September 16, 2006
Where’s the There? Posted by John Steele Gordon at 11:10 AM EST Joshua Zeitz writes, about Plamegate, “But I don’t see how this month’s coverage exonerates or implicates anyone. To invoke a horridly corny expression, the jury is still out.” If the jury is still out, it seems to me that is only because they are still deciding what to have for lunch. The main matters are settled. 1) It certainly seems clear that Richard Armitage’s more-than-a-little-tardy revelation and Hubris, the book by Michael Isikoff and David Corn revealing him to be the leaker, exonerate the White House completely of the endlessly repeated central charge in this whole matter. And that is of having deliberately conspired to break the law regarding covert CIA operatives in order to do Joseph Wilson an injury for his anti-Bush op-ed article—long revealed as a tissue of lies—in The New York Times in July 2003. 2) It seems equally clear that Karl Rove was not frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs because Karl Rove didn’t break any laws and didn’t initiate any conspiracy, legal or not, to discredit Joseph Wilson. In fact, no one broke the law regarding covert CIA operatives, because Valerie Plame did not meet the definition under the law. And no one conspired to discredit Joseph Wilson because no one needed to. He discredited himself quite thoroughly. Karl Rove surely knows Woodrow Wilson’s greatest piece of political advice: “Never murder a man who’s committing suicide.” 3) And it seems clear that the whole Valerie Plame affair was a gigantic waste of the public’s time and money and a major administration distraction in a time of war. Plamegate has proved to be the Oakland, California, of Washington scandals: there’s no there there. What we need now to lay this sorry episode entirely to rest is a full accounting from two people, Richard Armitage and Patrick Fitzgerald. Armitage has said he was unable to reveal the fact that he was the leaker—which would have brought the whole matter to a crashing end forthwith, saving the country, the administration, and numerous individuals endless trouble—because the special prosecutor instructed him not to talk about his grand jury testimony. That is, to be charitable, nonsense. First, Armitage, by his own admission, realized that he was the leaker in early October 2003, and the special prosecutor was not appointed until December 30, 2003, two and a half months later. Second, while prosecutors can request of witnesses that they remain silent, they are under no legal obligation to honor the request. Richard Armitage was, instead, under a profound moral and ethical obligation to tell the whole truth to the public immediately. Why didn’t he? Fitzgerald knew from the day he took office that (1) Armitage was the leaker and (2) the revelation of Valerie Plame’s employment at CIA did not break the law. He spent two and a half years tracking down a leaker he already knew the identity of and a crime he already knew had not been committed. Why did he?
| 
