This will be of interest to Plame watchers:
In an exclusive interview with CBS News national security correspondent David Martin, Richard Armitage, once the No. 2 diplomat at the State Department, couldn’t be any blunter.
“Oh I feel terrible. Every day, I think I let down the president. I let down the Secretary of State. I let down my department, my family and I also let down Mr. and Mrs. Wilson,” he says.
When asked if he feels he owes the Wilsons an apology, he says, “I think I’ve just done it.”
In July 2003, Armitage told columnist Robert Novak that Ambassador Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, and Novak mentioned it in a column. It’s a crime to knowingly reveal the identity of an undercover CIA officer. But Armitage didn’t yet realize what he had done.
So, what exactly did he tell Novak?
“At the end of a wide-ranging interview he asked me, ‘Why did the CIA send Ambassador (Wilson) to Africa?’ I said I didn’t know, but that she worked out at the agency,” Armitage says.
Armitage says he told Novak because it was “just an offhand question.” “I didn’t put any big import on it and I just answered and it was the last question we had,” he says.
Armitage adds that while the document was classified, “it doesn’t mean that every sentence in the document is classified.
“I had never seen a covered agent’s name in any memo in, I think, 28 years of government,” he says.
He adds that he thinks he referred to Wilson’s wife as such, or possibly as “Mrs. Wilson.” He never referred to her as Valerie Plame, he adds.
“I didn’t know the woman’s name was Plame. I didn’t know she was an operative,” he says.
Other than the Libby trial, I think we are at the end of the road with the Plame affair. I imagine hype about the civil suit will be resurrected aroundelection time, but other than that, I don’ see much else in the future regarding this issue.
Zifnab
Hey John. Long time no see. How are classes treating you?
Edmund Dantes
These two sentences don’t jibe at all
vs.
So if you’ve never seen a covered agent’s name in any memo in 28 years, how did a covered agent’s name end up in a memo that was shuffled around enough that he offhand exposes a CIA covered agent?
Hmmm… is it me or does something still smell a little here?
Zifnab
That said, after all the ducking and dodging and weasling the White House has done in this, it still smells like month old fish.
But you’re right on this at least. It looks like case closed.
Mr Furious
Smells more like three-year-old fish.
That story would have sounded acceptable the fall of 2003, early in the investigation, but this whole thing still bothers me. Armitage is falling on his sword for someone, but we’ll likely never know.
End of the road indeed.
Pb
I don’t:
VidaLoca
John,
Well, you might be right in that we’ve come to another bend in the road with the Plame affair but it’s too soon to be talking about the end.
1. Fitzgerald knew about Armitage’s role long before he brought charges against Libby. If Armitage was the “end of the road” why charge Libby at all?
2. Just among the set of jounalists involved in the case — if the only leak was Armitage to Novak, how do we explain the roles of Judy Miller, Matt Cooper, Bob Woodward.
In other words Armitage may have been talking out of class but that does not rule out the possibility that others were doing so as well.
For more, see emptywheel particularly:
Some Questions (9/7)
The NYT Demands Answers (9/6)
Pot, Kettle (9/6)
Now THIS Is a Scoop (9/5)
Debunking the Runaway Prosecutor Claims (9/2)
Mac Buckets
I’d say it’s becoming obvious that the vast majority of the weaseling on the Plame Affair was not done by the Administration, but rather by critics who cared nothing about covert operatives and everything about damaging the President and Cheney.
Keith
Has Fitzgerald dismissed the grand jury yet/ended the investigative portion of this thing? I’m not familiar with how a federal attorney segues from an open-ended grand jury investigation to a prosecution, but I would figure if it’s just down to Libby, he’d dismiss the grand jury and focus solely on Libby at this point. If not, any ideas as to why?
Bombadil
I would not be a bit surprised if this arises again in some form should the Democrats take the House and/or the Senate this fall. If oversight and investigative hearings are called, I fully expect this to be among the topics raised.
Zifnab
Yes, Mac. We are well aware of your fondness for pie.
neil
It’s interesting, because this proves that although Armitage was the _first_ he certainly wasn’t the _only_. Where’d the name “Plame” come from? How’d they know about her involvement with Wilson’s trip? And how many other people already raised these questions in this thread?
Thomas
It’s pretty amazing that the right is spinning this as a major victory. A year ago they were convinced that Fitzgerald was going to indict Wilson himself for his wife’s outing. Now the line is that it was okay to out her and commit perjury because her husband was saying bad things about the admin. Also, there was a CIA plot to get Bush.
I don’t think there is much more to this case either, but if you went back in a time machine to the start of this case in 2003 and explained what had happened with Cheney knowing her name and telling Libby who then told journalists and then lied about under oath you’d get the same derision as we’re hearing now.
The facts change but the bullshit remains.
D. Mason
It’s the only constant in Washington D.C.
neil
I’d say it’s becoming obvious that the vast majority of the weaseling on the Plame Affair was not done by the Administration, but rather by critics who cared nothing about covert operatives and everything about damaging the President and Cheney.
There’s more to this than just pie, I must admit, but I still don’t find it very convincing. Because of national security reasosn, we truly didn’t know the nature of the covert mission that Plame was on and basically had to go off of various theories; either that she was Something Important or, else, Not. Since we cared about the case without knowing the answer to this for sure, it can definitely be said that it was more about ‘damaging’ the President (a strange way to describe procedural justice, to be sure) than about a covert agent.
However, once again, the hunch has been borne out, it turns out that Plame was an undercover agent working in a very important and relevant field, and that we were right when we said the Bush administration was wilfully damaging our national security. Something that people like Mac Buckets pretend to care about, but obviously, they care quite a bit more about shielding their favorite President from the law.
jcricket
Please John – Don’t buy the line that because one of the people involved has finally come out and admitted his part, that this is over. Again, had he done this three years ago, it’s quite possible the rest of the investigation would not have been conducted. However, the coverup quite likely indicates that there was far more to this than just Armitage and Libby.
Quoting from Warren Strobel’s article
(emphasis added)
Right now it’s all “nothing to see here, move along” BS from a WH that desparately wants, no needs, the scandal to go away. Only, like every other scandal (Delay, Cunningham, Ney, Abramoff, VT phone jamming, secret prisons, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, warrantless wire tapping, VECO) there is always more than the participants are willing to admit, even after multiple revelations come out.
Jon H
John,
Her name was being shopped around before Armitage talked to anyone.
Andrew
What the fuck is wrong with the media? David “Extreme Moderate” Broder is a complete idiot.
How can Washington journalists not know the first thing about security clearances?
You can go blab classified information to the media all day long and get it published and broadcast. I am still not permitted to release that exact same information, or confirm or deny its veracity. If I do, I can be held just as responsible as the initial leaker. This is beaten into the head of anyone with a clearance. Until the information is officially declassified, it is secret, no matter who knows it or how many times it is in the New York Times.
Furthermore, legal issues aside, there are numerous administrative issues: loss of clearance and loss of job should happen immediately, even if the case is not provable in a court of law.
HyperIon
don’t forget Gannon.
Richard 23
If Armitage simply made an honest mistake, how does that explain away Rove talking to Cooper and Libby blabbing to Judith Miller? Did all three mess up on accident?
chopper
mac blames critics of the administration? will wonders never cease!
i find it odd that the recent news that plame was part of the CIA organization tasked with finding evidence of WMDs in iraq has pretty much fallen flat. i guess all that GOP whining about her merely being a ‘desk jockey’ was a buncha horseshit, as usual. but that isn’t weaseling at all, no, not in the slightest.
Kirk Spencer
The touchstone to it all is the name – Plame.
Armitage said “Wilson’s wife works at the CIA.” Novak wrote (paraphrased) “Valerie Plame, Wilson’s wife, works at the CIA.”
There was no reason for the first two words to be added UNLESS someone pushed it. Sure, Novak could have looked it up. And if he was checking every bit of data it’s possible he did look up the Wilsons in the Who’s Who.
But he doesn’t write “Hillary Rodham”. He doesn’t write of “Laura Welch” or “Barbara Pierce”. The only time he uses a professional name over legal (like Michelle Malkin instead of Maglalang) is if it’s known to be the “right” use. And the only place “Plame” was correct was inside the CIA building.
Someone who knew Valerie PLAME worked at the CIA would – by nature of her position (recently revealed as the HEAD of the task force studying IRAQ – ponder that) was the one who pushed the information.
For whatever reason, someone who knew the rules decided the rules didn’t apply to him.
The touchstone is the name. It’s what moves this from “oops” to intentional on someone’s part, Armitage’s problem notwithstanding.
Edmund Dantes
It doesn’t. As has been pointed out before in this thread. Armitage in no way exonerates anyone else’s actions.
A. Her name was classified. Armitage alludes to it in his very apology.
B. How did a classified operatives name get into a memo that was generally circulated to several heads or assistants of departments. This of course brings up all kinds of questions as to what was the motivation for including her name.
C. If there was a compelling reason for having her name in the memo, why wasn’t it (this is of course assuming it wasn’t so marked) noted clearly it was classified and was not for “casual” conversations?
D. Security Clearance doctrine and access is predicated on the fact you confirm nothing, you disclose nothing, etc. without first checking to make sure what you are about to say isn’t classified. The excuse “I didn’t know” doesn’t fly since all the documents signed quite clearly it’s your responsibility to know before speaking. There are even penalties for failing to do so. Some criminal.
So this means that everyone involved that talked about Plame is guilty of a crime (at minimum the leaking of Classified information) one way or another. They either did check, and found out she was classified yet talked anyway or they failed in their duties (in a time of “war” no less) failed to check then compromised Intelligence gathering against our enemies.
At minimum they should have their security clearances revoked and be fired.
Tsulagi
Yeah, this thing was pretty much done before it even got really started. Here’s a snippet from one Scott McClellan press conference. Scotty doing his best Baghdad Bob impersonation:
Q: Scott, has anyone — has the president tried to find out who outed the CIA agent? And has he fired anyone in the White House yet?
McCLELLAN: Well, Helen, that’s assuming a lot of things. First of all, that is not the way this White House operates. The president expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing. (Baghdad Bob would be so proud of Scotty)
Later in same conference…McCLELLAN: The president has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He’s made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.
Then to sum up… Q: You continue to talk about the severity of this and if anyone has any information they should go forward to the Justice Department. But can you tell us, since it’s so severe, would someone or a group of persons, lose their job in the White House?
McCLELLAN: At a minimum.
The next day, Bushy when asked about McClellan’s statements did a “what he said.”
Now as I recall, both Libby and Rove have admitted, presumably acting independent of Armitage, that they bandied Plame’s identity around with reporters before Novak’s piece was published. Also, Libby has said that he was acting on behalf of the Veep who wanted that story shopped.
But yes, it wasn’t going anywhere. The concept that Bush would keep his word, or even have one to give, was DOA. And of course you can’t simply fire the VP. Plus, since in an executive order Bushy has essentially made him co-president, the Dick can declassify anything as he speaks. Anyway, if push came to shove and some of his brain were on trial, Bush would just whip out a finding by Gonzales that as wartime president he can be any degree of lying bastard he chooses to be and stop that terrorist-loving nonsense. Case closed.
The Other Steve
Mac. Did you find your mommy yet?
The Other Steve
Edmund Dantes
Haven’t you heard?
She wasn’t covert! Mac Buckets told me so.
John D.
Nice parsing.
By starting that statement with “I’d say…” you manage to make a factually true statement that depends upon your being a liar yet managing to avoid a paradox. I applaud your l33t English skills.
Darrell
The left framed it all as a big Rove-orchestrated conspiracy to “smear” anyone who dared oppose Bush.. undeterred by the shredded credibility of their hero Joe Wilson, whose lies were exposed by the Senate intelligence committee, the left propped him up as their hero, cheering the Wilson’s lawsuit. All they gave a sh*t about was damaging Bush and his administration, facts and truth be damned.
Pb
Oh no, Mr. pie-hole!
True, on many occasions, but don’t forget Cheney.
Only on The Right, due to said smear campaign.
False.
Fixed.
Darrell
Predictable response which probably represents most on the left. They’ll never let go. Facts don’t matter. Insinuate and smear without basis.
ding
If Plame was NOT undercover, Bush/Cheney would have declassified her “desk jockey” status within nano-seconds
Tulkinghorn
Why oh why do I never learn.
Predictable response==> Ok, we predictably object to dishonest and statements of fact, and to illogically drawn conclusions. Guilty as charged.
which probably represents most on the left==> So? Whether it represents most or just some of the left does not relate to whether something is true or not. Facts are not changed because a particular group you despise ‘probably’ believes it. For example: Chalabi is a proven liar. Chalabi believes in the law of gravity. Therefore _____. Fill in the blank.
They’ll never let go.===> Even if they are wrong, why should the give up as long as they have good reason to think they are right? Here, the fact that Armitage leaked something does not disprove that Rove and Libby did as well. All in all, it suggests a wider conspiracy.
Facts don’t matter.===> Not when the facts are irrelevant. Pray tell, how does the confession of Armitage let anyone else off the hook? As discussed in detail above, they don’t.
Insinuate and smear without basis.===>Your whole post is a smear on “…most of the left [who]’ll never let go” and for whom “facts don’t matter.” Project much? How is failing to find Armitage credible and relevant a smear on anyone?
Conclusion: You are not arguing, debating or stating anything. This is nothing but propaganda. You, Darrell, are demonstrated to be a propagandist. There is no point in further responding to you whatsoever.
Go get a nice slice of fuckyouberry pie.
RonB
Darrell is actually on target about one thing; Armitage is not the type of guy to fall on his sword for anyone.
However, Edmund Dantes is absolutely correct in saying that what he did exonerates anyone else for their sleazy behavior.
ats
We have yet to see the end of it. After all, Libby lied (why?) and there may yet be other shoes to drop. Why Fitzgerald’s drawn out decision on Rove? He had every reason to want to rule him out early.
Dont even try to tell me that the White House set up the media to hang itself. Rove and the others obviously did all the stonewalling they could— because they THOUGHT they were guilty (and perhaps are).
The subject has become a bore, but that is different from saying it is over.