I Guess It's Valerie Wilson Day Here at Verbosities
Published by BG on Friday, June 01, 2007 at 1:39 PM.Luckbox, luckbox, luckbox... From your earlier post:
Just five days into Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into the "leak" of Valarie Plame's name, he learned the initial leaker was Richard Armitage and that the leak was completely unintentional with no malice.
Actually, to make your argument work you have to assume there was only one leak. If that was the case, why did some journalists identify Libby as a source on this as well?
Privately, [Armitage] detested the direction we were moving [on Iraq]. Given that, it made absolutely no sense that he would have secretly leaked Plame's name to help the war cause and damage the Wilsons.
A half-truth at best. In 2002 he said: "Someone like Saddam Hussein who has been responsible literally for the deaths of millions, what horror will he conduct and enjoy upon the world if he is not stopped? That has to be taken into consideration. If that's the balance, then I think a leader in the United States can stand up and justify to our public why our servicemen sacrificed themselves."
In a 2006 speech, which you'll assumedly just write off as "revisionist history" because it doesn't agree with your hand-drawn history, Armitage said, "I didn't oppose the war in Iraq. I had some questions about the timing. But the notion of removing Saddam Hussein seemed to be eminently sensible."
(Search MRCLTD.ORG on Google for the text).
Even if he was moderate on the war, he could have been taking orders from above - Fitzgerald didn't know if this was or wasn't the case. Quitting an investigation after five days because someone gave you an account as to how it happened? That's like asking the bank robber if he was in the area and taking "nope" for an answer without corroborating his story. It's clear from Fitzgerald's memo (which I'll assume you've read, if you're willing to try to tell people how things really are it helps to know the basis of what the argument is first) that the more questions he asked, the more convoluted the story got. This is why he kept asking questions, and this is why he couldn't put together a prosecutable narrative.
In fact, it was never clear during the investigation that Plame was even a covert agent. I challenge any of you to find anyone with the CIA saying that Plame was a covert agent. When asked about it, they've never stated that she was covert or protected by the IIPA.
Please read up on what the IIPA is, and the very, very broad definition of "covert." Also note that The CIA's Director told a House Committee's leadership that Wilson was covert, and on March 16th a statement entered the House record from Director Hayden approving Waxman's statement that her status was classified.
Now, in order for this to make sense to you in context, you should really go read the IIPA, Section 426 under "definitions," or you're going to get hung up on semantics that don't exist within the current language of the law, which, unfortunately, has nothing specific in its broad language that allows you to effectively challenge the meaning of "covert" without reading language in. Aren't you conservatives supposed to be about original intent and not litigating from the bench?
That no definitive conclusion [on Wilson's "covert" status] could be provided was yet another reason Fitzgerald knew no crime had been committed. Once again, this all became clear in Fitzgerald's first week of the investigation.
Congratulations! You are apparently the only person outside of the office of the special prosecutor who read all of the investigatory testimony gathered in those first seven days, otherwise you'd never want to say what you just did with such certainty. Just because you believe something to be true doesn't mean the real evidence that doesn't live only in your imagination corroborates your side of the story.
Weeks after learning no actual crime was committed, Fitzgerald first talked to Scooter Libby. I don't know why Libby lied. He says he didn't. A jury says he did and he's paying for it. The point is that the interview never needed to take place.
Did you ever read the mandate given to Fitzgerald by the DOJ to begin this investigation? I'd be surprised if you had. Then again, it was written by James Comey, who was only "acting Attorney General" for Ashcroft at the time, and just last month gave testimony that could be construed as anti-Bush. Whoops, there goes his right-wing credibility.
You also ask why Fitzgerald wanted to talk to Libby after he "knew" that it was only the moderate hippie anti-war Armitage who released this information to the press. Well, you're flat-out wrong. Read #14 here, and remind me again who was the source Judy Miller went to jail trying to protect?
Fitzgerald learned there was no crime within his first week. But he didn't stop. He couldn't stop. He was drunk on power and caught up in the left's desire to burn Karl Rove or Dick Cheney at the stake.
A 2003 investigation under a single-party Republican rule and an extremely sympathetic DOJ featuring a Special Prosecutor appointed and personally installed by the Republicans is what you're holding up as a lefty plot to bring down powerful Republicans? You're going to have to do better than that.
It's a disgrace. As big of a disgrace as Ken Starr's pointless investigations after learning there was no crime in the Whitewater affair. The left will never accept the former point, however. They just celebrate Scooter's demise. It's not about being right. For them, it's just about winning.
Well, that and the rule of law. That's always a bonus too.
Just five days into Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into the "leak" of Valarie Plame's name, he learned the initial leaker was Richard Armitage and that the leak was completely unintentional with no malice.
Actually, to make your argument work you have to assume there was only one leak. If that was the case, why did some journalists identify Libby as a source on this as well?
Privately, [Armitage] detested the direction we were moving [on Iraq]. Given that, it made absolutely no sense that he would have secretly leaked Plame's name to help the war cause and damage the Wilsons.
A half-truth at best. In 2002 he said: "Someone like Saddam Hussein who has been responsible literally for the deaths of millions, what horror will he conduct and enjoy upon the world if he is not stopped? That has to be taken into consideration. If that's the balance, then I think a leader in the United States can stand up and justify to our public why our servicemen sacrificed themselves."
In a 2006 speech, which you'll assumedly just write off as "revisionist history" because it doesn't agree with your hand-drawn history, Armitage said, "I didn't oppose the war in Iraq. I had some questions about the timing. But the notion of removing Saddam Hussein seemed to be eminently sensible."
(Search MRCLTD.ORG on Google for the text).
Even if he was moderate on the war, he could have been taking orders from above - Fitzgerald didn't know if this was or wasn't the case. Quitting an investigation after five days because someone gave you an account as to how it happened? That's like asking the bank robber if he was in the area and taking "nope" for an answer without corroborating his story. It's clear from Fitzgerald's memo (which I'll assume you've read, if you're willing to try to tell people how things really are it helps to know the basis of what the argument is first) that the more questions he asked, the more convoluted the story got. This is why he kept asking questions, and this is why he couldn't put together a prosecutable narrative.
In fact, it was never clear during the investigation that Plame was even a covert agent. I challenge any of you to find anyone with the CIA saying that Plame was a covert agent. When asked about it, they've never stated that she was covert or protected by the IIPA.
Please read up on what the IIPA is, and the very, very broad definition of "covert." Also note that The CIA's Director told a House Committee's leadership that Wilson was covert, and on March 16th a statement entered the House record from Director Hayden approving Waxman's statement that her status was classified.
Now, in order for this to make sense to you in context, you should really go read the IIPA, Section 426 under "definitions," or you're going to get hung up on semantics that don't exist within the current language of the law, which, unfortunately, has nothing specific in its broad language that allows you to effectively challenge the meaning of "covert" without reading language in. Aren't you conservatives supposed to be about original intent and not litigating from the bench?
That no definitive conclusion [on Wilson's "covert" status] could be provided was yet another reason Fitzgerald knew no crime had been committed. Once again, this all became clear in Fitzgerald's first week of the investigation.
Congratulations! You are apparently the only person outside of the office of the special prosecutor who read all of the investigatory testimony gathered in those first seven days, otherwise you'd never want to say what you just did with such certainty. Just because you believe something to be true doesn't mean the real evidence that doesn't live only in your imagination corroborates your side of the story.
Weeks after learning no actual crime was committed, Fitzgerald first talked to Scooter Libby. I don't know why Libby lied. He says he didn't. A jury says he did and he's paying for it. The point is that the interview never needed to take place.
Did you ever read the mandate given to Fitzgerald by the DOJ to begin this investigation? I'd be surprised if you had. Then again, it was written by James Comey, who was only "acting Attorney General" for Ashcroft at the time, and just last month gave testimony that could be construed as anti-Bush. Whoops, there goes his right-wing credibility.
You also ask why Fitzgerald wanted to talk to Libby after he "knew" that it was only the moderate hippie anti-war Armitage who released this information to the press. Well, you're flat-out wrong. Read #14 here, and remind me again who was the source Judy Miller went to jail trying to protect?
Fitzgerald learned there was no crime within his first week. But he didn't stop. He couldn't stop. He was drunk on power and caught up in the left's desire to burn Karl Rove or Dick Cheney at the stake.
A 2003 investigation under a single-party Republican rule and an extremely sympathetic DOJ featuring a Special Prosecutor appointed and personally installed by the Republicans is what you're holding up as a lefty plot to bring down powerful Republicans? You're going to have to do better than that.
It's a disgrace. As big of a disgrace as Ken Starr's pointless investigations after learning there was no crime in the Whitewater affair. The left will never accept the former point, however. They just celebrate Scooter's demise. It's not about being right. For them, it's just about winning.
Well, that and the rule of law. That's always a bonus too.
Powered by ScribeFire.
