I need somebody to explain, leaving out all references to partisan politics why the one guy we know for a fact blew Plame's "cover" to a reporter isn't being charged?
Now maybe I'm missing some key pieces to the puzzle, but didn't this whole flap start when Plame was outed in Bob Novak's column? And didn't Richard Armitage admit to being Novak's source?
Since we know who talked, what is being investigated in the hearings?
I'm serious about this. Are the folks in Washington so stupid that they can't find the guilty party even when he turns himself in? Or are they partisan hacks who are using every excuse to try and tear down an administration? Or am I missing some piece of information, not rumor, not spin, not hearsay, that makes this worth the cost?
Anybody have anything?
By the way, Plame testified before the House that she had nothing to do with getting her husband sent to Africa, even though her bosses said she did during Libby's trial for perjury. This brings up an interesting question:
Do her statements before the House committee constitute perjury? And if they do, is it the Clintonian perjury that isn't really perjury or is it the Libby brand perjury that is perjury?
One last question before I go: Is it any wonder that people are sick and tired of the D.C. circus, and don't bother voting?
Posted by Rich at March 16, 2007 4:57 PM | TrackBackHere's some discussion on this issue (which may be too partisan for your taste but does address your questions.)
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2006/09/why_armitage_do.html
But the article you link to specifically says: "The memo made no reference to her undercover status." I also believe Armitage used her married name, not "Valerie Plame." Thus Armitage (who I don't defend) was not the only source, and did not reveal the critical issues of "Valerie Plame" as a "covert" agent.
This is a story because it is part of a pattern with this administration. Any time their manipulations are exposed the renegade must be punished. I know that can be interpreted as partisan as well, but, well, everything this administration does _is_ partisan.
These proceedings are our congress performing their duty of oversight: investigating and getting testimony under oath on the matter of the leak of an undercover CIA agent's name and status during a war. I realize it's unfamiliar territory as they haven't done it for the last six years.
Posted by: John on March 17, 2007 9:47 AM