Plame Affair Over

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html

End of an Affair

It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband.

Friday, September 1, 2006; A20

WE'RE RELUCTANT to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, over the past three years. But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.

SNIP

It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue.

SNIP

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.

 

There are quite a few posters right here on Baptist Board that perpetuated this falsehood vigorously. I wonder how many of them will admit they made a mistake.

 

How about never?

I don't even look for mistaken Baptist Board members to acknowledge their mistake. Political behavior is sometimes un-Christlike .

 

Why bother? All he quoted was opinion.

The truth has no effect on Galation.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/07/eveningnews/main1981433.shtml

EXCERPT

"Armitage says he didn't come forward because "the special counsel, once he was appointed, asked me not to discuss this and I honored his request."


It appears Fitzgerald has been on a three year witch hunt in a case in which he knew no crime was committed.

Was his real mission to set a perjury trap in which apparently the only fly caught was Libby?

I'm betting that even Libby will eventually be acquitted or the charges dropped.

 

Shortly after he talked to Armitage, the investigation should have ended.

Source found. No law broken. Case Closed.

 

Wrong thread.

 

Liberal talking head Chris Matthews now believes the Plame case is too "complicated" to cover any longer.

What he means is he's got too much crow to eat to cover it.


http://newsbusters.org/node/7482

Matthews to NewsBusters: Plame Story Too Complicated to Cover Now
Posted by Matthew Sheffield on September 8, 2006 - 12:00.

[After being called out by NewsBusters, Matthews ended his boycott late Friday. Be sure and read updates to this post below.]

Since the revelation that Richard Armitage, a former high-ranking official in the State Department, was the source of the much-ballyhooed Valerie Plame "leak," many in the media have refused to touch the story with a ten-foot pole. This was quite a turnaround since before the Armitage involvement was known, many journalists believed the CIA leak story was one worth pursuing on a daily basis. Some even believed it could bring down the Bush White House, or at least end the careers of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.
One of the biggest media figures boycotting the Plame story has been MSNBC host Chris Matthews, who has yet to mention the scandal at all since the Armitage report broke, a dramatic contrast to the 27 times he mentioned the "scandal" in the five months leading up to it.

Like P.J. Gladnick, I couldn't help but notice Matthews's strange flip. So I decided to ask him about it. His answer revealed an animus toward Vice President Dick Cheney and a fear of being asked to answer tough questions himself.

Last night, I went to a press conference/party held by MSNBC and National Journal celebrating a new venture the two media outlets are launching together. Quite a few NBCers were there, including Chris Matthews. I struck up a conversation with the host about the topic of Plame and why he hadn't talked about the story at all. Here's a rough transcript of our discussion which I wrote down shortly thereafter:

Q: So I've noticed you haven't done anything on the whole Valerie Plame story since the Armitage story broke. Why not invite Joe Wilson on the show to defend himself?

A: Because he'd say basically the same thing he always says. 'My wife had no involvement in getting me the mission.' He'd just repeat it over and over.

Q: Maybe, but isn't it at least worth showing your viewers that this guy has no credibility considering how much you talked about the story before? Shouldn't he be held accountable for wasting all our time? Why not invite one of his representatives or defenders on the show?

A: Well, the story's just gotten so complicated. I mean, it's just such a mess. Because what if it's true that Armitage was the source, but those other guys [presumably Rove and Scooter Libby], also were leakers, what then?

Q: Isn't that a question worth exploring on your show?

A: It could be but the problem is that Dick Cheney has so many apologists it's ridiculous. So many journalists like Bob Woodward will say or do anything just to get access to him. And then all the people in the administration too.

Q: I don't see why this is stopping you from mentioning the story at all. The viewers at least need some sort of closure don't they?

A: Hey listen I need to get out of here. I have to get back home.

After that remark, Matthews left the conversation. He stuck around for about 15 minutes before leaving.