http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5819

Dangerous Liaisons: Wilson, Armitage and the MSM
September 2nd, 2006

In an article shamelessly ignoring its role in the Wilson hoax and
solicitous of the leaker, the New York Times finally, on a holiday
weekend Saturday, mentions that Richard Armitage was the source of the
leak of Plame's identity. It focuses on whether Fitzgerald was right
to continue the prosecution after he knew Novak didn't learn about
Plame from Rove or Libby, the people the paper railed against from the
moment Nicholas Kristof megaphoned Ambassador Munchausen's fabulous
tale of his Mission to Niger more three years ago:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 - An enduring mystery of the C.I.A. leak case has
been solved in recent days, but with a new twist: Patrick J.
Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, knew the identity of the leaker from his
very first day in the special counsel's chair, but kept the inquiry
open for nearly two more years before indicting I. Lewis Libby Jr.,
Vice President ***** Cheney's former chief of staff, on obstruction
charges.

Now, the question of whether Mr. Fitzgerald properly exercised his
prosecutorial discretion in continuing to pursue possible wrongdoing
in the case has become the subject of rich debate on editorial pages
and in legal and political circles.

To me, it's an "enduring mystery" how the paper which was the first to
print as truth Wilson's lies and which trumpeted them for three years,
can write this self-protecting bilge with a straight face.

Still, if you still believe anything they publish, there are two
eyeopeners in this article:

He turned over his calendars, datebooks and even his wife's computer
in the course of the inquiry, those associates said. But Mr. Armitage
kept his actions secret, not even telling President Bush because the
prosecutor asked him not to divulge it, the people said.

Of course, the President had, from the day a leak was claimed, asked
everyone in his Administration to tell him if they had leaked. He
certainly would not have agreed to an investigation nor demanded his
people cooperate with it, even signing waivers of press
confidentiality, had he known who the leaker was. He would have just
fired him or kept him on with the explanation-which no one much
questions-that it was inadvertent, regretful and had not in any way
harmed national security.

Had Armitage followed his boss' orders, the Administration would not
have been kept in the dark and frequently pummeled for three years in
the NYT for "outing Plame," punishing a "whistleblower" and damaging
national security (ironically even as the paper itself deliberately
leaked critical national security secrets which the Administration and
a bipartisan Congressional delegation begged the paper not to
publish). Another question is the identity of this "prosecutor" who,
by the Times' account,

asked him not to divulge it, the people said.

Fitzgerald wasn't appointed until months after Armitage's miraculous
memory recovery about Novak. No one in the DOJ could have asked him
not to tell the President.

And, if Armitage had turned over his calendars, why did the prosecutor
apparently fail to ask him about the meeting with Woodward on June 12?
This failure to ask about notations of conversations with other
reporters looks to me like even more evidence of the skewed nature of
this probe. Kind of like Durham, NC DA Mike Nifong's using a photo
identification which showed only the faces of the Duke Lacrosse team
when asking the alleged victim to identify her attackers. (Hey, pick a
fish out of only this barrel for me to prosecute.)

Mr. Armitage had prepared a resignation letter, his associates said.
But he stayed on the job because State Department officials advised
that his sudden departure could lead to the disclosure of his role in
the leak, the people aware of his actions said.

Better to have left Libby and Rove dangling than tip them off to the
truth? Got it. Prince of a fellow. And boy, those unnamed State
department officials are paragons of loyalty and virtue. Real
statesmen.

The Washington Post called Wilson a liar and dubbed the denouement of
his fable "End of an Affair." I'd call this new series of disclosures
"Dangerous Liaisons" because at the moment a lot of people in the
Capitol remind me of the Marquise de Merteuil after her schemings have
been discovered. As for the New York Times, I have to say its
continuing reportage on this matter is to me simply indescribable. In
the meantime, even the Washington Post's volte face is deficient in a
number of respects. And it is a volte face. Tom Maguire notes,
because he is so fair, a number of occasions where several of the
Post's writers, Woodward, Dana Priest and Walter Pincus, downplayed
the incident.

Still, other writers at the Post did continue the Wilson fable, which
Pincus began, and the paper waited two and one-half years to correct
those lies, even after the SenateSelectCommission on Intelligence and
the Butler and Robb-Silverman Commissions established that the claims
made by Wilson were fabrications. But the Post piece insinuates that
even if the prosecution was based on a false premise that is no excuse
for lying or obstructing it, giving more weight to the actual claims
in the indictment than they merit. In fact, this adds insult to
injury. The charges in the indictment are as warped as the rest of the
investigation and prosecution. Tom Maguire has some fun with this:

With Cooper, it is clear (to some) that after Karl Rove learned from
Novak that a column about Wilson and Plame was imminent, Rove
ruthlessly sat by the phone and waited for Matt Cooper to call him and
ask about Niger.

Then when Cooper interviewed Libby the next day, Libby was so brutal
and crafty that he never raised the subject of Ms. Plame, but offered
something like "I heard that, too" when Cooper asked him about her.

But it's worse than that. In pretrial disovery the judge found that
the documents in Time's possession showed that however Cooper
testified, his testimony would be impeachable at trial. Let me clarify
what this means. It means Time has had in its possession from the
outset evidence that Cooper said one thing in the newsroom and another
to the grand jury. What else can this mean?

As to Miller, Tom observes mordantly,

"And the Judy Miller leak? Libby was so intent on besmirching Wilson
with the nepotism charge that he forgot to tell Judy that Ms. Plame
had a role in arranging her husband's trip to Niger.

And Special Counsel Fitzgerald still can't prove that Libby was aware
of Ms. Plame's classified status back when he was conspiring to punish
Joe by outing hs wife. (Too bad Libby didn't use his psychic powers
to get the truth about Saddam's WMDs.). Oh well - Fitzgerald only had
two years to look into this. The truth will emerge any day now, or at
least, within the next 24 business hours."

As to Miller, the Judge has held that documentation in the New York
Times' possession MAY impeach her testimony depending on how she
testifies. After she testifies Libby will get to see and use it. In
any event (even by her reports of her testimony) it was so
unintelligible, the variations in her and Libby's testimony is only a
factor in an obstruction charge, not an independent perjury or false
tesimony charge.

I wonder if Armitage's calendar shows notations of conversations with
Miller? If so, I wonder whether the prosecutor ignored those as he
apparently did the notations respecting Woodward? Her notes, after
all, showed she had Wilson's name and phone number and numerous
references to VictoriaWilson/Plame /Flame? which she said were not
references to her conversations with Libby, and by agreement with the
Prosecutor those sources were not revealed.

This leaves, the Russert/Libby conversation .As I've detailed more
fully:

Libby testified that on July 10 or 11, 2003 he had a conversation with
Tim Russert of NBC. According to Libby's grand jury statement, Russert
asked him if he (Libby) was aware that Wilson's wife worked for the
CIA and told Libby "all the reporters knew it."

According to the indictment Libby and Russert did not discuss this at
all.

Since Woodward has come forward, he has said he might well have
approached Libby about that time about Wilson and Plame, right after
his conversation with Armitage on June 12, 2003. His notes indicate he
intended to ask Libby about Wilson and Plame and may well have. He
does not believe Libby responded to this because he has no notation
that he did.

So, it is entirely possible, assuming Russert's testimony is credible,
that he never discussed this at all with Libby, Libby may have
confused his conversation with Libby at about the very same time with
the one he had with Woodward.Woodward unsuccessfully tried twice in
2004 to get a waiver from Armitage so that he could tell the
Prosecutor about his conversation with Armitage. He has said,

And my sworn testimony is that [this conversation with Libby is]
possible. I simply don't recall it, and he certainly said nothing. But
after long interviews and you have long lists of questions, you can't
really say, "Gee, did I ask that or that." At least, two years later,
I can't. Maybe the next day I might have been able to.

If Armitage had given Woodward the early waiver he sought, and
Fitzgerald then asked Woodward about any conversations with Libby,
this might have finally concluded the matter, for the likely confusion
of the two conversations on the same day is patent.

And Libby is the man charged with obstruction? Clarice Feldman is an
attorney in Washington, DC, who has covered the
Plame/Wilson/Fitzgerald/Armitage scandal extensively.

Clarice Feldman

--
"Science is the record of dead religions." -- Oscar Wilde

"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance

"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.

"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce

"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net