In case you missed it, Nadagate ended with a whimper. It turns out that the administration official who originally leaked Valerie Plame’s identity to Robert Novak was … [drumroll please]
Yes, that Richard Armitage — the one who has consistently been hailed by Bush administration foes as a friendly moderate and anti-neocon in the Colin Powell mold.
The Wikipedia entry notes,
Journalist Bob Woodward of the Washington Post revealed on November 15, 2005 that “a government official with no ax to grind” leaked to him the identity of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame in mid-June 2003. According to an April 2006 Vanity Fair article (published March 14, 2006), former Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee said in an interview “That Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption,” though Bradlee later told the Post that he “[did] not recall making that precise statement” in the interview.[1]
On March 2, 2006, bloggers discovered that “Richard Armitage” fit the spacing on a redacted court document, suggesting he was a source for the Plame leak.[2]
On August 21, 2006, the Associated Press published a story that revealed Armitage met with Bob Woodward in mid-June 2003. The information came from official State Department calendars, provided to The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act.[3]
In the September 4, 2006 issue of Newsweek magazine, in an article titled “The Man Who Said Too Much,” journalist Michael Isikoff, quoting a “source directly familiar with the conversation who asked not to be identified because of legal sensitivities,” reported that Armitage was the original source for Robert Novak’s piece outing Plame.[4] Isikoff also reported that Armitage had also told Bob Woodward of Plame’s identity in 2003, and that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald investigated Armitage’s role “aggressively,” but did not charge Armitage with a crime because he “found no evidence that Armitage knew of Plame’s covert CIA status when he talked to Novak and Woodward.”
Novak, in an August 27, 2006 appearance on Meet the Press, stated that although he still would not release the name of his source, he felt it was long overdue that the source reveal himself.[5]
According to The Washington Note, Armitage has testified before the grand jury three times.[6]
Armitage has also reportedly been a cooperative and key witness in the investigation.[1]
On August 29, 2006 Neil A. Lewis of The New York Times reported that Armitage is confirmed to be the first and primary source of the CIA leak investigation.[7]
Fitzgerald has issued no statement about Armitage’s involvement, and as of August 2006, the CIA leak investigation remains open.
On August 30th 2006, CNN reported that Armitage had been confirmed “by sources” as leaking Valerie Plame’s role as a CIA operative in a “casual conversation” with Robert Novak.
Additional partisan punditry (albeit from the Left) confirms that Armitage was the leaker. With almost no hint of irony, The Nation’s David Corn remarks:
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. He and Powell were not the leading advocates of war in the administration (even though Powell became the chief pitchman for the case for war when he delivered a high-profile speech at the UN). They were not the political hitmen of the Bush gang. Armitage might have mentioned Wilson’s wife merely as gossip. But–as Hubris notes–he also had a bureaucratic interest in passing this information to Novak.
In other words, the Bush administration did not and made no attempt to purposely smear Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame. Yet since Armitage — who definitely did not fit into the neocon cabal salivating over going to war in Iraq — leaked Plame’s identity, and that leak was helpful in completely discrediting Wilson’s public statements about his trip to Nigeria and advancing the White House’s agenda, we can therefore conclude that the Bush administration is de facto guilty of being evil. Or something like that.
The Newsweek story essentially draws these conclusions:
– The man who “leaked” Plame’s identity and her involvement in her husband’s Niger junket to columnist Bob Novak and other reporters was not Karl Rove, Scooter Libby or anyone else in the White House. It was Richard Armitage, then deputy secretary of state.
– Armitage’s motives were not malicious. He is “a well-known gossip who loves to dish and receive juicy tidbits about Washington characters” and “apparently hadn’t thought through the possible implications of telling Novak about Plame’s identity.”
– It was from a classified memo that Armitage learned Plame worked for the CIA. But there was no violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act; special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald “found no evidence that Armitage knew of Plame’s covert CIA status.” (By all available evidence, Plame’s covert status had expired by the time of her “outing” anyway.)
– In October 2003 Armitage confessed to his boss, Colin Powell, that he was the “leaker.” The State Department decided to withhold this information from the White House, because “Powell and his aides feared the White House would then leak that Armitage had been Novak’s source–possibly to embarrass State Department officials who had been unenthusiastic about Bush’s Iraq policy.”
My sincerest condolences to those of you who have still not wiped the egg off your face.
August 30th, 2006 at 10:41:34 pm
graduate of St. Pius X High School in the ATL - wooohooo.
August 30th, 2006 at 10:59:08 pm
But wait, I thought Rove was going to jail and this was the end of the current administration!!!! The HORROR!!!!!!!!!!!!
August 30th, 2006 at 11:04:34 pm
It’s a shame to see people scoff at smething that may very well have done serious damage to our WMD intel in Africa.
August 30th, 2006 at 11:26:25 pm
Andrew, you are so freakin’ smug when proven right. :)
August 30th, 2006 at 11:39:12 pm
Smug as a bug in a rug :)
August 31st, 2006 at 12:26:51 am
Andrew - I have found that a remarkably satisfying yet gentler usage is to ask “Is it a good time for me to say “I told you so !“, yet ?” …
Jolly good show !
(grin)
August 31st, 2006 at 12:38:15 am
You neglected to mention that Cheney and Scooter were instrumental in keeping the story alive after the initial leek. Which leads us to:
Found: Missing Intelligence on Iran
This past Saturday morning I heard an interesting observation from a former CIA agent. Apparently, Mike Rogers - republican US Congressman from Michigan’s 8th District & member of an Intelligence Committee - recently reported that the US needs better intelligence on Iran nuclear programs. Does this overstate the obvious?
On Saturday morning I also heard from a former FBI Agent that Rogers had “no comment” on the outing of Valerie Plame and the implosion of Plame’s cover company Brewster Jennings & Associates . Why was he not upset? Wouldn’t you expect him to be angry?
After all, if Rogers is really looking for “better intelligence� on Iran, shouldn’t he be angered if someone(s) in the Bush White House “outed� Plame-Wilson as part of a personal vendetta on the road to Iraq, while simultaneously killing a valuable intelligence asset and putting all agents associated with Brewster Jennings at risk? Will we ever know if any died?
The CIA agent and the FBI agent are the same man. The man who shared this information is a Navy, FBI, and CIA veteran and CIA classmate of Valerie Plame. This man is running against Mike Rogers as the real Intelligence Candidate.
This man is Jim Marcinkowski . Isn’t it time for public servants who know how to serve the public?
QuestionItNow
August 31st, 2006 at 1:47:04 am
DTW 06 - you have an interesting website … it took me a little while to find your core flavours - of Cindy Sheehan and Bill Maher and other such serious experts on Life …
Since you encourage questions - I have one or two for you …
Why does QuestionItNow hide its biases ? Is it not proud to be associated with the Mahers and Sheehans of this Life ?
August 31st, 2006 at 5:32:53 am
Frankly, I could care less who leaked the information as not only was the case for Plame’s covert status never really made, but after investigation by the DoJ and Fitzgerald, no crime was found with regards to the actual release of the information.
But I am pissed off at all the time and money wasted by Fitzgerald. He KNEW within the opening days of the investigation that Armitage was the initial leak and the official source. Exactly why then did he continue?!? Millions wasted for an obstruction and perjury charge without it even having to do with the initial leak! What the hell was the point of that? And he is there giving press conferences after the indictment calling Libby the initial leak when he knew it to be false.
August 31st, 2006 at 6:39:06 am
Further to Lojo’s point - Fitzgerald also knew what Libby was “lying” to cover up, which was effectively pseudo-guilt on the part of his boss Cheney, who probably should not have responded to requests for clarification, but surely THIS is a gun smoking FAR less than that one that peppered his hunting buddy…
…Not generally inclined to defend the Bush Administration - but the Armitrage revelation is quite outrageous, particularly in the sense that decent folks (e.g. Libby) paid such a price.
August 31st, 2006 at 11:30:13 am
So Libby lied himself into a trial because….?
Makes you wonder how these people are wired. Did Libby know his boss well enough to simply assume he was responsible for this leak, enough to go to the mat over it?
You would think that Libby would simply tell the truth. Hmmm.
August 31st, 2006 at 11:30:41 am
How is Libby decent? He LIED under oath?
August 31st, 2006 at 11:33:17 am
Honestly, I don’t see how this dramatically changes things. Now there’s just an additional person I think should be sent to jail.
August 31st, 2006 at 11:37:59 am
Briandot-
That’s a very good point. Additionally, this has been going on for three years. Why the hell didn’t Armitage speak up sooner? It’s just a mistake, correct? Seems pretty damn spineless to me.
August 31st, 2006 at 11:54:18 am
Can’t help but notice the interesting juxtaposition of the Bush administration’s attitude toward Fitzgerald and the Clinton administration’s attitude towards Ken Starr, considering the former had much more to be outraged about than the latter . . .
August 31st, 2006 at 12:24:22 pm
Joe Mama-
Interesting point. Kind of makes you think the Bush Administration is hiding something.
August 31st, 2006 at 12:43:26 pm
Re: whether Scooter Libby is not that bad a guy, the sequence of events (as I understand them) are roughly as follows:
1) Armitrage spills to Novak, maybe inadvertently.
2) Novak confirms widely, including Cheney, who I’ll give the benefit of the doubt (this ONCE) that he didn’t know Plame’s status. Cheney casually confirms who she is and thinks nothing more of it.
3) The shit hits the fan. Cheney and the others in #2 above understandably become nervous.
4) Fitzgerald snoops around on a topic that is a non-case (which everyone knows).
5) Libby lies to ‘protect’ Cheney, in that Libby knows there’s no THERE there, but if Fitzy is still asking questions he must have an axe to grind…
Does all this make Libby a bad guy?
I dare any of the Clinton-loving liberal hypocrites in this community to sigh and say “Well….he LIED….” :)
August 31st, 2006 at 12:49:55 pm
“Interesting point. Kind of makes you think the Bush Administration is hiding something.”
Except not really and not at all. A fair-minded person would likely conclude that the current administration doesn’t employ the strategy of smearing the authorities doing the investigating like the previous administration did.
August 31st, 2006 at 12:59:03 pm
Jazz-
First, Clinton did lie. I just don’t think that lie rose to the level of an impeachable offense. Second, Libby is a liar too. I guarantee you this guy will end up getting some sort of probation or deferred sentence out of this. He is still, however, a liar.
August 31st, 2006 at 3:13:40 pm
A&A - probably a valid point - then-President Clinton’s lie under oath didn’t need to be considered an impeachable offence … then again, the honourable thing to do, once caught, is to resign, is it not ? When then-President Clinton declined that honourable option, what should the Legislative Branch have done ?
With Libby, he can be prosecuted, as (I think) is happening …
August 31st, 2006 at 3:20:51 pm
As much as Clinton is a pathological liar and scumbag, and even though his offenses of perjury and obstruction of justice relating to an extra-marital affair were in the larger context of a sexual misconduct investigation that the Supreme Court unanimously decided he had to defend while in office, I didn’t and don’t believe these were impeachable offenses.
August 31st, 2006 at 4:23:29 pm
I mean, if a majority of the public thinks sexual misconduct — and crimes committed during the investigation thereof — isn’t serious enough to rise to the level of an impeachable offense, who am I to disagree?
August 31st, 2006 at 4:26:15 pm
And what the public thinks is crucially important when it comes to the impeachment of POTUS; impeachment of the nation’s chief executive is a political endeavor as much as it is a legal act, if not more so.
August 31st, 2006 at 5:13:35 pm
But back to the SAMELAMEPLAMENAMEGAME, the best line comes from James Taranto at the WSJ:
“The only winner in this whole deal is Joe Wilson’s ego — and think of the toll it’s taken on his poor little superego.”
August 31st, 2006 at 8:34:04 pm
To Angrier (et.al.),
I certainly agree that Libby is a liar and that he did lie.
My argument boils down to:
We now know that there was no “there” there, what Libby and other insiders presumably knew all along.
Special prosecutors can be big time pains in the rears (including frankly Ken Starr) in that they assemble these big teams of professionals on the dole at the prosecutor’s behest. Its hard to just let an investigation, and consequently the experts, go.
Against this backdrop Libby likely considered Fitzgerald’s persistence with the same suspicion THEN that we all feel NOW.
Libby likely calculated: would Fitzgerald go so far as an indictment of Cheney in order to get a few more per diems for his crew?
If you’re Libby, “lying” as he did, that would be a tough one to determine.
So, yes, yes, Libby lied, and hopefully Alasdair will tell his kids not to lie like Libby did.
At the same time, when the truth will not set you free, but possibly send your man away, for no good reason, well, I find it hard to be as critical of such a liar.
August 31st, 2006 at 9:59:08 pm
Jazz,
Can you link us to the indictment and evidence brought against Libby? I’d like to read it for myself.
Thanks,
Turning over the rocks…..
August 31st, 2006 at 10:08:21 pm
Andrew, you are so freakin’ smug when proven right. :)
But I am almost always right. Which perhaps explains why I am almost always smug.
But I am pissed off at all the time and money wasted by Fitzgerald. He KNEW within the opening days of the investigation that Armitage was the initial leak and the official source. Exactly why then did he continue?!? Millions wasted for an obstruction and perjury charge without it even having to do with the initial leak! What the hell was the point of that? And he is there giving press conferences after the indictment calling Libby the initial leak when he knew it to be false.
Lojo, if you read the stories, it appears Fitzy did not know Armitage was the initial leaker until after he had made his pronouncement to the press; apparently someone from State called him that evening and said, essentially, “Ahem, you said something factually incorrect; Libby was not the initial leak.” That said, you are correct: this investigation has been a giant, worthless waste of time over something that was never a crime.
August 31st, 2006 at 11:06:48 pm
Prospector,
I am not a lawyer, though there are several good ones back here. That said, here is the DOJ indictment against Libby:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf#search=%22Where%20can%20I%20find%20the%20indictment%20against%20Scooter%20Libby%3F%22
FWIW, my arguments are not specifically legal ones - I guess in a legal sense Libby is not innocent. I am more arguing from a ‘moral’ standpoint, that is, when Armitrage spills the beans, the reporters descend like flies, and Libby covers Cheney…YMMV
September 1st, 2006 at 12:26:19 pm
So does this mean the Wilsons are going to amend their trumped up bullsh*t Complaint to go after Richard Armitage, the real leaker? Don’t bet on it.
September 1st, 2006 at 12:52:12 pm
Today’s WaPo should be the final word on the matter:
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 IS 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
September 2nd, 2006 at 1:45:32 pm
“[I]it appears Fitzy did not know Armitage was the initial leaker until after he had made his pronouncement to the press . . . .”
Actually, “Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, knew the identity of the leaker from his very first day in the special counsel’s chair, but kept the inquiry open for nearly two more years before indicting I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, on obstruction charges.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/02/washington/02leak.html?ei=5065&en=1939cd793ece790a&ex=1157774400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
The NYTimes (of all media) appears to be holding Fitzgerald’s feet to the fire. As they say, read the whole thing.
September 2nd, 2006 at 5:36:29 pm
“[I]f you read the stories, it appears Fitzy did not know Armitage was the initial leaker until after he had made his pronouncement to the press . . . .”
Actually, “Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, knew the identity of the leaker from his very first day in the special counsel’s chair, but kept the inquiry open for nearly two more years before indicting I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, on obstruction charges.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/02/washington/02leak.html?ei=5065&en=1939cd793ece790a&ex=1157774400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
The NYTimes (of all newspapers!) appears to be holding Fitzgerald’s feet to the fire.
September 8th, 2006 at 10:56:34 pm
Those of you consistently arguing the right-wing talking points miss the forest for the trees. Karl Rove corroborated Armitage’s initial leak. This confirmation is what prompted Novak to run his treasonous expose’. At the time Plame was still under cover as was Brewster Jennings. How convenient of all you apologists to deny this reality.
The other talking point is the claim that Plame was a pencil pusher who had no real job at the CIA. Once again, this is pure fabrication. Check out an interview this week on the Diane Rehm show with the authors of Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War. This book was originally started to cover the Plame case. However, the authors soon saw the story is bigger. This is about selling a preemptive, elective war to the American people and the war.
Do any of you still believe Saddam was attempting to acquire nuclear material from Niger?
Oh yeah, we make no attempt to hide our biases at QuestionItNow. As Stephen Colbert said, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.�
September 8th, 2006 at 10:58:37 pm
Correction: This is about selling a preemptive, elective war to America and the world!