Post-Gazette Editorial – 9/9/06

This page was last updated on September 10, 2006.

Another twist / The Plame case turns, but justice is elusive; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; September 9, 2006.

With this editorial, the PG demonstrates it is in denial. This is what happens when you suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS). The PG had visions of Watergate and those dreams are dashed for now.

The PG published a bunch of Plamegate editorials dating back to 2003. I wrote critiques on only a few of the more recent pieces. They were “Dump Rove,” “Above the law,” and “Civil justice.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The Bush administration has thrown Americans many curves on the case of Valerie Plame, the outed CIA spy, in hopes that they will lose sight of what actually is the issue.”

[RWC] By “curves,” you’ll find this amounts to the Bush administration not doing what the PG accused it of doing. It’s like the “curves” President Bush threw when he actually tried to do what he said he would do during his election campaigns.

By “the issue,” the PG really means the task of convicting people for crimes they didn’t commit.

“The latest is the admission by former Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage -- not Vice President Dick Cheney, his former Chief of Staff I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby or presidential counselor Karl Rove -- that it was he who revealed the identity of Ms. Plame. Her occupation became known to the press after her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, had written an oped piece in The New York Times undercutting one of the administration’s arguments for the Iraq war.”

[RWC] The editorial fails to note Mr. Armitage opposed the Iraq war among other foreign policy positions of the Bush administration and so could not be accused of seeking to undercut fellow non-believer Mr. Wilson. Indeed, though Mr. Armitage was the real “leaker,” the Wilsons are still pursuing their civil lawsuit against VP Cheney, Karl Rove, et cetera but to date have chosen not to sue Mr. Armitage. It seems odd to me that the only person not being sued is the guy who turned out to be the source of the “leak.”

Note that I’ll tend to put leak, leaker, et cetera in parentheses in this critique. The reason is no one in an official capacity has claimed Mrs. Wilson was an undercover agent at the time of her exposure. As a result, I don’t believe referring to her status qualifies as a leak.

As it has in past editorials, the PG fails to note Mr. Wilson has since been proven to be somewhat less than truthful. In the words of the Washington Post (See the end of this critique.), “It’s unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.”

Let’s look at Joe Wilson’s claims as addressed in the “Report on the U.S Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq” issued by the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on July 7, 2004. Below are several points from that report.

· Wilson claimed his CIA agent wife had nothing to do with his being sent to Niger. The report showed his wife recommended him twice, once in 1999 and again in 2002. Further, she approached Wilson on behalf of the CIA to see if he would accept the assignment.

· Wilson claimed his investigation debunked the idea of Niger yellowcake sales to Iraq. In fact, the report showed the CIA believed Wilson’s report provided some confirmation of foreign government reports of alleged sales.

· Wilson claimed some documents used to indicate a Niger/Iraq connection were forged because the dates and names were wrong. The report showed Wilson could not have seen these documents because they were not yet circulating in the intelligence community at the time he claimed he saw them. When confronted with the fact that he never saw the disputed documents and had no knowledge of the dates and names on the documents, he said he might have confused recollection with an IAEA finding published eight months after his assignment.

· Wilson claimed VP Cheney was briefed on his findings. The report showed the CIA briefer did not brief Cheney because Wilson’s report didn’t add any new information to clarify the situation. When confronted about this by Committee staff, Wilson admitted he had no direct knowledge that Cheney had been briefed. He conceded his statement was based on what he thought would happen, not fact.

“Mr. Armitage said Thursday that he inadvertently blew the cover of the CIA operative while talking to syndicated columnist Robert Novak and Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward. He said it was an accident for which he is sorry.”

[RWC] “Blew the cover” is a loaded phrase. First, I saw the CBS interview and Mr. Armitage didn’t use those words. Second, no one in an official capacity has claimed Mrs. Wilson was an undercover agent. Even Mr. Fitzgerald didn’t make that claim when he indicted Mr. Libby.

“The former No. 2 at the State Department said he did not realize Ms. Plame’s job was undercover and that ‘I made a terrible mistake.’ Although he said he cooperated with the investigation by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, it’s hard to tell what that means for the legal case. Blowing a CIA agent’s cover is a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and a felony that could result in a prison term. The act protects agents and their overseas covert sources from public exposure and resulting danger.”

[RWC] The PG misrepresents what Mr. Armitage said. Mr. Armitage learned Mrs. Wilson recommended her husband from a CIA or State Department memo. In the CBS interview, Mr. Armitage said, “I had never seen a covered agent’s name in any memo in, I think, 28 years of government.” In effect, Mr. Armitage was saying that if Mrs. Wilson had been a covered agent, her name would not have been mentioned in a memo circulating around the CIA and/or State Department.

The PG also misrepresents the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. For a violation to occur, the agent must have been undercover within the past five years and the “leak” must be made by an official who knows the agent is under cover. There are other requirements, but from what we know neither of these two requirements were met.

“This is the latest in a series of Bush administration knuckleballs on the Plame case. Initially, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself from heading the investigation and was replaced by a special prosecutor, Mr. Fitzgerald, who is also a Department of Justice employee.”

[RWC] “Bush administration knuckleballs?”

AG Ashcroft recused himself to make sure the anti-Bush crowd couldn’t accuse him of trying to cover anything up. Indeed, a PG editorial asserted, “Congressional Democrats now argue that a Justice Department led by Attorney General John Ashcroft cannot carry out an inquiry into the Plame-Wilson matter that would be honest or could win the confidence of Americans. Mr. Ashcroft was chosen and appointed by President Bush, whose key political adviser, Karl Rove, is one of those who is alleged to have been behind the Plame ‘outing.’”

While in October 2003 the PG didn’t think an “independent counsel” was necessary, by December 2003 the PG changed its mind.

In January 2004, the PG continued to think a special prosecutor was a good idea when it wrote, “Mr. Ashcroft’s ability to lead the investigation impartially, given his relationship with possible perpetrators, has been questioned all along” and Mr. Fitzgerald’s appointment as special prosecutor “may increase the likelihood of an effective inquiry and possible prosecution into the leaked identity of agent Valerie Plame.”

Because this affair didn’t turn out the way the PG wanted, the PG implies Mr. Fitzgerald may not have been above reproach when it wrote Mr. Fitzgerald “is also a Department of Justice employee.” In a 2005 Meet the Press interview, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) – the Wilsons’ biggest “supporter” – said, “Patrick Fitzgerald is above reproach. He is totally non-political. He is a prosecutor’s prosecutor. And nobody has called into question his motives … I, for one, am prepared to say here this morning that I will abide by Patrick Fitzgerald’s decision.” Sen. Schumer continued to gush about Mr. Fitzgerald and referred to him as a “prosecutor’s prosecutor” no fewer than three times.

So now we know “knuckleballs” are when the Bush administration does what the PG wants, but the results aren’t what the PG was hoping for.

“Mr. Fitzgerald then questioned before a grand jury a range of senior Bush administration officials as well as a passel of journalists, including New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who spent 85 days in jail before revealing her sources. The only indictment to have come out of the case was that of Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, Mr. Libby, who was charged on five counts of obstruction of justice and perjury.”

[RWC] The PG fails to note that based on what we know now, no crime took place before the investigation began. Mr. Libby was not charged with leaking Mrs. Wilson’s name.

“It is critical to note that, although Mr. Libby was indicted in October 2005, his trial has been scheduled for early 2007, well after the November 2006 elections.”

[RWC] The PG is upset about this because it knows the incessant reporting about this mess had a big impact on how we viewed President Bush and his administration. The PG knows keeping this non-story in front of voters would have the effect of hurting Republicans at the polls.

“Now with Mr. Armitage saying he was at the root of the disclosure, the Libby case, which the Plame case has to a degree morphed into, is up in the air and runs a decent chance of being thrown out.”

[RWC] If the Libby case is thrown out, it will be because investigations are intended to investigate crimes, not generate them.

“If that occurs, everybody, including the top layer of the White House, walks. The role of President Bush, who also was questioned in the affair, has not come out yet.”

[RWC] “Everybody [at] the White House, walks?” This makes it sound like someone at the White House committed a crime when it’s now clear that’s not the case.

The purpose of the second sentence is to imply there was some special reason for President Bush to be questioned. The fact is, everyone in the White House was questioned because we were led to believe no one knew who the “leaker” was. We now know the special prosecutor knew who the leaker was his first day on the job but chose to embark on a three-year investigation of what was a non-crime.

“This is justice? Whom are they trying to kid?”

[RWC] I believe this editorial confirms the PG isn’t interested in justice in the least. To the PG, justice will be served only by the indictment and conviction of President Bush, VP Cheney, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, et cetera regardless of the facts in the case.

Concerning the PG’s search for “justice,” consider that a search of the PG website uncovered no mention of Mr. Armitage’s role in a news article to date (nearly two weeks after the story broke). I believe this is an example of editorial policy dictating news coverage. After all, the PG couldn’t publish an editorial like this if its news coverage presented a completely different picture.

As I wrote above, I believe the PG suffers from Bush Derangement Syndrome.

While most of the left suffers from BDS, for some the disease isn’t as advanced as it is for the PG. Consider the following excerpts from the September 1^st Washington Post editorial entitled “End of an affair.”

“Mr. Armitage was one of the Bush administration officials who supported the invasion of Iraq only reluctantly. He was a political rival of the White House and Pentagon officials who championed the war and whom Mr. Wilson accused of twisting intelligence about Iraq and then plotting to destroy him. … It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame’s identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. …

“Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame’s CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush’s closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It’s unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.”