Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

One Leak and a Flood of Silliness

By David S. Broder
Thursday, September 7, 2006; A27



Conspiracy theories flourish in politics, and most of them have no more basis than spring training hopes for the Chicago Cubs.

Whenever things turn dicey for Republicans, they complain about the "liberal media" sabotaging them. And when Democrats get in a jam, they take up Hillary Clinton's warnings about a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

For much of the past five years, dark suspicions have been voiced about the Bush White House undermining its critics, and Karl Rove has been fingered as the chief culprit in this supposed plot to suppress the opposition.

Now at least one count in that indictment has been substantially weakened -- the charge that Rove masterminded a conspiracy to discredit Iraq intelligence critic Joseph Wilson by "outing" his CIA-operative wife, Valerie Plame.

I have written almost nothing about the Wilson-Plame case, because it seemed overblown to me from the start. Wilson's claim in a New York Times op-ed about his memo on the supposed Iraqi purchase of uranium yellowcake from Niger; the Robert D. Novak column naming Plame as the person who had recommended Wilson to check up on the reported sale; the call for a special prosecutor and the lengthy interrogation that led to the jailing of Judith Miller of the New York Times and the deposition of several other reporters; and, finally, the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff -- all of this struck me as being a tempest in a teapot.

No one behaved well in the whole mess -- not Wilson, not Libby, not special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and not the reporters involved.

The only time I commented on the case was to caution reporters who offered bold First Amendment defenses for keeping their sources' names secret that they had better examine the motivations of the people leaking the information to be sure they deserve protection.

But caution has been notably lacking in some of the press treatment of this subject -- especially when it comes to Karl Rove. And it behooves us in the media to examine that behavior, not just sweep it under the rug.

Sidney Blumenthal, a former aide to President Bill Clinton and now a columnist for several publications, has just published a book titled, "How Bush Rules: Chronicles of a Radical Regime." It is a collection of his columns for Salon, including one originally published on July 14, 2005, titled "Rove's War."

It was occasioned by the disclosure of a memo from Time magazine's Matt Cooper, saying that Rove had confirmed to him the identity of Valerie Plame. To Blumenthal, that was proof that this "was political payback against Wilson by a White House that wanted to shift the public focus from the Iraq War to Wilson's motives."

Then Blumenthal went off on a rant: "While the White House stonewalls, Rove has license to run his own damage control operation. His surrogates argue that if Rove did anything, it wasn't a crime. . . . Rove is fighting his war as though it will be settled in a court of Washington pundits. Brandishing his formidable political weapons, he seeks to demonstrate his prowess once again. His corps of agents raises a din in which their voices drown out individual dissidents. His frantic massing of forces dominates the capital by winning the communications battle. Indeed, Rove may succeed momentarily in quelling the storm. But the stillness may be illusory. Before the prosecutor, Rove's arsenal is useless."

In fact, the prosecutor concluded that there was no crime; hence, no indictment. And we now know that the original "leak," in casual conversations with reporters Novak and Bob Woodward, came not from the conspiracy theorists' target in the White House but from the deputy secretary of state at the time, Richard Armitage, an esteemed member of the Washington establishment and no pal of Rove or President Bush.

Blumenthal's example is far from unique. Newsweek, in a July 25, 2005, cover story on Rove, after dutifully noting that Rove's lawyer said the prosecutor had told him that Rove was not a target of the investigation, added: "But this isn't just about the Facts, it's about what Rove's foes regard as a higher Truth: That he is a one-man epicenter of a narrative of Evil."

And in the American Prospect's cover story for August 2005, Joe Conason wrote that Rove "is a powerful bully. Fear of retribution has stifled those who might have revealed his secrets. He has enjoyed the impunity of a malefactor who could always claim, however implausibly, deniability -- until now."

These and other publications owe Karl Rove an apology. And all of journalism needs to relearn the lesson: Can the conspiracy theories and stick to the facts.

Time for Answers From the Times

By Andrew Cline
Published 9/7/2006 12:08:21 AM
Ten days after Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and the Nation's David Corn revealed -- contrary to Corn's previous speculation -- that the original leaker in the Valerie Plame controversy was former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and not Karl Rove or another of former Ambassador Joe Wilson's bogeymen, the New York Times finally got around to editorializing on the matter. And what an editorial it was.

Keep in mind that the story broke on Saturday, Aug. 27, The Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune editorialized on the matter on Sept. 1, five days later, the Los Angeles Times ran its editorial on Tuesday, and on Wednesday, the New York Times finally weighed in. Were the Times' editorial writers doing extensive research and crafting a masterful editorial? Nope.

In its editorial titled "Time for Answers," after identifying Valerie Plame as a "covert C.I.A. agent" the Times writes: "The revelation tells us something important. But, unfortunately, it is not the answer to the central question in the investigation -- whether there was an organized attempt by the White House to use Mrs. Wilson to discredit or punish her husband, Joseph Wilson. A former diplomat, Mr. Wilson debunked the claim that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger to make nuclear weapons."

Yes, it's time for answers -- from the Times. How does it know for certain that Valerie Plame was both "covert" and an "agent"? The source of those claims is her husband, and other major media organizations have withheld judgment. The Washington Post calls Plame merely a "former CIA employee." The Los Angeles Times uses scare quotes when describing the "outing" of Plame. But the Times swallows the Wilson line whole.

The Times also, incredibly, persists in asserting that "Mr. Wilson debunked the claim that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger to make nuclear weapons." Do the Times editorial writers read anything other than their own editorial page?

In the past six months, journalist Christopher Hitchens has shown all but conclusively that Iraq did in fact send a diplomat to buy uranium from Niger. Hitchens reported here and here that Iraq sent Wissam al-Zahawie -- described as "Iraq's top negotiator on nuclear weapons issues" by none other than Ambassador Rolf Ekeus, the UN's first UNSCOM chairman and Hans Blix's predecessor in that position -- to Niger on Feb. 8, 1999. Zahawie, of course, has denied going to buy uranium. He even said, preposterously, that he had no idea Niger produced uranium. Niger holds one of the world's largest reserves of uranium ore, which is the country's No. 1 export. Iraq's top diplomat assigned to nuclear weapons issues, who had visited Niger on an official diplomatic mission, did not know this? Not believable. Hitchens has amassed a solid case suggesting very strongly that Zahawie's trip was the one British intelligence warned the United States about.

Remember that famous forged Niger document that caused the Bush administration to drop its claim that Iraq sought uranium in Niger? A NATO investigation found that it was forged by two employees of Niger's embassy in Rome -- not the CIA or the Bush administration, the Times of London reported in April. Other documents passed from the embassy, which indicated that Zahawie indeed went to Niger to inquire about purchasing uranium, have been found authentic.

The Times completely ignores all of this reporting, which Hitchens, in his own column on the Armitage revelation, which was published on Aug. 29, says has not "received any rebuttal from any source."

The Times editorial goes on to lamely discuss Patrick Fitzgerald's slowly paced investigation and urge that he bring it to an end, as if that were the real heart of this very important story.

Nowhere does the Times acknowledge, as other journalists have, that the truth -- the actual facts as we now know them -- undermines the very foundation of Joe Wilson's claims. It completely ignores not only quality reporting showing that Joe Wilson missed the story in Niger, and therefore debunked nothing, but also the plain fact -- revealed by left-leaning journalists -- that Wilson's wife was not outed, her life endangered, by a White House bent on seeking revenge for Wilson's baseless 2003 New York Times op-ed.

For contrast, here is the Washington Post, hardly a partisan defender of the administration, from its Sept. 1 editorial: "It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Wilson -- is untrue."

The Post goes on, noting that if Fitzgerald's case against Scooter Libby holds up, Libby and his boss Dick Cheney "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."

The Post's editorial board has concluded both that Wilson did not debunk the Iraq uranium-shopping story and that his wife was not outed by an administration bent on revenge. That's because the evidence refutes Wilson's claims. And yet the Times editorial board chooses to ignore the evidence and perpetuate Wilson's delusional story.

That is an amazing dereliction of journalistic duty, particularly for America's unofficial "newspaper of record."

Pilloried By The Post

Dangerous Liaisons: Wilson, Armitage and the MSM

A case of mistaken identity

Debra J. Saunders

Thursday, August 31, 2006

WITH the disclosure that former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the initial source for Robert Novak's July 2003 column that outed CIA operative Valerie Wilson -- also known as Valerie Plame, wife of former ambassador and Iraq-war critic Joseph Wilson -- it is now clear that all the hype about a Bush-inspired vendetta against the Wilsons is bunk.

The outing of Wilson was not an act of treason. It was not a deliberate effort to smear an administration critic. It was not an act of revenge orchestrated by Bush political guru Karl Rove. It was not an effort to hurt anyone's CIA career. It was gossip.

As Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff, co-author of the book "Hubris" about the Wilson leak and Iraq pre-war intelligence, wrote, "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."

No one knows how much special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has spent in taxpayers' money investigating this leak, but figure the probe came with a hefty price tag because he has been in business since December 2003. We do know now, however, that when Fitzgerald set up shop, the secretary of State and someone at the Department of Justice knew that Armitage leaked the story. As Fitzgerald has failed to charge Armitage, it seems as though the leak was not a crime, which suggests that the investigation has been colossal waste of time and money.

What did America learn? Rove confirmed Wilson's identity. Big deal. As Mark Corallo, who served as Rove's spokesman during this controversy, noted, Rove "never made a single phone call to a single journalist on this matter. He simply answered two phone questions from two journalists." For confirming, not initiating, the Armitage leak, Rove was hauled before a grand jury five times.

Rove is not the only White House aide made to jump through hoops. Some 2,000 White House staffers also were hopping as they had to produce phone records, diaries and correspondence.

Then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller spent 85 days behind bars before disclosing who told her about Wilson -- even though she never wrote about the CIA operative's identity. That's another colossal waste of taxpayers' dollars, which would have been better spent jailing a real criminal.

Fitzgerald has charged Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide, with perjury and obstruction of justice. But the special prosectuor's failure to charge the original leaker makes one question whether Fitzgerald was mindful of his office's mandate -- that a special prosecutor's probe, as Attorney General Janet Reno wrote in 1999, "be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies." Instead, Fitzgerald's actions have been plodding and heavy-handed, landing a journalist who didn't write on the leak behind bars, while the leaker remained anonymous and free.

As for the time table, while Deputy U.S. Attorney General James B. Comey told reporters that Fitzgerald had a reputation for working quickly, Fitzgerald has spent years investigating a leak that he has failed to prosecute, although the Libby prosecution is pending.

The irony is that as Joe Wilson charged that the White House was pursuing him as an act of revenge, he emerges as a partisan bent on punishing those with whom he disagreed. Wilson, after all, once bragged that he wanted to see Rove "frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs." The Wilsons filed a silly lawsuit suit against Libby, Cheney and Rove.

Armitage was not an Iraq war hawk, so it should come as no surprise that Wilson's attorney has given Armitage a pass. "Mr. Armitage's conduct does not change the facts of what Libby, Cheney and Rove did," Melanie Sloan told CNN. "The case is about the abuse of government power."

Yes, it is about the abuse of government power. The victims are the innocent staffers and journalists who had to face the threat of jail over three years while Armitage was too ashamed to come forward and admit what he had begun.

I am a little shocked at the Post's editorial. But it should be remembered that even the Post is not always correct.

There is no doubt that there was treason by the White House in outing Plame, a covert CIA agent. It damaged the security of our country. Personally, I would like to see the treasonous bast*rds shot.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted

MM, do you contend that the White House did NOT aid and abet our enemies when it outed Plame? She was working undercover, ostensibly for an energy company, monitoring WMD research and development in Iran and Iraq. What more important work regarding our security can there be?

Advocate wrote:

MM, do you contend that the White House did NOT aid and abet our enemies when it outed Plame? She was working undercover, ostensibly for an energy company, monitoring WMD research and development in Iran and Iraq. What more important work regarding our security can there be?

Leftists and journalists give more aid and comfort to our enemies every single day of the week.

Leftists and journalists give more aid and comfort to our enemies every single day of the week.