| Author | Message | ||
     cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5828 Registered: 8-2003 |
I heard it on the news. Anyway, would those who were salivating over this case care to comment on the latest news? It's a good thing the media got their pain over with in August. Releasing this information around Christmas would be too hard on those people. Personally, I want to hear the argument that Richard Armitage was a paid, neocon political hack for Bush. Wilson has been pretty quiet about the person that leaked information that resulted in threats to his life, loss of sleep, and cover shoots for magazines. Is he still touring? | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5655 Registered: 5-2001 |
A source would be nice. I can't find any reference to it yet online. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15634 Registered: 10-2001  |
Here is the first picture. The guy was picked up in Boulder. He was pleading to be arrested for "something, anything".  | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave  Post Number: 10625 Registered: 4-1997  |
HA! (I knew it) | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1764 Registered: 9-2004 |
It started over the weekend. Bob Novak (on a sunday showIIRC) asked his source to out himself. Then something happened on Hardball. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5656 Registered: 5-2001 |
Didn't Novak say he had more than one source? | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1765 Registered: 9-2004 |
Newsweek. The Man Who Said Too Much A book coauthored by NEWSWEEK's Michael Isikoff details Richard Armitage's central role in the Valerie Plame leak. Sept. 4, 2006 issue - In the early morning of Oct. 1, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell received an urgent phone call from his No. 2 at the State Department. Richard Armitage was clearly agitated. As recounted in a new book, "Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War," Armitage had been at home reading the newspaper and had come across a column by journalist Robert Novak. Months earlier, Novak had caused a huge stir when he revealed that Valerie Plame, wife of Iraq-war critic Joseph Wilson, was a CIA officer. Ever since, Washington had been trying to find out who leaked the information to Novak. The columnist himself had kept quiet. But now, in a second column, Novak provided a tantalizing clue: his primary source, he wrote, was a "senior administration official" who was "not a partisan gunslinger." Armitage was shaken. After reading the column, he knew immediately who the leaker was. On the phone with Powell that morning, Armitage was "in deep distress," says a source directly familiar with the conversation who asked not to be identified because of legal sensitivities. "I'm sure he's talking about me." Armitage's admission led to a flurry of anxious phone calls and meetings that day at the State Department. (Days earlier, the Justice Department had launched a criminal investigation into the Plame leak after the CIA informed officials there that she was an undercover officer.) Within hours, William Howard Taft IV, the State Department's legal adviser, notified a senior Justice official that Armitage had information relevant to the case. The next day, a team of FBI agents and Justice prosecutors investigating the leak questioned the deputy secretary. Armitage acknowledged that he had passed along to Novak information contained in a classified State Department memo: that Wilson's wife worked on weapons-of-mass-destruction issues at the CIA. (The memo made no reference to her undercover status.) Armitage had met with Novak in his State Department office on July 8, 2003—just days before Novak published his first piece identifying Plame. Powell, Armitage and Taft, the only three officials at the State Department who knew the story, never breathed a word of it publicly and Armitage's role remained secret. Armitage, a well-known gossip who loves to dish and receive juicy tidbits about Washington characters, apparently hadn't thought through the possible implications of telling Novak about Plame's identity. "I'm afraid I may be the guy that caused this whole thing," he later told Carl Ford Jr., State's intelligence chief. Ford says Armitage admitted to him that he had "slipped up" and told Novak more than he should have. "He was basically beside himself that he was the guy that f---ed up. My sense from Rich is that it was just chitchat," Ford recalls in "Hubris," to be published in early September by Crown and co-written by the author of this article and David Corn, Washington editor of The Nation magazine. more at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/ | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1766 Registered: 9-2004 |
There is supposed to be 2 WaPo articles, I think this is one... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/28/AR2006082801278. html BUT, in march of this year: http://minipundit.typepad.com/minipundit/2006/03/armitage_plame_.html Remember last week when this was the headline: Plame considers suing Armitage http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/22/ap/politics/mainD8JLNQ3G0.shtml | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12512 Registered: 5-2001 |
I saw an interview with Michael Isikoff on Hardball yesterday evening. His contention was that Fitzgerald took two hard runs at Armitage, but since the memo referenced above did not mention Plame's undercover status and Armitage claimed he wasn't aware of her status there was no basis for prosecution. It is kind of funny that this whole incident started not with a partisan neo-con, but with an old fashion cold warrior very much at odds with the Bush administration. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7779 Registered: 10-2001 |
yes, bad new for libs. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3771 Registered: 5-2001  |
Bad news for neoconflators. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7783 Registered: 10-2001 |
Not sure what a neoconflator is. Sounds made up. In any case, I guess libs owe among others, Cheney, Bush and Rove an apology. libs.  | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2382 Registered: 8-2003  |
someone who understands right wing nut logic should explain why this means what Libby and Rove were alleged to have done is now OK. I understand why it might mean they haven't violated the statute prohibiting the revelation of an undercover operative's identity. But I don't know why it's OK to lie to a prosecutor, and why it's OK to blab about covert agents to reporters. the second and third people to reveal Plame's identity may not have committed a crime, but they provided the confirmation that allowed Novak and others to put her name in print. What Libby and Rove (and possibly Cheney) did was incompetence at best, and malfeasance at worst. why the wing nuts are celebrating their behavior is mystifying to me. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1986 Registered: 10-2004  |
actually they dont. Bush owes all of us an apology. He promised to fire anyone who leaked Plames name. That means Rove, that means Cheney, that means Libby, that now also means Armitage. neoconflators | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7785 Registered: 10-2001 |
"He promised to fire anyone who leaked Plames name. That means Rove, that means Cheney" Someone hasn't been paying attention. libs. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5660 Registered: 5-2001 |
Really. If you'd been paying attention you would know by now that if Bush promises to do something it is an ironclad guarantee that he won't. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7786 Registered: 10-2001 |
Libs love to makeup who they want to be guilty. Typical lib: " I don't care what the investigator found, I say Cheney did it. I want Cheney out. I hate Cheney!" Sorry Charlie, Cheney didn't leak it.. libs. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5663 Registered: 5-2001 |
So why was scooter lying? Tim Grieve on Salon makes a good analogy:
| ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5830 Registered: 8-2003 |
Armitage was the Leaker, and he resigned before Bush could fire him. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDMwMTNiM2QzNzI5MmI3YTFiZWRiOGUyMjU4NjIwMDc = .....Whatever Armitage’s motives, the fact that he was the Novak leaker undermines — destroys, actually — the conspiracy theory of the CIA-leak case. According to Isikoff, in an excerpt of Hubris published in Newsweek: “The disclosures about Armitage, gleaned from interviews with colleagues, friends and lawyers directly involved in the case, underscore one of the ironies of the Plame investigation: that the initial leak, seized on by administration critics as evidence of how far the White House was willing to go to smear an opponent, came from a man who had no apparent intention of harming anyone…” It’s an extraordinary admission coming from Isikoff’s co-author Corn, one of the leading conspiracy theorists of the CIA-leak case. “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,” Corn and Isikoff write. “The Armitage news does not fit neatly into that framework.” No, it doesn’t. Instead, Corn and Isikoff argue that after Armitage “got the ball rolling,” his actions “abetted” a White House that was already attempting to “undermining” Joseph Wilson. That’s a long way from the cries of “Traitor!” that came from the administration’s critics during the CIA-leak investigation. There are good leakers of secrets and bad leakers, the above story takes note of. Armitage was a "good leaker." | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2383 Registered: 8-2003 |
straw man argument. name one person who says Armitage was a "good leaker." his leak didn't violate the statute, but nobody says it was "good." | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5664 Registered: 5-2001 |
This hardly qualifies him as a "good leaker." I'll grant that he's not a "bad leaker" either; but a good leaker is someone who exposes malfeasance, corruption or incompetence. | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 3219 Registered: 12-2001  |
:eft or right, we can all be glad that: Scooter Libby will face trial Cheney's historical reputation has been tarnished owing to his deeds Judy Miller is washed up Novak is revealed as a liar and fudger Bush never recovered his prestige after his cowardly refusal to fire the leakers as he vaguely hinted he would. It is nice when everyone has something to gloat over. For Bush haters, the whole process of criminal investigation has been a heartening assertion of integrity and the rule of law. For conservatives (let me see if I have this right) it is an oppportunity to gloat that although you clearly lost the day on this one, you didn't lose it as badly as liberals hoped you would (?) or something like that. Kind of like "The South will rise again" or something. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5665 Registered: 5-2001 |
Kind of like how during Katrina the Mayor of NO foolishly projected 10,000 deaths, and so that fact that it was actually only a tenth of that somehow meant that Brownie really did do a heckuva job. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 966 Registered: 1-2006 |
Was this investigation worth it? Richard Armitage is the squeeler. Maybe he will be skewered, after all. Of course, the relentless investigation, with no oversight, by Fitzgerald, claims its own victims. jd | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 3220 Registered: 12-2001 |
Was it worth it? You can't enter into a search for truth, especially with a pack of liars, knowing before hand if it will produce a good, juicy conviction. Don't forget that Armitage has a pretty shaky record for telling the truth to investigators. I think it was kind of awesome. A good standard in bold, focused, non-partisan investigations. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5832 Registered: 8-2003 |
themp...what are you talking about? The investigation -- make that the media -- never said who the leaker was until recently, and that person resigned? And where did Novak lie? | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 3223 Registered: 12-2001 |
(October 09, 2003 -- 09:24 PM EDT) Oh, now that,s very interesting. Let,s go back and do a little more Bob Novak exegesis. As we,ve noted before, one of the best pieces of evidence that Novak (and thus his sources) knew Valerie Plame was a clandestine employee of the CIA was that he said as much in his original column. There he called her an "Agency operative." People who follow the intel world say that phrase is almost always meant to refer to a clandestine agent or someone in the field, rather than an analyst. Now, since the story blew up a week and a half ago, Novak has been telling people that this reference was just some sort of slip-up, that in this case he meant "operative" only in the generic sense of a "hack" or a "fixer." On Meet the Press Novak said he uses "the word too much [and] if somebody did a Nexus search of my columns, they'd find an overuse of 'operative.'" Well, Novak does seem to use the word operative a lot. But as one of my readers pointed out to me this evening, "operative" can mean all sorts of things in different contexts. The question is how Novak uses it in this particular context. Following up on my reader's suggestion I did a Nexis search to see all the times Novak used the phrases "CIA operative" or "agency operative." This was a quick search. But I came up with six examples. And in each case Novak used the phrase to refer to someone working in a clandestine capacity. Here they are : On December 3rd 2001 Novak reported on the surprise and even outrage among CIA veterans that Mike Spann's identity had been revealed even in death. Spann was the agent killed at the uprising at Mazar-i-Sharif Thus Novak: "Exposure of CIA operative Johnny (Mike) Spann's identity as the first American killed in Afghanistan is viewed by surprised intelligence insiders as an effort by Director George Tenet to boost the embattled CIA's prestige." On November 1st, 2001 Novak described the Agency's handling of the late Afghan resistance commander Abdul Haq. Thus Novak: "the CIA was keeping in close touch with Haq's friends but providing more criticism than help. The Afghan freedom fighter who was honored by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher during the war against the Soviets became "Hollywood Haq" to the CIA. He was described by the agency's operatives as "unruly and immature.'" This is the most ambiguous reference. But I think it's pretty clear here that Novak is referring to people in the field, i.e., operatives, not analysts back at Langley. On September 23rd, 2001, Novak discussed the long decline of the CIA, particularly its human intelligence (HUMINT) and operational capacities. He made particular reference to the tenure of Stansfield Turner as DCI. Thus Novak: "Appalled by the CIA's operatives in Central America, he issued the now-famous order against hiring unsavory local agents. There went any serious effort at espionage." Again, that ain't a reference to analysts. On July 5th, 1999, Novak reviewed Bill Buckley's new book on Joe McCarthy and in the course of that review he noted how Buckley had "honed his craft well in chronicling the fictional adventures of his CIA operative, Blackford Oakes." Now, the Blackford Oakes spy novels are - well, spy novels. So this one's pretty clear. On September 22nd, 1997 Novak noted to the role of "Bob," someone whom he referred to as an "undercover CIA agent" who got pulled into the Roger Tamraz phase of the campaign finance scandal. Later in the same column Novak referred to "Bob" as a "CIA operative." Ergo, "undercover CIA agent" equals "CIA operative." On September 18th, 1997 Novak referred to this same "Bob�" on CNN as an "an undercover CIA operative." I also did a quick search for Novak's references to "CIA analyst" or "agency analyst" I found three --- each clearly referring to people who were in fact analysts. In an 1993 column, Novak used a precise phrasing to refer to "CIA briefer Brian Latell, a 30-year career officer." Again, no vague use of 'operative.' I don't think this requires too much commentary, does it? Clearly, Novak knows the meaning of the phrase 'CIA operative' and he uses it advisedly. In the last decade he's never used the phrase to mean anything but clandestine agents. Let's cut the mumbo-jumbo: past evidence suggests that Novak only uses this phrase to refer to clandestine agents. In this case, when he has every reason to run away from that meaning of the phrase, he suddenly runs away from that meaning. Especially with all the other evidence at hand, that just defies credibility. Everything points to the conclusion that Novak did know. That would mean, necessarily, that his sources knew too. The "we didn't know" cover story just doesn't wash. Novak's fellow reporters have never pressed him on this point. Maybe now would be a good time ... Josh Marshall | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 3224 Registered: 12-2001 |
In a July 22, 2003 Newsday article, Timothy M. Phelps and Knut Royce reported that "Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. 'I didn't dig it out, it was given to me,' he said. 'They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it." Novak later said he was "badly misquoted" (although Phelps denies he misquoted Novak) and stated in September 2003 on CNN's Crossfire that "Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. There is no great crime here." Let's face it, he and Rove coordinated their stories. Scooter tried to do the same with the absurd "turning aspens" drivel, but he got burned. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 971 Registered: 1-2006 |
Colin Powell's right hand man, Armitage, did it, and was the coward, to boot. Now the really big, (really) weight-lifter has lifted a burden from us all - we will likely have fewer Bush/Rove conspiracy posts on this issue. But, there are so many conspiracies to deflate. Bring 'em on. jd | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 3227 Registered: 12-2001 |
Well, there was plenty of cowardice to go around, it seems. If Novak is right that this was not a crime, accidental, etc, then a lot of people could have been a heck of a lot more frank about it a long time ago. And not gotten charged with lying. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5833 Registered: 8-2003 |
themp -- how is Bush supposed to fire someone who has resigned? Why doesn't the left bring Armitage up on charges? And what is Armitage's shady reputation? Your Novak evidence is pretty weak. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2391 Registered: 8-2003 |
The first and most obvious answer is that "the left" can't bring anyone up on charges of any kind. The Justice Department would have to bring someone up on chages. The answer as to why the Justice Department doesn't bring charges against Armitage is clear from the statute:
Armitage didn't know Plame was covert and didn't know that status was classified. Therefore, he didn't violate the statute. Libby and Rove, on the other hand knew Plame's status, so when they blabbed about it, it isn't a stretch to conclude that they may have been breaking the law. As a result, the investigation was warranted. again, even if they didn't break the law, by doing what they've already admitted to, Libby and Rove at the least deserved to have their security clearances revoked. I don't know why the Bush aplogists can't admit that these guys screwed up, even if they didn't violate a law. | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 3228 Registered: 12-2001 |
Oh, come on. Novak shaded his story differently by increments at first. He was fudging like crazy. Rove also shared this info. He should have been fired for the sake of Bush doing what he broadly hinted he would do. Why doesn't the left bring Armitage up on charges? What does that mean? I don't get it. Do you mean republican-leaning prosecutor Fitzpatrick? I don't know. I assume it can't be proven criminal. Plus he was somewhat forthcoming at a time when Scooter and Rove were just totally lying. I never said this is a crime, and I have written that I have mixed feelings about prosecutions based on political spin. Two facts though: look at the intentions of the administration - it was to throw smoke up around the issue and nothing more that they introduced any info on Plame, and it was at its heart untruthful that Plame arranged the trip, and that it was some posh boondoggle. So that is pretty low and undignified. And - they lied their faces off to a prosecutor. Which was pretty dumb. And it's lowdown, like refusing to take a breathalizer when you hit a tree at 3am. Discgraceful, and it hurts your claim of innocence. So I'm happy and have been that on the historical record there is this unmasking of the seediness of Bush and Co, and you can be happy that Rove, who now meets with approval from 20% of Americans, didn't get indicted. I know Rove is like Thomas Jefferson to conservatives. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 975 Registered: 1-2006 |
My only real insight is from realizing what a prosecutor with unbridled power can do. jd | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 976 Registered: 1-2006 |
The facts are somewhat boring. But, what a prosecutor did is not. | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 3229 Registered: 12-2001 |
Unbridled? What are you, Emily Bronte? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5834 Registered: 8-2003 |
I think there are no charges to be brought against anyone as I don't think Plame was a covert agent. If Rove lied, why wouldn't Fitzgerald nail him as he did Libby for 'lying' about who he talked to to cover someone in a criminal activity that wasn't criminal. And I find nothing seedy about going after lying Joe Wilson. And Plame had nothing to do with Wilson getting the gig? Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission Report Disputes Wilson's Claims on Trip, Wife's Role By Susan Schmidt Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, July 10, 2004; Page A09 Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5671 Registered: 5-2001 |
Nobody went after Wilson because he lied. They went after him because he told the truth -- that there was nothing to reports of Iraq getting uranium. And you guys don't want to get into nepotism, do you? Not when "Fat Tony" Scalia's son ended up at the head of the FCC, or when Clarence Thomas' wife's firm got staffing assignments. And there's more where that came from. Or, come to think of it, Bush himself getting into Yale. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3777 Registered: 5-2001 |
Emily Bronte!  Hang on, this is the first time JD has seen a powerful prosecutor in action? Does the name Ken Starr ring any bells? (And I don't mean Ellis or Acton Bell.) | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 3230 Registered: 12-2001 |
It doesn't matter what you think, CJC, it matters what happens in the court of public opinion. This affair diminished the unpopular president, and may force him into an awkward pardon. It is fun, in a bitter, sad way, to see him becoming the global laughingstock that he is. We can thank Scooter, Armitage, Novak and Rove for that. Ever heard the expression "too smart by half?" Plame wasn't covert. Hang that one up on the wall right next to "The only thing Nixon did wrong was get caught." But he DID get caught, dummies, he DID. |
