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
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 9/5/2006
Politics: The Washington Post has proclaimed an end to the Wilson-Plame "affair." But if the witch hunt is over, why is Scooter Libby still tied to the stake with prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald holding a match?
Now that it has been revealed that it was then deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage, a mainstream media favorite, who "outed" Valerie Plame as a CIA agent, blabbing first to the Post's own Bob Woodward, and then to columnist Robert Novak, the Post has decided in its Sept. 1 editorial, "End Of An Affair," that "too much attention and debate in Washington" has been devoted to the story. Really.
That wasn't the case when The Post was relying heavily on the reckless and unfounded charges of Joe Wilson, Plame's publicity-shy husband, to lead what Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard has properly labeled a "journalistic jihad against the White House and Bush political operative Karl Rove."
During those giddy days for Bush critics, it looked like Wilson would indeed get to see Karl Rove "frog-marched" out of the White House in handcuffs. But now that there has been shown to be no White House cabal, no politically malicious intent, and no crime The Post wants to pull an Emily Litella, and get away with a "never mind"?
We say not enough attention has been paid, particularly to the star-chamber actions of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who may yet get his picture in the dictionary next to the phrase "prosecutorial misconduct."
He not only knew "outing" Valerie Plame was no crime, and charged no one for it, but he likely knew who did the outing, one Richard Armitage, who even The Post admits did so "in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip." As Barnes notes, Armitage told the FBI in October 2003 that Armitage was the source. The Justice Department knew it, and so must have Fitzgerald when he was appointed special prosecutor on Dec. 20, 2003.
Which is why we find it amusing for The Post to opine that regarding "the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, on charges of perjury," that "all of this could have been avoided had Armitage's identity been known three years ago."
But it was known three years ago ?- by Woodward and Fitzgerald ?- as was the innocence of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Rove and, yes, Libby, a man not charged with outing a secret agent, but with essentially having a different recollection of conversations with reporters than the reporters did.
The Post, like Fitzgerald, won't let go entirely, repeating the bogus charge that Libby allegedly "lied to a grand jury when he said he learned of her (Plame's) identity to reporters." Valerie Plame's identity, published in her husband's Who's Who entry, was common knowledge around Washington, and she wasn't a covert agent, and hadn't been for a long time, at the time of her "outing." Fitzgerald knew that too, yet he pursued the case like Captain Ahab pursuing Moby Dick.
Fitzgerald knew no underlying crime had been committed. But he felt compelled to come up with something, so he indicted Cheney's chief of staff for obstructing an investigation that never should have occurred into a crime for which no one has been charged, indeed, a crime that never happened.
As we've said, there's no reason to continue with the persecution of Libby other than Fitzgerald's trying to justify his existence by offering Libby up as a human sacrifice to the Bush-bashing anti-war left.
We have an editorial suggestion for The Post: Demand an investigation of what Fitzgerald knew and when he knew it. We even have a title ?- "Free Scooter Libby."
Dangerous Liaisons: Wilson, Armitage and the MSM
September 2nd, 2006
In an article shamelessly ignoring its role in the Wilson hoax and solicitous of the leaker, the New York Times, on a holiday weekend Saturday, mentions that Richard Armitage was the source of the leak of Plame's identity.* It focuses on whether Fitzgerald was right to continue the prosecution after he knew Novak didn't learn about Plame from Rove or Libby, the people the paper railed against from the moment Nicholas Kristof megaphoned Ambassador Munchausen's fabulous tale of his Mission to Niger more three years ago:
WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 ?- An enduring mystery of the C.I.A. leak case has been solved in recent days, but with a new twist: 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.
Now, the question of whether Mr. Fitzgerald properly exercised his prosecutorial discretion in continuing to pursue possible wrongdoing in the case has become the subject of rich debate on editorial pages and in legal and political circles.
To me, it's an "enduring mystery" how the paper which was the first to print as truth Wilson's lies and which trumpeted them for three years, can write this self-protecting bilge with a straight face.
Still, if you still believe anything they publish, there are two eyeopeners in this article:
He turned over his calendars, datebooks and even his wife's computer in the course of the inquiry, those associates said. But Mr. Armitage kept his actions secret, not even telling President Bush because the prosecutor asked him not to divulge it, the people said.
Of course, the President had, from the day a leak was claimed, asked everyone in his Administration to tell him if they had leaked. He certainly would not have agreed to an investigation nor demanded his people cooperate with it, even signing waivers of press confidentiality, had he known who the leaker was. He would have just fired him or kept him on with the explanation?-which no one much questions?-that it was inadvertent, regretful and had not in any way harmed national security.
Had Armitage followed his boss' orders, the Administration would not have been kept in the dark and frequently pummeled for three years in the NYT for "outing Plame," punishing a "whistleblower" and damaging national security (ironically even as the paper itself deliberately leaked critical national security secrets which the Administration and a bipartisan Congressional delegation begged the paper not to publish). Another question is the identity of this "prosecutor" who, by the Times' account,
asked him not to divulge it, the people said.
Fitzgerald wasn't appointed until months after Armitage's miraculous memory recovery about Novak. No one in the DOJ could have asked him not to tell the President.
And, if Armitage had turned over his calendars, why did the prosecutor apparently fail to ask him about the meeting with Woodward on June 12? This failure to ask about notations of conversations with other reporters looks to me like even more evidence of the skewed nature of this probe. Kind of like Durham, NC DA Mike Nifong's using a photo identification which showed only the faces of the Duke Lacrosse team when asking the alleged victim to identify her attackers. (Hey, pick a fish out of only this barrel for me to prosecute.)
Mr. Armitage had prepared a resignation letter, his associates said. But he stayed on the job because State Department officials advised that his sudden departure could lead to the disclosure of his role in the leak, the people aware of his actions said.
Better to have left Libby and Rove dangling than tip them off to the truth? Got it. Prince of a fellow. And boy, those unnamed State department officials are paragons of loyalty and virtue. Real statesmen.
The Washington Post called Wilson a liar and dubbed the denouement of his fable "End of an Affair." I'd call this new series of disclosures "Dangerous Liaisons" because at the moment a lot of people in the Capitol remind me of the Marquise de Merteuil after her schemings have been discovered. As for the New York Times, I have to say its continuing reportage on this matter is to me simply indescribable. In the meantime, even the Washington Post's volte face is deficient in a number of respects. And it is a volte face. Tom Maguire notes, because he is so fair, a number of occasions where several of the Post's writers, Woodward, Dana Priest and Walter Pincus, downplayed the incident.
Still, other writers at the Post did continue the Wilson fable, which Pincus began, and the paper waited two and one-half years to correct those lies, even after the SenateSelectCommission on Intelligence and the Butler and Robb-Silverman Commissions established that the claims made by Wilson were fabrications. But the Post piece insinuates that even if the prosecution was based on a false premise that is no excuse for lying or obstructing it, giving more weight to the actual claims in the indictment than they merit. In fact, this adds insult to injury. The charges in the indictment are as warped as the rest of the investigation and prosecution. Tom Maguire has some fun with this:
With Cooper, it is clear (to some) that after Karl Rove learned from Novak that a column about Wilson and Plame was imminent, Rove ruthlessly sat by the phone and waited for Matt Cooper to call him and ask about Niger.
Then when Cooper interviewed Libby the next day, Libby was so brutal and crafty that he never raised the subject of Ms. Plame, but offered something like "I heard that, too" when Cooper asked him about her.
But it's worse than that. In pretrial disovery the judge found that the documents in Time's possession showed that however Cooper testified, his testimony would be impeachable at trial. Let me clarify what this means. It means Time has had in its possession from the outset evidence that Cooper said one thing in the newsroom and another to the grand jury. What else can this mean?
As to Miller, Tom observes mordantly,
"And the Judy Miller leak? Libby was so intent on besmirching Wilson with the nepotism charge that he forgot to tell Judy that Ms. Plame had a role in arranging her husband's trip to Niger.
And Special Counsel Fitzgerald still can't prove that Libby was aware of Ms. Plame's classified status back when he was conspiring to punish Joe by outing hs wife. (Too bad Libby didn't use his psychic powers to get the truth about Saddam's WMDs ). Oh well - Fitzgerald only had two years to look into this. The truth will emerge any day now, or at least, within the next 24 business hours."
As to Miller, the Judge has held that documentation in the New York Times' possession MAY impeach her testimony depending on how she testifies. After she testifies Libby will get to see and use it. In any event (even by her reports of her testimony) it was so unintelligible, the variations in her and Libby's testimony is only a factor in an obstruction charge, not an independent perjury or false tesimony charge.
I wonder if Armitage's calendar shows notations of conversations with Miller? If so, I wonder whether the prosecutor ignored those as he apparently did the notations respecting Woodward? Her notes, after all, showed she had Wilson's name and phone number and numerous references to VictoriaWilson/Plame /Flame? which she said were not references to her conversations with Libby, and by agreement with the Prosecutor those sources were not revealed.
This leaves, the Russert/Libby conversation . As I've detailed more fully:
Libby testified that on July 10 or 11, 2003 he had a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC. According to Libby's grand jury statement, Russert asked him if he (Libby) was aware that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and told Libby "all the reporters knew it."
According to the indictment Libby and Russert did not discuss this at all.
Since Woodward has come forward, he has said he might well have approached Libby about that time about Wilson and Plame, right after his conversation with Armitage on June 12, 2003. His notes indicate he intended to ask Libby about Wilson and Plame and may well have. He does not believe Libby responded to this because he has no notation that he did.
So, it is entirely possible, assuming Russert's testimony is credible, that he never discussed this at all with Libby, Libby may have confused his conversation with Russert at about the very same time with the one he had with Woodward.Woodward unsuccessfully tried twice in 2004 to get a waiver from Armitage so that he could tell the Prosecutor about his conversation with Armitage. He has said,
And my sworn testimony is that [this conversation with Libby is] possible. I simply don't recall it, and he certainly said nothing. But after long interviews and you have long lists of questions, you can't really say, "Gee, did I ask that or that." At least, two years later, I can't. Maybe the next day I might have been able to.
If Armitage had given Woodward the early waiver he sought, and Fitzgerald then asked Woodward about any conversations with Libby, this might have finally concluded the matter, for it is patent that Libby might well have believed that having had two conversations on the same day?-one with Cheney and one with Woodward?-that he confused who told him first. And absent any notes of the chance meeting in the hall with Woodward, he may have well confused the discussions with the two reporters,attributing the remark to Russert.
And Libby is the man charged with obstruction?
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.
