What was Fitzgerald thinking?
The Mayor can only hope Fitzgerald is as far off mark as he was with Cheney and Rove. The prosecutor's conduct here is inexplicable. The NYTs today,
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 Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, on obstruction charges.And the Washington Post yesterday: End of an AffairIt turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband.
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.
Richard L. Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, first told the authorities in October 2003 that he had been the primary source for the July 14, 2003, column by Robert D. Novak that identified Valerie Wilson as a C.I.A. operative and set off the leak investigation.
Mr. Fitzgerald's decision to prolong the inquiry once he took over as special prosecutor in December 2003 had significant political and legal consequences. The inquiry seriously embarrassed and distracted the Bush White House for nearly two years and resulted in five felony charges against Mr. Libby, even as Mr. Fitzgerald decided not to charge Mr. Armitage or anyone else with crimes related to the leak itself.
...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.Unfortunate indeed that at a time of war people with knowledge of the truth wasted the Nation's time and money on this story.
6 comments:
What was Fitzgerald thinking?
Probably the same thing he was thinking when he removed all references to Bob Creamer (US Rep Jan Schakowsky's husband) trial and conviction from his website and archive.
JBP
He put the country through the ringer for apparantly no reason at all...
I hope that's not the plan for Illinois.
Sure looks like very poor judgement by the guy.
Can't speak to what's in Fitz's mind but the WaPo article was just another dishonest, disgraceful smear of the Wilsons.
And note that the article in the Post is without attribution. The Post is not St. Peter on this issue of course. The only thing more questionable would be if this "story" appeared on Russert or in a Novak column.
But it's interesting. The right wing blogs picked this up and ran with it - they assume (falsely) that if it appears in the Post it must be a left-wing position. They also did the same thing when Santorum "found the WMD" which turned out to be...not.
If this is an editorial, it doesn't come off as unabiguous, either, since it includes:
"That's not to say that Mr. Libby and other White House officials are blameless. As prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has reported, when Mr. Wilson charged that intelligence about Iraq had been twisted to make a case for war, Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney reacted by inquiring about Ms. Plame's role in recommending Mr. Wilson for a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, where he investigated reports that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium. Mr. Libby then allegedly disclosed Ms. Plame's identity to journalists and lied to a grand jury when he said he had learned of her identity from one of those reporters. Mr. Libby and his boss, Mr. Cheney, were trying to discredit Mr. Wilson; if Mr. Fitzgerald's account is correct, they were careless about handling information that was classified."
So, the White House broke the law but Wilson's attempt to fire back was what was wrong about the situation.
Right.
If a law was broken, Fitz should have brought a charge.
No law was broken except for Libby... the Post's shot her is just an attempt to make an excuse for all the ink wasted.
Isn't it an embarassment for this country to have to try to figure out which of our public servants is more or less guilty in numerous shenanigans in DC and in state governments. A pox on all their houses. Diogenes, where are you!
Post a Comment