|
|
June 18, 2013
|
|
Joe Conason: White House Guilt in CIA Leak Case RemainsPosted on Sep 6, 2006By Joe Conason The revelation the Richard Armitage first disclosed Valerie Wilson’s identity as a covert CIA operative doesn’t change the fact that it was Karl Rove and Scooter Libby who used that information in an attempt to punish Ms. Wilson for her husband’s criticism of the Bush administration. To observe the Washington press corps is to wonder why so many people who don’t remember what happened yesterday and can’t master basic logic are expected to analyze politics and policy. The latest developments in the Valerie Plame Wilson case—as revealed in “Hubris,” a new book by Michael Isikoff and David Corn—proved once more that the simplest analysis of facts is beyond the grasp of many of America’s most celebrated journalists. What Corn and Isikoff report is that the first official to disclose Valerie Wilson’s covert identity as a CIA operative to columnist Robert Novak in June 2003 was Richard Armitage, who then served as deputy secretary of state. Unlike other Bush administration figures who were involved in leaking Ms. Wilson’s identity, such as Karl Rove and Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Armitage was known to be unenthusiastic about the U.S. invasion of Iraq. From those two facts, many commentators have deduced that Rove and Libby are guiltless, that there was no White House effort to expose Valerie Wilson, and that the entire leak investigation was a partisan witch hunt and perhaps an abuse of discretion by the special counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald. The same pundits now proclaim that Armitage’s minor role somehow proves the White House didn’t seek to punish Ms. Wilson and her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, for his decision to publicly debunk the presidential misuse of dubious intelligence from Niger concerning Iraq’s alleged attempts to purchase yellowcake uranium. But whatever Armitage did, or says he did, in no way alters what Rove and Libby did in the days that followed, nor does it change their intentions. It’s a simple concept—two people or more can commit a similar act for entirely different reasons—but evidently it has flummoxed the great minds of contemporary journalism. Advertisement Almost from the beginning of his investigation, Fitzgerald has known about the blabby Armitage, who promptly came clean to his boss. But Fitzgerald understood that the Armitage confession was of limited relevance. It didn’t discourage the special counsel from conducting a thorough probe that uncovered the secretive effort, emanating from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, to discredit Joe Wilson and use his wife’s two decades of dangerous devotion to her country as a weapon against him. Indeed, the only reason Armitage knew about Valerie Wilson was that he had read a negative dossier on Joe Wilson prepared at Libby’s behest. Corn, the Washington editor of The Nation, has responded on his blog to pundits who now exonerate the White House. “Rove’s leak (to Robert Novak and Matt Cooper) and Libby’s leak (to Judith Miller and Cooper) were part of a campaign to discredit former ambassador Joseph Wilson,” he wrote. “That’s no conspiracy theory. The available evidence proves this point.” In an article published in The Nation on Sept. 5, Corn says the available evidence also proves that Valerie Wilson was not only a genuine CIA undercover officer, but that she was in charge of operations seeking proof of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Specifically, she ran the Joint Task Force on Iraq, part of the CIA’s Counterproliferation Division. She worked overseas using a “nonofficial cover.” By disclosing her identity, the Bush officials ruined her career and endangered the sources she had used in the president’s service. “Hubris” also suggests strongly that her alleged role in dispatching her husband to Niger has been exaggerated. All this is contrary to the dominant right-wing perspective in Washington. So now we will see whether those who were so thrilled by the Armitage scoop are honest enough to confront more significant and embarrassing facts. But the fundamental issues have not changed. Rather than confront Joe Wilson’s accusations directly, the White House went after him and his wife—and then lied about the involvement of its senior officials in disclosing her identity. The perpetrators of these unpatriotic acts have yet to be punished, and the president has failed to uphold his own professed ethical standards. It is a simple matter, and yet still too challenging for the national press to understand. To find out more about Joe Conason, visit the Creators Syndicate website, www.creators.com. Previous item: Marie Cocco: The Smoldering Legacy of the World Trade Center Next item: 9/11 Video Tribute New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By Shag, September 13, 2006 at 7:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
If Valerie Plame was just a “Desk-jockey,” or a “Paper-pusher,” how could she be in a position to recommend her husband for such an important undertaking?
Report thisAlso, why would the CIA want an investigation into what happened with such a lowly employee.?
By morgan -lynn lamberth griggsy, September 13, 2006 at 3:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Conason says that Plame was undercover whatever her role was . That is the key here.He is right.
Report thisBy John Cahill, September 12, 2006 at 10:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
re:# 22535 “It doesnt seem to matter to Mr Conason that Valerie Plame was NOT a covert agent of the CIA but Ill mention that little fact anyways. She was pushing paper behind a desk in Virginia”...nin Privitera
uh, let’s see…does Conason say he doesn’t care? Here’s what I read…see what you think: “In an article published in The Nation on Sept. 5, Corn says the available evidence also proves that Valerie Wilson was not only a genuine CIA undercover officer, but that she was in charge of operations seeking proof of Iraqs weapons of mass destruction.”
It sounds to me like 1) he cares and 2)you didn’t read it and 3)disabling her ability to run the Task Force regarding Iraq’s WMD’s seems treasonous. Not like the fake stuff (re: actually she was a paper pusher, or Clinton’s bj debacle), but more like really weakening our country’s defenses against an enemy.
I couldn’t figure out how so many people could be so mislead about matters of record and common sense. Then I read John Dean’s book. Basically 23% of our population are effectively if not literally “insane.” I mean, if you are living in a fantasy world and believing it…what else do you call it? So maybe Democracy isn’t such a good idea after all. Or else we need a whole new criterion for voter registration…ability to reason and think for one’s self.
John
Report thisBy Brant Lamb, September 11, 2006 at 11:24 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
These guys deserve to be known as the gang that couldn’t scheme/cheat/lie/torture (take your pick) straight. They ran such a sloppy plan that they didn’t even tell Armitage that it was a secret! Have any of you noticed how long it took any of these scmucks (Libby, Rove, Armitage) to come forward. Supposedly Bush told them all to come clean. He sure did, publicly, didn’t he? If Armitage’s mistake had been all it was, how is it that Rove was talking to Cooper and Novak? And what the hell was Libby giving this stuff out for? And Cheney being allowed to
‘declassify’ anything?
If Plame wasn’t under cover, why did the CIA even ask for the investigation? I suspect the CIA knows when its own people are under cover or not, don’t you? You apologists for this administration are a pack of fools.
Report thisBy Mad As Hell, September 10, 2006 at 4:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Ben and Nin: Get your heads out of the sand! Stop watching Fox/Pravda and get some REAL news.
“Everyone knows” Ben? Like “everyone knows Saddam had links to Al Qaeda.” Not true—just re-iteratated the other day.
You Fox/Pravda zombies, something like 65% of you believe Saddam Hussein was DIRECTLY behind 9/11. Stupid is being DELIBERATELY ignorant!
What part did you miss where the CIA doesn’t reveal who its agents are, whether they work in Langley or the field? What part did you miss that Ms. Plame’s “outing” destroyed a whole major cover company, revealing that EVERYONE who worked for that company was CIA?
What part did you miss that Cheney, Libby and Rove DELIBERATELY ruined Plame’s career because they wanted to punish Wilson for exposing the LIE that Saddam Hussein was gather yellowcake?
“Everyone knows”, Ben and Nin? Everyone but you Fox/Pravda zombies knows you have your heads in the sand. Like Billy Crystal in “Princess Bride” with his hands on his ears shouting again and again “I’m NOT LISTENING!” you deny reality.
Wake up! Your president is a liar and has broken the law in so many ways and so dangerously for the Republic that had he been a Democrat, the House would have 4 THOUSAND articles of impeachment to consider, not the measly 4 for lying about a BJ!
Republicans are SUCH hypocrites! And now, with Mad King George radioactive, they are all turning into flip-floppers to try to stay in office. Remember? THAT was the accusation against John Kerry.
We need to take back the House and Senate and impeach Bush and Cheney, to save our Republic and our Constitution.
Report thisBy nin Privitera, September 9, 2006 at 7:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
It doesn’t seem to matter to Mr Conason that Valerie Plame was NOT a covert agent of the CIA but I’ll mention that little fact anyways. She was pushing paper behind a desk in Virginia. Therefore you could shout to the world that she was doing that and it would not be a crime. What inside the Beltway nonsense.
Report thisBy Pee-wee, September 9, 2006 at 7:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
#22331 Ben,time to put the Kool-aid down,turn off Fox,go outside and relax!There’s lots going on away the TV!
Report thisBy Trinary Suka, September 8, 2006 at 8:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Doesn’t matter what I think, according to you guys. Why bother writing a well thought out post only to have it trashed by some biased mediator?
You guys are as bad as the neo-cons…you do not want to be challenged but wish to spew your opinion then filter the response? I mean wtf?
Report thisBy Richard, September 8, 2006 at 6:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
My, My, this one brought the limp minded right wing out, funny how they follow drug addicts like Limbaugh, and Bush, traitors like Dobson, Falwell, and Robertson. But when an honorable patriot like Joe Wilson steps forward with the truth….they go berserk to discredit any information that does not promote religious fascism.
Report thisDoes the end really justify the means?, you poor sick right wing dead horse jockeys? Shame on you all for the unelected former cocaine addict, a drunk, a liar, draft dodger and all in all an uneducated disgrace to this country. Damn furious to have to pay one penny of taxes to this gang of thieving liars.
By Hal, September 8, 2006 at 11:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Here’s an interesting angle on this. Perhaps Armitage gossiped freely on purpose in order to provide a future decoy? This is how it’s playing out now, whether the original gossip was intentional or not.
Report thisBy P. C. Calderon, September 8, 2006 at 10:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Cogent though this column is, even its focus misses the primary failure of logic in this case. It is not “who outed Valerie Plame first” nor “Was there a White House conspiracy of revenge against Joe and Valerie Wilson?” The real issue here is that some person or persons violated the terms of their security clearance by releasing classified information, namely the true nature of Valerie Wilson’s job. Having held some rather high clearances myself—and thus being familiar with the responsibilities of a clearance holder—I know the fact that someone else has unlawfully revealed such information does not grant permission for anyone else to do so. Had any Regular Cleared Joe or Jill revealed such information, you can be sure that his or her clearance would’ve been yanked and the wheels of Federal Justice would have moved to grind him or her right into Leavenworth. Frankly, I am appalled at the lack of understanding and responsibility displayed by these clearance holders, and that opinion is shared by many of my former colleagues, on both sides of the political array, who see their personal responsibility and loyalty to their country as far more important than the sophomoric power games and gossip of the Beltway political apparatus.
Report thisBy anonymous, September 8, 2006 at 9:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I wonder if people really care about all the background information regarding Iraq’s dealings with America? I guess that Iraq was a complete country that included Kuwait before world war II! It hadn’t been given it’s name yet! I read a de-classified article that claimed that Great Britain had set up the borders of kuwait -gave the country it’s name! It occupied all of Iraq and apponted a twelve year old King! They were under British mandate that they could not import or export any goods wihout the express approval of Great Britain! That included Oil (remember Gulf Oil)
Kuwait used to be a part of Iraq before the war. What about US. annexing Hawaii to be a part of the US.? We sent a battleship there and were posed to invade the country of Hawaii ! The queen of Hawaii admitted that the US was a more powerful nation and did not want to shed blood . We put that queen into prison for 6 months. We annexed Hawaii to be a part of the US.Look in the mirror America! Look at the true history of our forefathers !
Iraq tried to do the same thing with Kuwait as well! How were they any different than US.? I wonder why they thought we were friends or allies in the war long past- between Iraq and Iran? We only offered “Iraq” satelite surveilance pictures to them -telling them just where the enemies military supply route was taking. This is where “your” enemies’ military has it’s base! This is your friend or allie that is telling you this!
How about our appointing military advisors as well in this effort to defeat Iraq’s enemy ? How about selling them Chemical weapons as well? If Sadamm used chemical weapons on his own people -who in our US military advised them on proper procedure for their use or storage?
As far as Sadaam being this criminal -what about Ramsey Clarks’ book -“The Fire This Time” ? He was attorney general under lyndon Johnson-he claims that the US had committed War crimes under Bush senior during Desert Storm!
What about the all the CIA operatives ? What is it that Kennedy wanted to do to the CIA? “I will dismantle the CIA “Brick by Brick” ! Sound familiar to his fans? If the CIA lied to US in the Iran-Contra affair what about with the present Valerie Plume story?
Wasn’t Lee Harvey OsWald as well a “CIA operative? So was Mafia man Santos Traficante a CIA operative! So what does that say about the Cia? What is the difference between a mafia hit man and a CIA assassin then? If someone is killed in the USA because they crossed the mafia or interfered with their “business” or business interest, it is still called murder where I am from!
If the CIA represents the USA’s interests whether it is oil corporations or some other entity-does that give them the right to kill on demand? I read (the book “CIA”)that we have killed a democratically elected official in Iran because he wanted to nationalize the oil supply! He didn’t serve our interests! He may have honored the sovereignty of his “own” people -in that he was taking the control of “his” countries’ oil supply away from let’s say standard oil or some other US company!
We had contracted maybe with a terrorist or maybe a mafia hit man? Who are the real terrorists’? Does America’s might always make it right!? But in America we claim to have the right to voice our opinion whether right or wrong! Sometimes we surmise or form our own perception of events !
Just food for thought!
Report thisBy ben, September 7, 2006 at 6:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
What a sad article. Everyone with a brain knows that Valerie Plame was not a covert CIA person. The whole Valerie Plame story is similar to the Natalie Holloway or John Bennett Ramsey story… an interesting story but not worthy of national attention. The simple facts are these. 1) Valerie Plame was a desk CIA person who got her husband a job to go do work that he was not qualified for… creating a lot of curiousity on the part of reports wondering… “why was this Joe Wilson guy sent to Africa”... 2) Armitage leaked the story, 3) when confronted White house operatives didn’t deny the truth.
Its really not that interesting of a story and nobody who understands the real meaning of treason thinks that treason was committed by White House operatives.
The only real crime is that apparently Scooter Libby lied to a grand jury.
This actually IS a crime, and I hope he is convincted and punished for this crime.
Report thisBy JEFF WILHELM, September 7, 2006 at 10:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I won’t list and refute the many proven falsehoods in this article but it sure sounds like when Dan Rather said the Bush National Guard story may have been proven false but I still believe it’s true.
Report thisBy John Earl, September 7, 2006 at 7:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Only a fool would believe that there was no White House directed smear campaign against Valerie Plame Wilson. Armitage conveniently let the cat out the bag. Rove and Cheney doused it with oil, lit the match and set it loose in the halls of the media.
Report thisBy floyd, September 7, 2006 at 6:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
What national press?
Report thisBy Lance, September 7, 2006 at 3:58 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
“We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration’s attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam’s regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts.”
1998 letter to President Clinton, signed by, among others:
Richard L. Armitage
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
“Unenthusiastic?”
Please…
Report this