press conference announcing the Libby charge, I was afraid the media was about to line up for some serious serial dick sucking on old Pat. But the worst that happened to him that day was he had to throw out a suit jacket detroyed by David Gregory's drool.

What a joke. Anyone that agrees with Bush more than 0.0001% of the time is a neocon or an asshole.

BTW, if Fitz doesn't drop the charges, Bush will pardon Scooter. Gonzalez should fire Fitzgerald.

-- Modified on 9/6/2006 11:04:29 AM

or I was overdue to get lucky.

On 073006, I wrote that new evidence would come to light linking Armitage to the "outting" of Valerie Palme [this would be in retaliation for Armitage going public with Iraq doubts].

Lo and behold!

Yep, knew the NeoConMem were going to exact a pound of flesh from Armitage [who looks pretty chunky to start] as the price of his doubts.

Nothing those darlings won't stoop to.  Unless, of course, they have to do it themselves.

being a Republican is a bad thing. The reason I said he is a Republican is because he registers as a Republican, votes as a Republican, and all of his political jobs have come by appointments from Republican admninistrations. That, in my estimation, generally means that you are Republican. I can see why you are confused, though, since to this point he seems honest and has not been charged with any crimes--a very un-Republican state, I agree.

Regarding Hitchens and what you think are liberal positions, your ideas are too dumb and convoluted to be straightened out outside of a psychiatrists couch.

Damn - here I was thinking it was a substantive crime!

"In 1997 [Wilson] returned to CIA headquarters and joined the Counterproliferation Division....She was eventually given a choice: North Korea or Iraq. She selected the latter. Come the spring of 2001, she was in the CPD's modest Iraq branch. But that summer — before 9/11 — word came down from the brass: We're ramping up on Iraq. Her unit was expanded and renamed the Joint Task Force on Iraq. Within months of 9/11, the JTFI grew to fifty or so employees. Valerie Wilson was placed in charge of its operations group.

There was great pressure on the JTFI to deliver. Its primary target was Iraqi scientists. JTFI officers, under Wilson's supervision, tracked down relatives, students and associates of Iraqi scientists — in America and abroad — looking for potential sources. They encouraged Iraqi émigrés to visit Iraq and put questions to relatives of interest to the CIA. The JTFI was also handling walk-ins around the world. Increasingly, Iraqi defectors were showing up at Western embassies claiming they had information on Saddam's WMDs. JTFI officers traveled throughout the world to debrief them."

The CIA gets to decide who is covert and who is not covert.  They say she was covert and they were making an effort to hide her CIA affiliation.  That's the end of the story on her status from a legal point-of-view.

In fact, in memos to the administration, the CIA explicitly stated that Plame was a covert agent and that her identity should not be revealed even to friendly intelligence agencies, such as the British.

Btw, "never has been undercover": She'd traveled extensively in her 'cover' job, and passed intelligence back to the CIA.  What about that means she was never undercover?  Yes, she was at Langly at the time.  Doesn't matter, lots of covert agents are not in foreign countries all the time.

What, exactly, in the WaPo story or Armitage's cliams make her not covert?

Two Hints:
1.  The existance of a woman named Valarie who was married to Wilson is irrelevant to her covert status.  There was no idication, prior to Novak's column, that Wilson's spouse worked for the CIA.  Only that he had one named Valarie.

2.  A secuirty clearance does not mean someone can't leak a secret to you.  If you don't have need-to-know, it's just as illegal as if you leaked it to a random stranger.  So either Armitage broke the law by leaking information he was allowed to know, or whoever told Armitage broke the law by telling him.


-- Modified on 9/6/2006 12:42:45 AM

-- Modified on 9/6/2006 12:43:20 AM

Yea, she was a huge deal in the CIA.  That's why her HUSBAND exposed her.  I keep forgetting she was "Jane Bond" when I see her posing for photographs in national magazines.  I'm shocked nobody has assasinated her yet.  I thought "Jaws" or "Odd-Job" would have went after her.

She was not covert.  There was no crime.  Armitage will not face charges.

Say guys, how about that NY Times leak that exposed national secrets of court approved financial surveillence?  You're all really concerned with our national security.  Don't we need to find out who leaked that?  Nahhhh!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460.html

witchhunt is probably not the best descrpition becasue at least initially, a reasonable person could comclude a crime might have been committed, therrefore the fitz's investiagtion had meriit

the fact that now, when it comes to light that Arm provided Novak the info "in passing" puts to the lie the assertion she was "outted" as punishment

seem to be losing it of late, I wonder if it is just one nutcase writing it all or is it a case of mass hysteria?

in this investigation is a Republican so WTF are you talking about?

fucking editorial. That is opinion, not news--then again I am not surprised that you do not know the difference.