"So what possible wrinkles are there? I'd start with the odd claim that Armitage didn't realize his apparently crucial role until reading Novak's October 1, 2003 column.* jeralyn:
I've harped repeatedly on the fact that Novak has avoided saying clearly whether his conversation with his so-called primary source was actually the first time he'd learned about Joe Wilson's wife working for the CIA. Why did the now-indicted Lewis "Scooter" Libby tell so many lies to the FBI and the grand jury about what he knew regarding Plame's identity if he played no role in that information being passed along to Bob Novak? And why did Libby tell Ari Fleischer the exact information that Novak would attribute to his primary source just one day before Novakula met with Armitage? It seems to me that this mystery hasn't been fully resolved yet."
"It's curious to me that Fitz is giving Armitage and Rove a pass, but not Libby. Why? I think it has to do with the July 12 flight to Norfolk. Fitz has not yet closed his investigation. I suspect Cheney is still in his cross-hairs. And Ari Fleischer is a key witness against Libby. Somehow, I suspect Ari Fleishcher has given more to Fitzgerald than we know."
* christy:
"Armitage may have told Novak and Woodward that Valerie was involved in some way in her husband’s selection as the CIA’s man-on-the-ground in Niger, but it appears, according to Isikoff at least, that he did not have knowledge at that point that she was a covert operative, which is an essential piece of the charging puzzle for Patrick Fitzgerald’s prosecution.
[]
Something’s missing"
* booman:
"For three years Plameologists have speculated on who the rat was within the administration that talked out of school. Most speculation has centered on Richard Armitage (although I always preferred George Tenet or Marc Grossman as the source). Is it possible that Richard Armitage told Mike Allen and Dana Priest about Rove and Libby's smear campaign on September 27th, and then realized on October 1st that he was, in fact, responsible for the leak of Plame's name?
[]
This is a remarkable piece of history being written here. Armitage only realized he was Novak's primary source two and a half months after Novak published his story? He was distraught? Perhaps he needed a cover story to keep his job and stay out of jail.
[]
Isikoff's story stinks. It doesn't add up."
8 comments:
a little off topic-
I've always wondered why the Republicans hadn't geared up the smear machine on Fitzgerald. It's out of character for them, don't you think?
- Jiminy Cricket
True. It IS out of character . . . 'ceptin' when they're all holding their collective breath! :-)
it's an interesting question jiminy. i suspect that it's either a) cos he's on their side b) they don't wanna risk pissing him off or c) he's unimpeachable.
i dont really believe it could possibly be c) and i 'pray' that it's not a)
they don't touch sibel either :-)
(except in turkey)
I think it is both (b) AND (c).
There are many who, because he was appointed to the U.S. Attorney job in Chicago by bu$h, think he is a Republican. He is not.
Read this article in the Washington Post (February 2, 2005):
The Prosecutor Never Rests.
Hmmm...
Option (c) - Unimpeachable? Really though- when has that ever stopped them before? They've stooped to just making shit up about people who were "unimpeachable" before.
Besides, I'm always alittle suspicious when the media/talking heads assigns the "knight and shinning armour" role to someone. If someone really is the real deal, the media USUALLY crucifys them.
Something this important...you'd think you'd hear something derogatory/discrediting about Fitzgerald, at least down at the bottom of the right-wing echo chamber. This administration can't come out and smear Fitzgerald but their surrogates can (and have before). But there's no smear campaign. Weird, huh?
Option (b) - Perhaps...Maybe they think Fitzgerald might look the other way when the evidence gets too close to the top if they don't piss him off too much - but that doesn't seem like a very smart strategy. And not Rove's M.O. - it's just flat out not how these people play.
Besides, if Fitzgerald really is the prosecutor who never rests, as they say, then he'll throw the guilty parties in the slammer no matter how nice the right-wing talking heads/media are.
Option (a) - ug...Yeah, I've entertained that idea before. Especially when my partner (who I've mentioned before works at FOX) told me the republicans at work trusts Fitzgerald. That really struck me as strange. Cause they shouldn't.
Any other options? Cause I don't like option a.
- Jiminy Cricket
oh god, i hope its not a)
but i dont have any other options.
Well, y'all can call me a cockeyed optimist if you like, but I stand by my (b) and (c) choices. Several years ago I knew another U.S. Attorney who was then the same age as Fitz is now. He, too, was a career prosecutor, and was driven to lock up major-league scoff-laws with no regard for political party.
When that breed of lawyer smells the blood of a supercreep law-breaker like that - ESPECIALLY elected officials who are violating the public trust - all they think about is taking them out. How well I remember the gleam my old friend would get in his eye when going after a big fish. It appears that Fitz has the biggest of fishes in his sights and I don't yet see any hint that he is backing off.
There has been more than one clue in Fitz's performance that has given me a great deal of confidence in not only his intentions, but also his ability to deliver if anyone can.
It is sooo hard to be patient, but until and unless I see some contradictory signals coming from the Fitz camp I'll be sticking with (b) and (c). There certainly are some scary possibilities from the political side - pardons, for one - that make me nervous, but a worry that Fitz is secretly on their side?? . . . Not a chance!
"The wheels of justice move exceedingly slow and grind exceedingly fine."
i'm with you LeeB
i think he's got his eyes on cheney :-)
Post a Comment