Just when you thought l’affaire de Plame was over comes the news that Patrick Fitzgerald, the Bush-hating left’s most favoritist!!! prosecutor ever, has expressed the belief via a couple of “strongly worded memos” that one Valerie Plame was indeed ‘covert’ at the time she was ‘outed.’
Mind you, this is his opinion, but that hasn’t stopped the usual suspects from sinking their teeth into this story like a starving dog on a bone, desperate to find any speck of meat he can. Unfortunately for them, Tom Maguire has destroyed the ‘wow!’ factor on this latest ‘revelation’ by pointing out that not only is this Fitzgerald’s opinion on the issue, but that the CIA Counsel has not even issued an opinion on whether or not Plame was ‘covert’ at the time of her alleged ‘outing.’
Let’s assume for the purpose of argument that Plame was absolutely without a doubt covert at the time of the alleged outing: If that was the case, then why wasn’t former Bush deputy sec. of state Richard Armitage – not a big pusher of going to war with Iraq, and if you remember, supposedly it was Rove who ‘outed’ her in revenge for Joe Wilson’s lying NYT op/ed about his trip to sip mint tea with diplomats in Niger back in 2002 – investigated after his August 2006 admission of guilt? Has it been established that any of the main ‘players’ in this dumb drama knew she was ‘covert’ when they mentioned her name to journalists? Because under the relevant law, a person has to knowingly and with malicious intent out an agent. If it was done so unknowingly, the case still flies out the window. Remember, back in November of 2005, it was being speculated by those in the know that Armitage might be the guy and the same speculation surfaced again in March of 2006, and again in August 2006 (shortly before Armitage’s admission), and – this is key – that it was done without malcious intent.
Remember, Robert Novak described his source as “no partisan gunslinger” which would have fit Armitage to a “t.” So if all these people were thinking it was Armitage and were providing substantial support for their arguments, why couldn’t a super-smart guy like Pat Fitzgerald figure it out, too, especially considering he had a clue back in November of 2005 when WaPo editor Bob Woodward told him that the ‘leaker’ in l’affaire de Plame mentioned her name to him a month prior to when it was being alleged that she was outed, and that the senior admin official who mentioned her name did so “casually” and that he “did not believe the information to be classified or sensitive”?
Though the civil trial against the government is still in the works, the criminal phase (outside of the sentencing and – I’m assuming – a Libby appeal) is over. Ironically, those who alleged Plame was outed for ‘partisan purposes’ are the very people who used this bogus ‘crime’ as a blatantaly partisan tool to bring down anyone in the administration they could – especially Karl Rove, a prize they didn’t get. But as is the norm, when the left is on a witchhunt, they don’t ever let the facts get in the way. In fact, they mirror the media in how they go about ‘proving’ their points: They form an opinion before they investigate an issue or story, and then try to find facts that prove their case, ignoring anything that might take away from their main point and in hopes that no one will come behind them to find the holes in their arguments.
Lastly, I have to chuckle a bit at the clueless wonders on the left who have swallowed Fitz’s opinion whole without question, as if Fitz’s memos make the assertion a fact. I guess their new standard on whether or not something is true is now based on what the prosecutor asserts? If that’s the case, then how many things can now be declared as unquestionably true about Bill Clinton, because Kenneth Starr asserted it, hmm?
As always, the left’s belief in ‘truth’ solely rests on what ‘truth’ is being asserted – and, most importantly, who it affects and how.