Fitzgerald Owes Americans Some Answers
According to a report out today, columnist Robert Novak claims that in Richard Armitage's admission that he was the leaker in the Valerie Plame case, he is not being fully open about the manner in which the information was leaked.
In a September 7 CBS interview Armitage said, "At the end of a wide-ranging interview he (Novak) 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.... I didn't put any big import on it and I just answered and it was the last question we had."
Novak, however, is painting a different picture. "When Richard Armitage finally acknowledged last week he was my source three years ago in revealing Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA employee, the former deputy secretary of state's interviews obscured what he really did," Bob Novak said. "Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column."
Regardless of the manner in which Valerie Plame was leaked, the fact is that it was Armitage, not Karl Rove or anybody else at the White House. The question and the outrage that I have is why were two years and who knows how much money spent on an investigation into who leaked Plame's name when the guilty party was known the whole time?
Armitage claims that he did not publicly reveal that he was the leaker because special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald asked him not to. "He (Fitzgerald) cannot order people not to speak, but he can request it, and he requested that I and others remain quiet about this. And I followed his request until last week, when I called him and said, 'Can I be relieved of this?' and he said yes."
Novak does not buy that as a legitimate reason not to come forward. "When Armitage now says he was mute because of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's request, that does not explain his silent three months between his claimed first realization that he was the source and Fitzgerald's appointment on Dec. 30. Armitage's tardy self-disclosure is tainted because it is deceptive."
Novak goes on to say that Armitage's two and one-half years of silence "caused intense pain for his colleagues in government and enabled partisan Democrats in Congress to falsely accuse Rove of being my primary source."
My questions, and ones I don't hear many others asking, are why did Fitzgerald ask Armitage to remain silent? Why would he conduct a two-year investigation to learn something that he already knew? Doesn't Fitzgerald, as a prosecutor, have to answer to someone for conducting a sham investigation at the expense of the American people?
The American people need to demand some answers.
In a September 7 CBS interview Armitage said, "At the end of a wide-ranging interview he (Novak) 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.... I didn't put any big import on it and I just answered and it was the last question we had."
Novak, however, is painting a different picture. "When Richard Armitage finally acknowledged last week he was my source three years ago in revealing Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA employee, the former deputy secretary of state's interviews obscured what he really did," Bob Novak said. "Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column."
Regardless of the manner in which Valerie Plame was leaked, the fact is that it was Armitage, not Karl Rove or anybody else at the White House. The question and the outrage that I have is why were two years and who knows how much money spent on an investigation into who leaked Plame's name when the guilty party was known the whole time?
Armitage claims that he did not publicly reveal that he was the leaker because special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald asked him not to. "He (Fitzgerald) cannot order people not to speak, but he can request it, and he requested that I and others remain quiet about this. And I followed his request until last week, when I called him and said, 'Can I be relieved of this?' and he said yes."
Novak does not buy that as a legitimate reason not to come forward. "When Armitage now says he was mute because of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's request, that does not explain his silent three months between his claimed first realization that he was the source and Fitzgerald's appointment on Dec. 30. Armitage's tardy self-disclosure is tainted because it is deceptive."
Novak goes on to say that Armitage's two and one-half years of silence "caused intense pain for his colleagues in government and enabled partisan Democrats in Congress to falsely accuse Rove of being my primary source."
My questions, and ones I don't hear many others asking, are why did Fitzgerald ask Armitage to remain silent? Why would he conduct a two-year investigation to learn something that he already knew? Doesn't Fitzgerald, as a prosecutor, have to answer to someone for conducting a sham investigation at the expense of the American people?
The American people need to demand some answers.
posted by Bryan Alexander | 4:52 PM
2 Comments:
like pjf would waste his time or our money.
He seems to have wasted both, but if not, then we deserve to know the purpose of this investigation. Why was it conducted when the identity of the guilty person was known from the start?
Post a Comment
<< Home