Decision ‘08

PlameGate’s End: Denouement Of A Farce

Contra Kevin Drum, with his ridiculous assertion that “this case is far from closed“, Christopher Hitchens argues it should have never been open:

…[N]ow we have the final word on who did disclose the name and occupation of Valerie Plame, and it turns out to be someone whose opposition to the Bush policy in Iraq has—like Robert Novak’s—long been a byword in Washington. It is particularly satisfying that this admission comes from two of the journalists—Michael Isikoff and David Corn—who did the most to get the story wrong in the first place and the most to keep it going long beyond the span of its natural life.

Colin Powell and his State Department cronies could have killed this story in its infancy, but chose not to in a fit of pique:

What does emerge from Hubris is further confirmation of what we knew all along: the extraordinary venom of the interdepartmental rivalry that has characterized this administration. In particular, the bureaucracy at the State Department and the CIA appear to have used the indiscretion of Armitage to revenge themselves on the “neoconservatives” who had been advocating the removal of Saddam Hussein. Armitage identified himself to Colin Powell as Novak’s source before the Fitzgerald inquiry had even been set on foot. The whole thing could—and should—have ended right there.

Hitchens has been a voice of reason on this story all along; he not only continually reminds us that Saddam did send a top nuclear hand to Niger (thus proving the substance behind PlameGate wrong), but also that the far-less-important matter of Valerie Plame’s identity was never ‘leaked’ in any meaningful sense (thus proving the particulars of PlameGate wrong, as well).

The fact that Armitage is the source would be of little import, but for the fact that the investigation was allowed to continue for no good reason at all.

Put a fork in this one; it’s overdone…

12 Responses to “PlameGate’s End: Denouement Of A Farce”

1 Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » The Plame Affair Has Come Full Circle Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 1:49 am
[…] Decision ‘08 […]
2 Bill Biddle Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 9:06 am
> Hitchens … continually reminds us that Saddam did send a top nuclear hand to Niger
> (thus proving the substance behind PlameGate wrong),

No - the Senate Investigative report discounted this story. Hitchens has never added any detail to show anything substantive about it.

> Valerie Plame’s identity was never ‘leaked’ in any meaningful sense

A working CIA operative was publically identified. She was working on WMD tracking on Iran for goodness sake!
3 ME Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 9:06 am
Couple of things:

1. It seems that rove and libby, once they knew the cat was out of the bag, began spilling the beans to reporters. Matthew Cooper heard this info from Rove BEFORE Novak published his story, and he reported that Rove said “I’ve already said too much” before hanging up the phone. This can only mean that Rove knew he was acting in bad faith (legality aside)

2. Hitchens will “remind” us of all kinds of usefull bullsh** as long as it contradicts conventional wisdom. For example, his assertion that the training camp in Iraq was under Saddam’s control is based on nothing but speculation, yet he touts it as fact on a regular basis. Wilson was sent to investigate a forged document that purported to document an actual sale of uranium. How sending a top nuclear hand (even if it was true, which I doubt) equates to a sale is beyond me. The documents were crlearly forged because someone had an interest in proving something that they otherwise could not, and you are asserting this is all a farce! Wishful thinking.

3. Plame’s identity (and more importantly, Brewster Jennings identity) was leaked. WTF does “in any meaningful sense” mean? Her identity as CIA was unknown! Novak admits the CIA told him not to pub lish her name!

4. Just because there is no conviction, doesn’t mean this whole affair is meaningless or that there was no wrongdoing. It has provided quite amazing insight into the operations of our media and Bush’s spin team.

5. The amazing capability of the right to play down this (she wasn’t covert, the uranium sale was real, they’re just trying to hurt the president - grasping at straws really) while simultaneously calling someone like Cindy Sheehan a traitor, really exposes the Party-over-country attitude that has allowed the right to do so much damage, not just to our country, but to those who would defend her from the lying manipulations of an intellectually puny man with britches far to big for his own good.
4 Mark Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 9:21 am
Bill, your assertion that Hitchens didn’t provide any detail on the Niger visit is just factually wrong. I’ll grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re just ignorant of the prior work of Hitchens, most noticably here.

Both you and ME misunderstand, apparently, what it means to ‘leak’ something. It implies an intentional act regarding information one knows is classified, not just idle talk from an incorrigible Washington gossip who was hostile to the Bush case for Iraq to begin with….
5 Dmac Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 9:51 am
First, we have this:

“It seems that rove and libby, once they knew the cat was out of the bag, began spilling the beans to reporters.”

Then this:

“his assertion that the training camp in Iraq was under Saddam’s control is based on nothing but speculation…”

“It seems?” “Based on nothing but speculation? Apparently you’re not aware that you’ve just entirely contradicted yourself here - do you not read your posts before you actually send them in?

“Just because there is no conviction, doesn’t mean this whole affair is meaningless or that there was no wrongdoing…”

Really? Based on what, your own “speculation” here? Poster, heal thyself.
6 John Gillnitz Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 10:49 am
Put a fork in this one; it’s overdone…

It seems like no one has told Pat Fitzgerald.
7 Mark Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 11:18 am
Whatever can you possibly mean? Fitzgerald has much egg on his face after this…if anything, his case against Libby just got much tougher to win, and he surely is not foolish enough to try to reopen the investigation after he has just publicly been revealed to be such a poor investigator, or a tool (take your pick)…
8 mtl Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 11:46 am
Her identity was made public, but the source for the Novak article was Armitage. Novak had asked the CIA if it was ok to print, and they gave him the ‘go ahead’. (The go ahead was basically that no one’s live would be put in danger.)

The source was not Libby, not rove, not Cheney, not Bush.

Is Libby discussing it with Miller even relevant, if she does not publish Plame’s name?

History is going to ask the question:

If everyone was so angered at the leaker-when it was thought to be a WH official-where did the anger go when they realized that they had the guilty party?

Still waiting for those articles which condemn armitage as he is guilty of every nefarious implication that the WH was assailed with, still waiting for the apology of David Corn and his fauty intel…

or consider Bush’s statement-’If anyone had anything to do witht the leak, they won’t be around here much longer…’

Now that the source is clearly armitage-he has fulfilled his promise.
9 Brian Despain Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
“. Novak had asked the CIA if it was ok to print, and they gave him the ‘go ahead’. (The go ahead was basically that no one’s live would be put in danger.)”

Actually this contradicts what Novak himself has said. He stated that the CIA wasn’t emphatic enough in asking not to print the name. This was on Meet the Press in his recent appearance wh. In fact at one point he asked to speak to George Tenet and if George told him not to do publish it, he wouldn’t. Apparently Tenet was too busy to take the call. This is far from a “go ahead.” The simple fact that the CIA then referred it to Justice indicates that they didn’t give a “go ahead.”

“or consider Bush’s statement-’If anyone had anything to do witht the leak, they won’t be around here much longer…’”

Exactly what did the president to Scooter? Or Armitage? Oh that’s right absolutely nothing.
10 Mark Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Brian, that’s pretty rich, considering that the State Department hid the information of who the leaker was from the President…
11 Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Well, Live And Learn Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 9:46 pm
[…] Thanks to our good friend fatman for alerting me that my “PlameGate Denouement” post had gone missing (unfortunately, I’m sure quite a few people got error messages, as it was linked by Salon’s Daou Report. Sigh…). […]
12 Major Minor Says:
November 13th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
Why do people continually miss the main point here — that Plame was not, and had not been for many years, an undercover operative, and this “cover” she had in the past didn’t protect any actual sources or methods — just a “convenience cover” so she would appear to be a commercial traveler while gathering routine information that was not considered classified by the other country. Pretending she was some sort of a HUMINT operator is laughable, and stating that this so-called “outing” put anyone at risk is even funnier. No one in the business believes that, nor anyone in the media with a passing familiarity with the actual story.

Real operatives don’t spew their Agency employment to Citibank or their mortgage lender when applying for credit — that sort of silliness is reserved for Agency employees in non-sensitive positions who just want to affect a James Bond persona for psychological reasons one doesn’t care to contemplate.

Plame wasn’t covered by this part of the criminal code because she was a routine administrative employee of CIA. Period. Anyone who understood the issues knew this from the first, as did most of Capitol Hill and the media — but it suited the political agenda of many of them to pretend otherwise. As I predicted long, long ago, prosecution won’t happen because it’s impossible.