Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Feldman is very good at throwing around unjustified adjectives, but mainly shows herself as a shill for the right. This is typical of other pieces in The American Thinker.

For instance, she really goes after Wilson, saying, inter alia, that he was well known for being against invading Iraq well before the war. I have never seen this anywhere else. Moreover, he was a life-long Republican. Also, he did an excellent job, contrary to Feldman's assertions, in going to Niger and correctly determining that Iraq was not making an effort to get yellow cake. There were two other reports by US officials saying the same thing.

Shill for The Left!
Shill for The Right!
Stand up!
Sit down!
Fight, fight, fight!

Here is a cogent reader comment to a Postcrescent editorial.


You wrote:
"The evidence points to an independent prosecutor who had the White House in his sights and would not be shaken from it, which contradicts his reputation as a man of no-nonsense integrity. But how else do you explain his investigation?

A president and his aides are a juicy target that can be hard to ignore for a career-minded prosecutor. If that's what happened, perhaps the saga isn't over, and Fitzgerald himself should be placed on the hot seat. "

These two paragraphs contradict not only what we know of Fitzgerald, but simple first-grade logic. I can understand your confusion, as no less than Fred Hiatt has the same problem with shiny objects when the Plame situation comes up.

The analogy making the rounds now is dead on: Someone steals a hubcap off your car. Later someone else takes the car itself. Do you not prosecute the second person who stole the car just because he wasn't the first to commit a crime?

Libby revealed Plame's name. The investigation rightly focused on whether he thereby broke the Espionage Act. The act doesn't require one to be the FIRST to reveal a name. Every single revelation of a national secret is a violation unless certain clearances are obtained. Libby didn't have those clearances. And he lied and obstructed justice to cover whatever he did. Hmm...why does one do that, eh?

So why isn't Armitage also being pursued? I have no more idea than anyone else. I think, like Libby, he probably skated on that charge, as it's brutally hard to prove. Unlike Libby, he didn't lie and obstruct justice. So there you go.

Your heartlessness on this matter is astounding. Plame lost her career. She's become the target of a disgusting smear campaign. National security was compromised. Our nation lost a rare asset, as Plame was a NOC working on Iraqi nuclear weapons. And you worry about Scooter Libby's career! All public evidence on the subject paints him, Cheney and Rove and others as scoundrels of the first order, traitors in the simple spirit of the word traitor, and all for exceptionally petty political vengeance, and all from within the White House.

--postcrescent.com

Advocate, your "cogent reader" there wrote " ... Libby revealed Plame's name. The investigation rightly focused on whether he thereby broke the Espionage Act ... " - "cogent reader" at best is in misaprehension of the facts and circumstances; the charges against Libby have nothing whatsoever to do with the primary focus of the investigation - an investigation which to date has issued no finding, nor even prosecutorial allegation, of criminality in the central matter - but rather are internally proceedural, pertaining only to conflicting testimony, without regard to the matter at said testimony.

The reader doesn't say otherwise. There is no doubt that Libby exposed Plame's name, if not her ID. Judith Miller confirmed this. However, Fitz decided to prosecute for obstruction of justice. Remember, they got Al Capone on income tax evasion.

The reader is correct in saying that there are serious issues yet to be resolved in the Plame Game. Plus, you have the matter of the civil suit.

Do you really feel that there was no wrongdoing by the administration?

I anticipate that both the independent counsel's indictments against Libby and the Wilson/Plame civil suit will - as have the previous Democrat "smoking gun" assaults on the Bush Administration - collapse for lack of substance.

Yep.

You may well be right that nothing will come of Fitz's investigation, which would be a pity. But when you say there is no substance regarding charges against the administration, you must be winking, with your fingers crossed.

The question immediately previous to your post was "Do you think there was wrongdoing by this administration?"
Not "Can anyone prove they did something illegal?"

No ... I'm not.

snood, what part of "lack of substance" don't you understand?

For a bit more of that sour old douche bag, novak...

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/17/novak-stewart/

Advocate,

You don't get to be a top notch shill like these jokers doing anything like that.

Mislead, run off on silly tangents, produce copious amounts of smoke and mirrors; that's the stuff they're is made of.

I just watched the Bush press conference, in which he lied about the Dems eliminating the interrogation and detection of terrorists.

This seemed particularly incongruous in view of his actions and those of his administration in destroying the career and effectiveness of a covert CIA agent.

I guess we can now just wait for the Libby pardon.

There is no doubt that before Armitage leaked to Novak the White House was plotting to make the leak themselves. In fact, Libby leaked the information to a reporter twice before Armitage mentioned Plame.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12101

So now the claim is that although they didn't do it, THEY WERE PLANNING TO DO IT, so they are guilty. Is that the best you libs can come up with after 2 or 3 years? And what they were planning to do, supposedly according to you, Advocate, was not a crime anyway, according to Fitzgerald himself, I heard him say it a year or so ago in his own stupid press conference, so get over it.

So now the claim is that although they didn't do it, THEY WERE PLANNING TO DO IT, so they are guilty. Is that the best you libs can come up with after 2 or 3 years? And what they were planning to do, supposedly according to you, Advocate, was not a crime anyway, according to Fitzgerald himself, I heard him say it a year or so ago in his own stupid press conference.

So now the claim is that although they didn't do it, THEY WERE PLANNING TO DO IT, so they are guilty? Is that the best you libs can come up with after 2 or 3 years? And what they were planning to do, supposedly according to you, Advocate, was not a crime anyway, according to Fitzgerald himself, I heard him say it a year or so ago in his own stupid press conference.

You'd do well to resist, no matter how naturally it comes to you, taking that haughty tone so hastily - especially when you are the one not making sense here.
If someone asks you if you think there has been "some wrongdoing" by someone, and your answer is that you think the "charges lack substance", you have not ,your snottiness notwithstanding, clearly answered the question. You have indulged in legalistic sophistry that carefully says nothing.

Substance is the hinge on which the law swings, snood - without substance, there's legally nothing, like it or not, understand it or not.