Powered by TypePad

« Prospective New House Chairman | Main | There's A Shocker! »

August 27, 2006



When is "I heard that too" a coordinated attack

Don't you see ??? By denying Cheney sent Joe the obvious question becomes "who did then?".

Clearly a conspiracy to out Val and destroy her career !!!


Isikoff and Corn are coming out with a book-and this article is the press release, shocked. So Justice and FBI knew on 2 Oct 2003 that it was Armitage (the skeptic of the Iraq War and "barrel chested Vietnam Vet") who was flapping to anyone with a pen and pad his juicy bit of Washington gossip-did he wake up one morning and forget OP-SEC or is there some sort of "Washington Rules"-that if you don't like the policy (or the people arguing the policy) it is ok to screw them over. Unbelievable

Think this might answer the reason why the Turkish front was closed-State didn't want to play and they sure as hell were not going to help. Unbelievable...

A barrel-chested Vietnam vet who had volunteered for combat, Armitage at times expressed disdain for Dick Cheney and other administration war hawks who had never served in the military. Armitage routinely returned from White House meetings shaking his head at the armchair warriors.

Worked in the chickenhawk argument (check)

the White House also told reporters about Wilson's wife in an effort to discredit Wilson for his public attacks on Bush's handling of Iraq intelligence

"lied us into war" (check)

72 days before the election-Wilson-Plame is well past its sell by date, the book is the "moveon" for this story. Its also self-serving for Corn-and his little Nation piece (using Wilson as a source)


Right you are, boris. The only acceptable, non-criminal response to the Wilson shitarama was "no comment". Anything else was pure revenge seeking.

I took a peek at one of the sinosphere blogs on this--good grief. Talk about convoluted thinking and "received truths".And they have the nerve to attack fundamentalist religious!!

Cecil Turner

I'd say there's a big difference between the Armitage leak (which is bad in a formal way, though I read it goes on all the time) and the Rove/Libby leaks - a deliberate and coordinated strategy by WH officials to, at least, put multiple reporters onto investigating Plame's job.

I'm sure there would be a big difference, if the latter had happened. Unfortunately, there's precisely zero evidence that it did, and plenty of indications that it didn't. Follow that up with the obvious: they were informed about the leak before they set their nefarious plot into play; and it becomes obvious that the purported "deliberate and coordinated strategy" is nonsensical. Hence, the only place it happened is in the fevered mind of Kos and the like-minded (easily spotted by their tinfoil beanie headgear).


Q.E.D. about moonbat fundamentalists. It is received truth that there was a conspriace to out Plame, ergo...(no need at all to examine the known facts which show there was no such thing. Ever.)


Thanks for the link windansea. I refer everyone to it.

Clarice I know you more than far more than me but I still don't see an explanation . Mr. Ballard-you don't know more than me, but I don't see an explanation from you either. Comey's quotes aren't the issue. The issue is how Comey mamaged to evade the applicable regulations.

There's something rotten in Denmark. Here's Comey in the initial press conference linked above by winandse:

"The regulations promulgated in 1999 by Attorney General Reno say that an outside special counsel should..."

Comey is saying outright that Fitz's is as an outside special counsel appointment under the CFR: 28 CFR 600. These are the Code of Federal Regulations I quoted in part above. There's a lot I didn't quote about Fitz's reporting requirements thereunder.

I still don't see how Fitz got out of his obligations to report to Gonzalez under the CFR or where Gonzales is free to blow off the report. Those are still the applicable CFR!

So how has the DOJ/Comey set up Fitzgerald as as some rogue prosecutor.

And why?

And why would the White House go along?

Look Byron York is saying there are lots of question about this investigation, and you know whose side he's on.

That's all I'm asking.

Rick Ballard


With regard to your question in the update - could Corn be referring to the July 7 Ford - Powell reiteration of the June 10 Ford - Grossman memo, which had the February 19, 2002 meeting notes appended?

It's not as if Corn is much to brag about - some of his sloppiness is simply careless writing.


Um-I meant you know more about this than me Clarice.


Ah yes-Mr. Ballard-I see you have Mr. Comey's quote later denying the CFR applies.

My question is exactly how the hell Comey was authorized to do that and why did the White House allow it.?


Don, Comey didn't follow DoJ regs in appointing Fitz. He made an extra statutory appointment. (Unconstitutional one, I say). Here's an article I wrote on that.



Hey, I've stopped reading KOS... I even announced it here on JOM!

I'm waiting to see what TM has to say about the 1x2x6 formula, that came from someone in the Administration, not me... assuming you accept the sourcing for that article.

I'm not surprised that you (plural) disagree about my saying "deliberate and coordinated strategies" and conspiracies, that's why I write it that was - to suggest what might be true but isn't yet known, and what you don't want to believe (fundamentally).


I apologize to Clarice, Ballard and Windansea. I was misinformed!

But now I'm more outraged! I agree that was wrong, Clarice. But back to my original ?-why did the White House let that happen??

Rick Ballard


It's almost impossible to tell honest puzzlement from dishonest posturing. I apologize for assuming dishonesty on your part. The pertinent documents concerning Fitzgerald's appointment can be found here. If you follow the right hand column here down to the header entitled Wilson/Plame you will find some material helpful in understanding some of the finer points discussed here. There are a number of threads in the archives where discussions concerning the propriety of Fitzgerald's appointment are discussed at length and in great detail.

I do know more about the matter than you do and there are others here that know much more than I do. You're joining the discussion at a very late date but your perspective is a reminder about how very little has actually reached the public concerning Fitzgerald's appointment.


If you recall the dems jumped on this as a chance to weaken Bush...they really had no choice but to allow appointment of an SP to avoid charges of a white wash or admin coverup....and the MSM jumped right in to help


Actually, Don--this is a more detailed analysis of the nature of the appointment.

Why did the WH allow that to happen?
The media and therefore public pressure was enormous and the President was confident that his people were nnot guilty of that charge..something even this benighted investigation established was true.


So are Isikof and Corn now considered credible sources and if so, why?

Isikof lied about the flushing of the Korans

Korn despite the facts keeps chanting about no WMDs in Iraq

Why are these two ass-hats rantings about Armitage now considered credible?

I had guessed it was Armitage since that appeasement monkey wasn't making any real headway over at the State Department...


The media and therefore public pressure was enormous and the President was confident that his people were nnot guilty of that charge..something even this benighted investigation established was true.

That's my take on it too Clarice - let the moonbats chase their tails, we have other fish to fry.

The problem is of course, the moonbats make mountains out of minutia, and when that all fails they just make it up. The law doesn't apply to them, and they have the media on their side.

Am I correct that Armitage still has not admitted he is the "leaker", and is instead being outed by Isikoff and Corn?


confident that his people were not guilty

As a general rule the innocent trust an honest investigation will lead to the truth.

Any other assumption becomes part of the problem. IOW even if one is aware that BDS fumes make everything prone to catch fire, honesty is still the best policy. Hope for the best and there's always the pardon.


Right, Jane. Still no admission on his part.


Well, I've learned my lesson Clarice-no more Plame for me. I'll just continue to spectate.

Mr. Ballard-you can take me as an example of a Republican leaning guy who's a little sour right now and thinks his lessening distaste for Democratics has been tempered only by their distance from power.

I always thought-ok the White House is being harassed by a special counsel-politics as usual. EXCEPT since it's a DOJ investigation, there must be something there, e.g. if Reno had been investigating Clinton-how long would that thing have lasted? Smoke-fire, I thought if Bush's own DOJ was after it. Now it looks like there never was even any smoke, much less fire, but Libby still got burned.

Absent gross political mismanagement of this whole thing, I still can't tell what the hell is going on.


In the course of things, there are a number of people culpable for this fraud. But it must be said and not forgot, that Andrew mcCarthy's defense of Ftiz at NR certainly prevented a number of people on the right from speaking out earlier when it was becoming clear what was going on.
I remember when I first started writing about this case and its obvious flaws, I felt like I was do a backflip off a high dive platform.


Clarice, Rick and Cecil are the most knowledgeble posters on this blog. Just a heads up. I love to learn from them and others who have done extensive research and also written articles about it. Byron York brings up an interesting point about the actual investigation and no I don't know why the White House allowed this to happen but I am sure there is an end-game plan which will spare Libby anymore grief. Armitage is a gossipy coward who should have fully disclosed months ago.
Maybee thanks for doing the reporters job so we could do our job on this blog.


As I have maintained from the begginning, if Fitz had LISTENED to Libby, he would have discovered Bob Woodward on Armitages' calendar.


In TM's update he wonders about what Corn is talking about with regards to the INR memo...this is an interesting Andrea Mitchell blurp on Meet the Press

Andrea Mitchell said on Tim Russert's Saturday show the day after the Libby Indictment (via Lexis.com):

There was a State Department memo that was circulated on Air Force One back in July '03, that day when the president was flying to Africa. And that memo very clearly was labeled with an X on the lead paragraph that describes...Meaning secret, so it was classified. It was faxed aboard Air Force One by Armitage, the deputy, to Colin Powell. Powell then showed it to Ari Fleischer and to other officials. It was also sent to the White House. So there was a large circle of officials in the National Security Council and on board the plane and back in the White House who had seen that memo and were then aware...

The memo was written because the State Department, undersecretary named Marc Grossman, said, `I'm getting questions from Dick Cheney's office,' from Scooter Libby and from the vice president's office, `about Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson's trip.' And so Marc Grossman goes to the State Department's intelligence official, unnamed, still possibly covert--not sure about that--who had participated in the meetings a year earlier when Wilson and Mrs. Wilson were all talking about the trip over at the agency. He had been the State Department's representative that day at the CIA, and Grossman says, `Write a memo about exactly what happened that day, so that we have something to show the vice president's office.' And so he wrote it out a year later, to the best of his recollection, what Wilson's role was, what Mrs. Wilson's role was. And it's that memo that widened the circulation about the whole thing. ....The State Department agreed with Wilson's description of his findings [of the Niger claim] that it was unambiguously a false report.

Anyways, to my reading to this point I have NEVER seen anything specific to Libby requesting anything other than answers...the INR was requested by Grossman.


Someone needs to get all of this published in a newspaper where Fitz' supervisor can see it and realize there is a problem.


"If you recall the dems jumped on this as a chance to weaken Bush...they really had no choice but to allow appointment of an SP to avoid charges of a white wash or admin coverup....and the MSM jumped right in to help"

I think everyone's been mostly virtuous with this investigation, especially compared to "he who shall not be named"'s slow-mo roasting of Clinton (the less-than-virtuous).


Andy McCarthy has some 'splainin' to do.


I now question Judge Walton's decision and Fitz's argument to keep any information about UGO from Libby Lewis.

I now question Judge Walton's decision and Fitz's argument to keep the CIA Referral Letter from Libby Lewis.

So what are EW and TL talking about this book?

I question David Corn and Michael Isikoff's conclusions about Plame's identity as "covert agent" AND the vendetta from the WH.


So who believes the media didn't know it was Armitage all the time and they kept it hidden from the public in order to bash Bush with having a White House 'conspiracy to out an undercover agent'.??


"no I don't know why the White House allowed this to happen"

WH and DOJ were put under alot of pressure by the democrats to get a special prosecutor assigned to find the original leaker. Which democrat wrote a letter to DOJ?


mostly virtuous

Yeah poor poor BJ. Kenny was so mean.


Ah, Tom McGuire is planning an update on 1X2X6....


OT, CQ has a new post up about Nasrallah. He says that over time, there's increasing evidence that Nasrallah and Hezbollah really lost this war.


Hhhmmm...interesting OT!!

Most Democratic Candidates Rejecting Withdrawal Timetable


who believes the media didn't know it was Armitage all the time

So many wearing poker faces and so so careful with every word, little slip here and there but helping fuel the inference at every turn.


OT: One of the most despicable things that UNIFIL did during the Israel - Hezbollah war.


Ummmm, normally, speculation begins with at least a few facts and no obvious non-facts as its basis. Jerry, speculation that includes the equivalent of "well, if we assume that 2 + 2 = 5" then not many are going to be impressed with the speculation. Too often, waaaaaaaay too often, the speculation of the Left BEGINS with such a statement.

RichatUF, not only did he work in the chickenhawk argument, he made an addition. Now military service doesn't count unless you've "heard a bullet whistle past your head." At another blog I made the following post:

"And the goalpost moving never ends. Now, even though the original leak was not KKKarl Rove, or Libby or Cheney it might as well have been. St Colin and his acolyte Armitage would NEVER have done anything so heinous, so just ignore any evidence (like Armitage's own admission) that they did it.

And the 'chickenhawk' meme gets its own goalpost movement. Now not even veterans get to have a say about war policy unless they served in combat, evidently. I got hit in the mouth with an M1 carbine once on the way to drill and got a split lip. Does that qualify for a Purple Heart and combat recognition?

I heard bullets whistle past my head on the firing range once when we were marking targets and another guy didn't check to see if his M1 magazine had emptied. (Not that it's all that hard to tell, since it ejects AND you're suppposed to manually open the bolt and take a look.) We were fighting in Vietnam at the time, so even thought it was 8 or 9000 miles away, I DID hear a bullet. Does that count so I can put my oar in the policy water?"

Don, remember the Rule of Holes. It's beginning to look like you've never had even an intro class in American Government. Oddly enough, our government is not a one-man dictatorship a la Cuba or North Korea no matter how much the Left claims it is so.


Pity the press:
Maditha is not My Lai.
Plamegate is not Watergate.
Qana and Jenin are not the Rape of Shanghai.
Maybe they will actually have to write original stuff instead of digging up old shit and cutting the peaces to force them to fit into the old templates.

Charlie (Colorado)

This looks a lot more like someone getting it second or third-hand and trying to describe someone who works in the "Operations Directorate.

Cecil, do we know plame worked in the Directorate of Operations? The way I've heard her job described it sounded more like the Directorate of Intelligence.


Some day, someone more inductrious than me will compare the Bush 'scandals' to the Clinton scandals
in terms of:

Number who took the fifth.
Number who attacked the prosecutor.
Number of indictments, convictions, reversals, etc.
Number who fled the country.
Number that couldn't speak English.
Etc. Etc.



Rick Ballard


Thank you, but my part is that of Thrasymachus. Plato is above my pay grade. If a flame thrower polemic is required, I know how to aim it and pull the trigger.

I don't think "allowed to happen" plays any part in this. Had the WH treated it as more than a flea bite it would only have created greater problems.

In the end, among those capable of reason, this has reduced the credibility of the MSM. IOW - a good thing. The real story is the credulity of those pimping the story on the left.

But then - Unready Neddy is their man, isn't he?

Which is why they will never be entrusted with the operation of the heavy equipment in government. They're just too damn dumb.


**Haditha***** Damn my fading eyes



1-2-6 was probably given to the press by Grossman to cover for his boss (Armitage) when the boss started freaking out about having started this whole mess. 1-2-6 put the blame on the WH and completely deflected attention away from State as the source of Plame's identity. Now, if it was Grossman who gave that story to the press, the question is, did he give the same story to the FBI? If so, then he may be in serious trouble, as fibbing to the FBI is a crime now a days, even if you are not sworn in.

Oh, and Grossman is a lifelong friend of Wilson's and possibly a former boyfriend of Val's, so there would be double reason for him to diflect attention away from State and his own familiarity with the principles of the case (since we still don't know exactly how Armitage actually found out about who set up Joes trip). If Armitage actually got the info on Joe and Val from Grossman, then Grossman would be very interested in making sure that Armitage was not identified as the leaker, lest the trail lead back to him.


Talk Left questioned why Libby Lewis was indicted but Cheney and Rove not but she still thinks that Cheney is in the crosshairs.

EmptyWheel's reaction:

"Armitage almost certainly isn't 1X2X6, because he just figured out he was the "leaker" with Novak's article. But from the WH perspective, they almost certainly thought it was someone at State, since they had been told State passed on information. Which is why they tried to smear Powell with the leak (I'll come back to explain this)."


What smear?

Anyway, it helps explain why Colin Powell left.


Perhaps Fitz told Armitage Fitz would not pursue Armitage legally as long as Armitage stayed quiet till Fitz finished persecuting Libby.


I was better than that JorqXMcKie (man, that's tough to type):

I had Woodward meeting someone at the WH on June 20 with questions about Val (Clarice pointed out he met with Libby)

I had Libby meeting Miller on June 23 and talking about Val

I had the 1x2x6 conspiracy story ("purely and simply for revenge" if you forget), supplied by someone at the WH to the WaPo

Then there's Rove talking to Novak and Cooper about Val

And there's a further discussion between Miller and Libby about Val


It seem silly to keep pretending there are no troubling facts about this case, and to believe that there isn't more damning stuff still to come.


I wonder when that Rove indictment gets "unsealed"?


John Hinderacker really doesn't care about this case except how the media and dems reacted to the whole thing:

"But, as I said, I don't care. No doubt some of the current questions will be answered in due course, but the bottom line, in my view, is that this sorry episode shows how unbalanced and even irrational our whole media culture has become. That Washington could be roiled for months by such a silly non-story speaks volumes about the lack of seriousness that infects many of our journalists, pundits and politicians."

John's right. Appalling behavior by the MSM and leftwingers, including Scary Larry.

For Those Who Care

Rick Ballard


The July memo is addressed to Powell while the June memo was addressed to Grossman.

Ya think maybe greasy Grossman had Ford rewrite the memo - and, oh, btw - direct it to Powell so that Grossman's name wasn't on it?

State is such a cesspool.


Sorry Don, I was writing when your last posts hit.

Look, except in extraordinary circumstances, the President trying to directly control any bureaucracy is like you trying to turn a light switch on by striking out at it with a dogchain that's barely long enough, and in a dark room, to boot.

Many of any President's actions are way more controlled by the perceptions of the public than by the bare letter of the law.

The President can appoint (and hypothetically remove) about 2500 high level bureaucrats. They stay an average of 2.5 years or so. He doesn't know most of them at all, let alone well. The US public has *always* been leery of Presidential power. Check out how, oh, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln (you and consider the rest) were treated by the press and the opposition public at times.

As Neustadt told us, "the power of the Presidency is the power to persuade." US Presidents don't *tell* so much as they *ask*. This confuses many students, too, who tend to see the President as a kind of secular king.



"Andy McCarthy has some 'splainin' to do."

What do you mean?


That's interesting Ranger, I'll think about that.


Cliff May's comment:

debunking yourself

"Corn is still – astonishingly – boasting that he found “evidence of a White House crime” and that there was a “White House campaign under way to undermine Wilson.”

In other words, in the view of Corn & Co. it was fine for Wilson to accuse the President of lying on a vital matter of national security. But it was criminal for the White House to challenge that accusation.

Everyone but Corn & Co. now knows that Wilson made his charge based on a mission that he never should have been assigned, a mission for which he was egregiously unqualified, a mission on which he actually gathered information that suggested the opposite of what he claimed (e.g. he learned there had been an Iraqi “trade mission” to Niger led by Saddam’s top nuclear expert; presumably it’s purpose was not to keep abreast of camels futures), but Wilson either didn’t understand all that or was not honest enough to acknowledge it.In the view of Corn & Co., if the White provided truthful information to counter Wilson’s slanderous and damaging allegations – even after that information was already available from other sources such as Armitage – that, too, was a crime.

In their eyes, it was a criminal conspiracy, too, for the White House even to contradict Wilson’s false assertion (apparently made by Wilson on background to several reporters) that Cheney had sent him on his Niger boondoggle, received his report and then chose to ignore it.

I should add: There was a conceptual communications failure in all this: The 16 words in Bush’s State of the Union Address that set off this controversy were — and remain — accurate. It was a mistake not to stand behind them. Once the administration conceded that the sentence about British intelligence should not have been included in the speech, it was a quick slide to “Bush lied” and all that followed. Whoever recommended that course of action was ignorant about the way the media work. But that’s a separate issue."


Oh yeah, I slipped into calling myself kim above, as I use that elsewhere. I use jerry here because there was another kim - who was challenging and amusing but hasn't been around lately.


Byron York took note of two key days:


"On September 30, 2003, just days before Richard Armitage decided to reveal to the authorities that he had leaked the identity of Valerie Plame, the Washington Post published a front-page story, "Bush Vows Action if Aides Had Role in Leak."

"Now we know that within days, the Justice Department knew that Armitage was the original leaker. Within a few more weeks, the Department knew who all of Novak's sources were. Yet the investigation ramped up and went on for nearly three years, and still continues today. And the president, who, it seems reasonble to conclude, was not told the details of an investigation touching on the White House, continued to speak as if no one knew what had really happened."


Hey all, why are leaving out his title?

It's SIR RICHARD you commoners.

Now it must be decided
SIR RICHARD THE _____________.

Chickens**t comes to mind but hope some will apply more elegant Churchillian language.

Anger sometimes takes my language to the elemental.


I posted an excellent Armitage sound-byte from the 9/11 hearings a few years back, here :


Among the quotes, regarding Richard Clarke's book :

THOMPSON: Have you read this book?

ARMITAGE: I'm the only honest person in Washington. (LAUGHTER) I gave it the Washington read.

THOMPSON: You looked in the index to see if your name was in it?

ARMITAGE: And then what was said about me. (LAUGHTER)

THOMPSON: I think I ought to quit there, Mr. Chairman.




BTW...wonder what Jason Leopold and Marc Ash had to say about this....


Here is an effective way to rid ourselves of these slimeballs (at least the ones not in the media). Since you are all computer-literate, I’ll just say it this way:

In your November ballot, do a “Search and Replace”.

Search for: “(R) _”
Replace with: “(R) X”
Replace ALL

That’s all there is to it.

Cecil Turner

Cecil, do we know plame worked in the Directorate of Operations?

Yes, per the SSCI (p 39), she was a DO counterproliferation division "employee." There are indications some Administration types (including Libby) had mistaken her for a WINPAC employee, which would've been DI, but that was incorrect.

I'm waiting to see what TM has to say about the 1x2x6 formula . . .

1x2x6 is obviously false. We now know who told whom, and the 2x6 part is nonsense. I'd love to pin the claim on Grossman (so I could call him a liar), but the only source for that is Leopold, so we'll just have to wait a bit.


I brought this up on the other thread. Maybe it isn't interesting to anyone but me.

July 8th is the day Armitage told Novak. Later that day, Wilson's friend "happened" to stop Novak on the street. Did someone at State tip Wilson or his friend off? Or was the friend on the street Grossman?

Valerie was in the process of transitioning to the State department. Someone there would have known about her. Wilson kept calling State with his pitch.
Something in there screams that they were discussing the Wilsons long before Libby started asking questions. At the very least, they would have had information about her independent of the CIA.


I'm sure Grossman was not the stranger on the rialto--more likely Scarey Larry or another of the VIPS shnooks. Interesting timing, though it may well be a coincidence.
Cliff May at NRO says that he thins Fitz is a good guy who just didn't understand Washingotn. For the second time in two days, I find myself thinking that NR gains nothing by the half assed blogging at NRO--Just because the comments are short and you have to write them quickly, doesn't mean they should be idiotic or contentless..that's the trick guys, if you're reading this instead of posting stupid comments to eachother or touting some mindless computer game or whatever ...


The anger comes as Sir Richard reminds me of Powell and their number three Wilkerson.

The way these guys sat on their butts and only did a passive-aggressive act of trying to sell our advance into Iraq thru Turkey.

Lots of our dead are dead as their murderers are not with their raisins, as they would be had we had a sweep down from Turkey.

As JMH wrote in an earlier post
"Powell's priority is Powell". The SOB didn't want Franks' plan to work. Would have diminished the famous "Powell Doctrine". Powell also didn't want anyone to finish the job in Iraq that he didn't have the stomach for.

He let all those Republican Guard flee and then come back and slaughter the Shia while he watched.

IMHO, the only reason that Bush included him was to keep him from running as a DEM in 2000. Note they did not put him at DOD. They should have put him at Health and Human Services.

Sir Richard the Chickensh**!

And JMH also captured the snide, smug and patronizing "tones" of Powell and it is ditto for Sir Richard at Congressional Hearings.

Did they burn errant knights at the stake????



It just really irks me to no end: these (insert "professional title here") experts are saying it is a bad idea (insert policy disagreement here)...I've got an OCT 03 Newsweek (dead tree version) in my stuff which I now think is relevant, I think I'm going to dig it up and think about why...

And that whole fucking "uniformed" cabal at State-as soon as US soliders were deployed to Kuwait (and the resolution passed on October 11, 2002) their job (State cabal) was to support the policy. Every comment they made, makes the job in the field that much harder-and those difficulties are measured in blood and tears, not invites to the Washington Post Christmas Party. If Armitage and Powell wanted to STOP THE WAR they should have resigned.

I guess they learned all their lessons from the Vietnam War, the ones on how to act like scared, cowardly politicians. If they were really opposed to the policy in the first place, resign and join the anti-war movement. Instead they wanted to have all their toys and still leak and make the war more difficult.

Armitage-The Straight Talk Express, more like the Double Talk Express (and McCain won't fire the guy-or I'll say I'll be shocked if he does)

Don-it wasn't DOJ that Bush should have kicked over it was State. The more I re-read that Newsweek piece the more I want to go break something. Self-serving, egotistical, what-in-the-hell-

This is a view into our Intelligence Community and Diplomatic Corp fighting the War on Terror-

Sleep Well



If Armitage was slow to realize what he'd said was used by Novak as a source, surely that excuses Rove for not understanding he was a source.

Fitzgerald seems to have pursued Libby because he felt Judy was the first to know. Armitage not coming forward with the Woodward information prolonged the investigation.
I do not understand the difference in the way Armitage has been treated vs. Libby and Rove BUT FOR the "frogmarching" calls by Wilson and the 1x2x6.
Fitzgerald was mislead, and he should either prosecute Armitage and 1x2x6 source, or drop it all.


clarice- you are absolutely right that it could be a coincidence. At the very least, it shows how interested Wilson was in himself at that point, and how he was looking to prolong the story.
I happen to think there was a lot of gossip going on about it at State, but that's just a guess.

I'm most disappointed that Powell and Armitage didn't give Bush the information once Armitage had testified. They put their president in an embarassing and harmful situation. If they were that much at odds with him, they should have stepped down from their positions.


OK sorry, one more question.

How does Fitzgerald justify limiting Judy to only having to testify about Libby?


MayBee-that's an excellent point about Rove not knowing he was a source. It also opens up the whole question of sourcing in the DC media game.

Also, if Armitage was so forgetful and he played such a prominent role, doesn't it make Libby's forgetfulness more understandable.

I feel badly for Libby, his lawyers-the ones during the Grand Jury-did not serve him well. I hope this case is dropped soon, but I doubt it.

Rick Ballard

"I hope this case is dropped soon, but I doubt it."

Why, Kate?

Shakespeare could have made a fortune with it. The puffed egos of Powell and Armitage (coupled with their craven behavior) would be worth the price of admission. The complete mendacious incompetence of the press from Novak to Corn to Kristof to Pincus to Mitchell to Russert to Allen to
Iskoff to (you fill in the blank) stands revealed and anyone believing another word from their pens can safely be identified as a fool.

The perfidy within State and the CIA is open for inspection and Justice has been cleansed of at least of a few political drones - and future AG's will spend more time looking at the people proposed for appointments as their underlings.

The left is exposed onced again as being as credulous as it is brainless and the "stay the course" right as having some merit wrt backbone.

A "hard driving" prosecutor is revealed as a clueless fool and Judge Tatel is revealed as an idiot. The NYT and the WaPo are both reaping the rewards of their meritless shilling for the Democratic Party and media in general is fast achieving the status of "Green Helmet".

Could Soylent Red write a better script for KSS?

Charlie (Colorado)

That's why this increasing "Bush is a victim of DOJ prosecutors" theme is so BS. Bush IS the head of the DOJ.

Don, Richard Nixon was the head of the Justice Department when he fired Archibald Cox.

Does that give you any hints?


"Yes, per the SSCI (p 39), she was a DO counterproliferation division "employee." There are indications some Administration types (including Libby) had mistaken her for a WINPAC employee, which would've been DI, but that was incorrect."

Oh but, Cecil Turner, Jeff claims that this report has been proven to misquote things.


Where is Jeff? I'm missing him and EW today.


Andy McCarthy defends his pal ...

I am betting that was done because Fitzgerald concluded the evidence that Libby, a public official, was intentionally lying was overwhelming

BS. Fitzgerald clearly bought into a White House conspiracy to punish intrepid whistleblower heroes Joe and Val and assumed Libby's bafflegab was coverup.

As Kate points out:

if Armitage was so forgetful and he played such a prominent role, doesn't it make Libby's forgetfulness more understandable.

Forgetting an incidental unintended leak is one thing, forgetting the conspiracy hit one is executing would be implausible. Fitz blew through the evidence and facts with his assumptions intact. Whatever else he is that makes him a bull headed tunnel vision incompetent nitwit.


And dishonest too. Libby testified thinking he was contributing to a leak investigation. There was no leak investigation, from the time Fitz came on board it really was a witch hunt and Grossman painted the bullseye on Libby's back.


Where is Jeff?

No doubt still working on the book with scissors, razor blade and paper paste. He'll have it all reworked into his New Grand Unified Theory of Everything about 3:00AM.

Florence Schmieg

1. Delaware is not a slave state in the historic definition of that term. It remained in the union as was definitely never declared a slave state before the civil war.

2. I watched Pearl Harbor last night and heard the statements of FDR and the response of the country at that time ( and yes, I know it was a movie). What a wonderful country we were then. We were able to stay together and fight evil and threats. We defended our president even if he was of the opposite party. What a debacle the media and politics has made of our war effort today. It almost made me cry.


Rick, Brilliant.
Maybee, I remind you there were DoJ guidelines about questioning reporters about their sources, which our punctilious Fitz claimed to follow. When he got Judy placed in the can it was only after he'd persuaded the Ct of Appeals, it was necessary. Even then she wouldn't talk until he limitd her testimony to Armitage. (Cutting her losses while protecting her big source, I think.)

[i]Andy McCarthy defends his pal ...

I am betting that was done because Fitzgerald concluded the evidence that Libby, a public official, was intentionally lying was overwhelming[/i]

Andy, I'm betting otherwise. I'm betting that's the direction Comey pointed the pre-appointment investigation towards and Fitz figured that was how to go.
Also, it was a way to make his name. Well, he was sorta right. But it isn't the name he thought..

The DoJ could have handled this in house better. It could have appointed (as the Statute required) someone outside the DoJ--someone like our own Stein who had the guts to close down one of these because he figured it was B.S. --you know, someone with JUDGEMENT and SAVVY in the ways of this swamp.But, no, Comey knew exactly what he was getting with Fitz--an unscrupulous, judgement free, obsessive.


Florence-the country was united in WW2 because of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Prior to that attack there was no will in the country to involve itself in the war, in fact, FDR had to struggle with congress to get Lend Lease through and to rearm the US, even with the threats in Europe.

I think the left was on board because of the USSR's involvement in the war.

FDR also knew he had to move fast, he had no patience with some of Churchill's war plans that would take years and years.

If you want to see real dissent and a nasty media, the Civil War has it all. Even an investigation that Lincoln was able to shut down (Mary's finances). Hmmmm....there's the tie in to this topic.

mark c.

Sir Richard the Reticent?


Andy McCarthy in hole continues to dig ...

your problem is not with the guy who was dispatched to look for crimes (including lies and obstruction) and thinks he found them; your problem is with the Justice Department that didn't have the guts to say the Plame leak did not rise to the level of a federal crime

More BS. The innocent should not have to fear an honest investigation. It wasn't, it was a witch hunt. At this point there seems to be no evidence Fitz was after anything but Libby and whoever he could get by flipping Libby.

And BTW ...

There had to be convincing evidence that the misstatements were knowing and quite intentional.

Knowing Pat as I do, I'd be stunned if he does not have that kind of evidence

Buddy trust is not evidence. Thought you'd know that.

Rick Ballard

Mark C,

I think a Shakespearean playbill would list him as Sir Richard Cravenheart, liege to Lord Pewl.

That would leave room for the necessary punfun in what would be, after all, a tragicomic farce.

The restoration of Lewis Libby is required within the closing act, so St. Patrick, the Muddled and Befuddled must dismiss and Sir Dick, the 'Attorney's Bale' must effect restoration.


**Limited her testimony to LIBBY***

(I am so mad at McCarthy right now, I'm seeing red. I notice that Capt Ed gave his ciriticism the deserving back of the hand.)


I thought Andy McCarthy began having second thoughts about Fitz in the last few months as the factual details become available to us.

Sara (Squiggler)

Sir Richard the Reticent?

Sir Richard the Wretched

Other Tom

"What they deliberately set out to do was find a legal way to out Plame (thus the events with Novak, Cooper, and others)."

Shame on them: deliberately setting out to do something legal, after a publicity-seeking fool had told a series of public lies about Niger and uranium.

What troubles me greatly is that Armitage never did the honorable thing by stepping forward and saying publicly what he told Fitz and others. I suppose it's plausible that Fitz promised not to prosecute him provided he kept his mouth shut, but I think that may well have been unethical if he did so. In any event, no honorable man could have knowingly sat by and watched others twist in the wind over something he knew that he himself had done. Shame on Armitage.

Tom Maguire

Ah, Tom McGuire is planning an update on 1X2X6....

I've got the hat, now all I need is the darn rabbit.

The old theory, delivered by Jason Leopold himself, was that Marc Grossman delivered the 1x2x6 leak blaming the White House on Sept 28 as a misdirection play.

That timing is trickier *if* we believe Armitage really only felt like he needed protecting as of Oct 1.

But I don't believe it. In which case, I don't think I have any update - maybe 1x2x6 really was a misdirection play.

Or even if Armitage specifically really had his epiphany on Oct 1, Grossman may have realized that plenty of folks at State knew about Plame, and wanted to push attention elsewhere.

And in defense of Armitage - it may be that Bush was apprised of his role but did not see hwo he could cut him loose without also sacking Karl. And he may have worried that, if Armitage went public, the pressure for the other leakers to go public would be irresistible, which would be tough for Rove.

So *maybe* Armitage kept quiet for the sake of the Bush WH.

(Hmm, the fact that I am laughing out loud as I re-read that bodes poorly...)


""What they deliberately set out to do was find a legal way to out Plame ""

Corn is 'photoshopping' his actual text now.

First off, the reporters called them and there is absolutely ZERO evidence that Libby or Rove new what her status was - if anything. In addition, there is no evidence that they knew Armitage had 'outed' her to begin with. So their couldn't have been a plan at all, except the perfectly legitimate plan to respond to the lies put out by Wilson and his friends in the leftist media.


OT, but it may be that they didn't "achieve legality." Making Plame's name public, particularly for political purposes, doesn't seem trivial to me under any scenario. I'm happy to let a jury decide vis Libby, or anyone else who could wind up indicted, but the fact that we're here talking about Plame seems irreversible.

Sara (Squiggler)

From Instapundit, this is really funny in a sick kind of way:

ANOTHER UPDATE: A Tom Cruise Plamegate connection?

Meanwhile, Cruise has been busier pushing Scientology than anyone knew. According to a just-declassified State Department schedule, Cruise visited then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage on June 13, 2003, just an hour after Armitage had met with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward. (It's speculated that Armitage outed Valerie Plame as a CIA spy at that meeting.)

Cruise was accompanied by Tom Davis, head of the L.A. Celebrity Center for Scientology, and Kurt Weiland, Scientology's veep of communications.

What was discussed? "Only Armitage can answer that question, and he's no longer here," a State Department spokesman told us. E-mails to Armitage and Cruise's rep weren't answered, nor was a call to Scientology headquarters.

Forget 9/11, here's some real conspiracy-theory material.


Making Plame's name public, particularly for political purposes, doesn't seem trivial to me under any scenario

What seems doesn't seems trivial to you seems very trivial to me.

Val was part of the story from the getgo. Once Joe went public she was never going to stay unknown. There is zero reason to believe Libby and Rove did anythilg like you allege.

Gary Maxwell

I got only part way through a very long thread of posts here and stumble upon "Don" calling someone an idiot. The mind boggles.

For the cherry on top, he goes for Clarice being misinformed. How long have you had this rectal cranial inversion case, Don?


Arrrggghhhh!!! I'm more tired of this story than I am of that creep who claims to have killed the little girl. Make it go away!


Don't know if you have noticed but not a single prominent lefty blog has put up a post about this today. Huffingtonpost had something up this AM, I suppose because they use Corn sometimes. But they took it down later in the day. Down the memory hole. Can't wait to see how Scary Larry tries to spin this


TM, ok, more to think about.


For a moment you had me worried, TM! (whew)

Rick Ballard


Doesn't the real nature of the trivial matter lie in the fact that St. Fitz didn't charge something? If her status had any importance whatsoever then Fitz (using the Deutsch and Berglar model) should have indicted for something even if it was first degree mopery.

"Gosh, I didn't know." simply doesn't apply when you've gone through all the "signed these documents which acknowledge that the defendant had full knowledge... etc." garbage that Fitz even tossed into Libby's indictment. Armitage disclosed the contents of a classified document to a reporter who published and Fitz declares that "because his heart was pure" no charge is to be levied and his name should be withheld from the public.

That's the nub of Fitz's absolute mendacity - that and the fact that he was dragging WH officials before the gj after he knew both of Novak's "sources" names.

There is clear evidence that Fitz has and is conducting this investigation in a wholly prejudicial manner and there is ample reason for the DoJ to strip him of all but this fiasco prior to his termination.

Absolutely nothing this man says should be given credence by any jury before which he appears. Not one word. And any defense attorney who did not at least attempt to interject aspersions on Fitz's charactor upon his client's behalf should be sued by his client for malpractice.

The man is a liar and his sworn affidavit to Judge Tatel is simply additional proof of that fact.


Wow Rick. Don't know what to say as I'm not a lawyer. "Mopery" that's a good one, never heard of that before.


jerry your argument boils down to "those nasty people did a nasty thing"

Only the thing was done by somebody else.

It wasn't actually nasty, just the inevitable result of her own participation.

So you're left only with "those nasty people ..."

Which is where you are and where you will always stay because it's clear you have no brain.


"Mopery is a vague and obscure legal term, used in certain jurisdictions to mean "walking down the street with no clear destination or purpose". Like loitering and vagrancy laws, it can be used by law enforcement either to legitimately detain unsavory types before they have committed a clearer or more dangerous crime, or to illegitimately harass otherwise lawful citizens -- obviously an easily abused and easily challenged judgment call. "

Only slightly more overused than vague obstruction and conspiracy charges.

The comments to this entry are closed.