Joe Wilson: Public Liar #1

Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson are liars.

We know that to be a fact. They concocted a story that the Democrats, their mouthpieces in the lib media and assorted Leftist wing-nuts nurtured for years.

The purpose: To do damage to the Bush administration and to weaken and disparage the American government.

As they kept alive the fabricated drama, they undermined the American military and the war effort, thereby putting our troops at greater risk.
The outing of Valerie Plame was a hoax and the investigation was a sham.
Yes, there was definitely a conspiracy here, but it wasn't a conspiracy by the Bush administration to smear Joe Wilson and destroy Valerie Plame's career.

No. It was a conspiracy by the Left to destroy Karl Rove's career and Scooter Libby's good name. And in the libs' wildest dreams, it was a conspiracy that would bring down Dick Cheney and George W. Bush.

The Left insisted that Karl Rove be fired. Lefty blogs wrote that his indictment was imminent and the mainstream media suggested it as well, REPEATEDLY.

Think of how the White House press corps badgered Scott McClellan, claiming that he lied to them. The insanity went on and on and on.

The chorus that Karl Rove should be fired, the demands that Bush was reneging on his promises, the claims that the administration took revenge on Wilson and Plame -- It was all just crap.

Wilson, spokesmen for his wife, played the dual role of whistleblower and victim to the hilt. He was coddled by the Left.

He was their hero. And poor Plame. Her life had been endangered by a vindictive White House.

Guess what?

It was all lies. Everything.

Plame's status with the CIA, how Wilson got the assignment to Niger, the "leaker" --

ALL A PACK OF LIES!

Now, the very publications that promoted the story are backtracking. The backing off is not to be confused with taking responsibility for intentionally deceiving the public with FAKE NEWS and PROPAGANDA.

They aren't offering retractions or apologies for their roles in the over two-year deception and personal destruction mission.

For example, The New York Times is still trying to lend credence to the investigation and run damage control for the disgraced Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald.

By DAVID JOHNSTON

WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 — 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.

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.

No. It wasn't just the inquiry that was the problem.

It was the Left's feeding frenzy, the "Merry Fitzmas" garbage, the media staked out at Karl Rove's home, taking photos of his garage.

THE NEW YORK TIMES was engaged in an orchestrated campaign to seriously embarrass and distract the Bush White House for nearly two years, with an empty story.

They were at the front of the pack leading the charge to bring down a high-ranking White House official, the higher the better.

Now, that it's clear that Armitage was the leaker, The Times is backing off that angle, because Armitage has served them well as a Bush critic.

It's so blatantly hypocritical that it's laughable.

The Times is shifting its emphasis to focus on the alleged crimes of Scooter Libby, with a load of speculation about what Fitzgerald MAY do.

Does he have a case against Libby?

For God's sake, I wish they'd all drop it!

Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame are liars and Fitzgerald has been exposed as prosecutor completely run amok.
Mark Levin has an excellent piece on National Review Online.

The more I think about this Fitzgerald investigation, the more astonished I become. Richard Armitage was Bob Novak's "source" — i.e., he identified Valerie Plame — which, incidentally, is clearly not a crime and Armitage has not been charged with any offense. And prosecutors knew Armitage was the "source" almost immediately after beginning their investigation because Armitage confessed. Indeed, when he thought he may have done something wrong, he appears to have cried on many shoulders. Armitage told his boss, Colin Powell, that he was the source, as well as other State Department and Justice Department officials. He told the Special Counsel's people. And not one of them — Armitage, Powell, Patrick Fitzgerald, et al. — had the guts or integrity to tell the public that the original source was Armitage. Why were they protecting him from public scrutiny? By their silence, Armitage and Powell allowed two innocent men, Lewis Libby and Karl Rove, to be smeared as speculation about them being Novak's original source ran rampant.

Levin explains that the investigation was a joke because Fitzgerald knew a number of things from nearly the beginning.

1. Armitage was the original source; 2. disclosing Plame's identity was not a crime; and 3. the investigation was launched due to political pressure from Capitol Hill, especially Chuck Schumer (who was working with Joe Wilson, and who is also the head of the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee). Rather than put an end to this, Fitzgerald appears to have enjoyed the spotlight and adulation from the president's opponents, pursuing "the case" as if he were chasing mobsters or terrorists. He sought and received from his long-time friend, James Comey, extraordinary authority which Fitzgerald used to put pressure on reporters and news organizations as he widened his investigation in pursuit of anyone who might have revealed Plame's name. But to what end? That's not a crime in itself. To catch officials in memory lapses or — to be charitable to prosecutors — false statements or perjury? You don't conduct investigations to catch people in lies. You conduct investigations to uncover or expose crimes and punish those who are responsible. Meanwhile, the president's top advisor sat in the dock, waiting for word whether he'd be indicted, during a good portion of the administration. Only a few months ago did Fitzgerald finally inform Rove that he was in the clear.

The fact is that there was never an underlying crime, period.

In other words, this was a politically-fueled witch hunt, period.

On Friday, The Washington Post ran an "Oops, nevermind" editorial.

It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband.

Friday, September 1, 2006; A20

WE'RE RELUCTANT to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, over the past three years. But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.

"Far too much attention"???

THE POST HAS BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN GIVING THE pLAME STORY FAR TOO MUCH ATTENTION.

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. Unaware that Ms. Plame's identity was classified information, Mr. Armitage reportedly passed it along to columnist Robert D. Novak "in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip," according to a story this week by the Post's R. Jeffrey Smith, who quoted a former colleague of Mr. Armitage.

Note that there are no calls to have the friendly Armitage "frog-marched" out of the White House. He just made a little boo-boo, nothing malicious, nothing illegal.

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.

Hear that Dems and other Bush administration enemies, like Tim Russert?

UNTRUE.

Wilson is a liar.

TRUE.

The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.

Yeah, well, for years it was known that Armitage was the source.

A lot could have been avoided.

Why didn't The Times or The Post leak that Armitage was the source? Why didn't they run an expose?

Oh, that's right. They only leak programs and things that will hinder the War on Terror, harm national security, and put Americans in jeopardy.

[I]t 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.

That last sentence is an absolute killer.

Yes, it's unfortunate that THE WASHINGTON POST and THE NEW YORK TIMES and CNN and NBC and DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATORS, to name just a few, took Wilson so seriously.

Very unfortunate indeed.

These individuals and outlets that promoted Wilson's lies are just as guilty as Wilson.

They pushed his fraudulent agenda, NO QUESTIONS ASKED.

It's disgusting. They wanted to inflict damage on the Bush administration and they did. IT WAS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED.
________________________________
Byron York has posted a letter from Joe Wilson responding to The Post's editorial slap on his wrist.

It appears on Democratic Underground. (Surprise, surprise.)

You may have seen this morning's editorial in the Post. It manages to recycle pretty much every lie and smear over the past three years in a last ditch effort to divert attention from the facts, and the role the Post itself played both in the march to war and in the leak (see Woodward).

I know many of you are better versed in Plamegate than either Valerie or I and I also know that some of you will be addressing the editorial.

I want to let you know how much Valerie and I continue to be buoyed by your support and your dedication to getting the truth out and holding the administration and its lackeys accountable for the terrible policies they have foisted on our country and on the world. We must keep fighting.

As you think about this, our website (Wilsonsupport.org) has a copy of the letter I sent to the SSCI when its report first came out, challenging some of its conclusions. The LeftCoaster has a terrific study by eriposte on the whole Niger forgery case from beginning to end. Firedoglake and the Next Hurrah both have highly informative analyses of the case by skilled researchers and former prosecutors. I recommend them all as resoruces to jog memories. by this afternoon, I expect that our own team will have an updated set of talking points to distribute for your use as well.

Each of you in one way or another has contributed to the public's (and in many cases our own) understanding of the issues from the beginning. Thank you for continuing to do so.

Joe Wilson

I suppose those congregating inside the "Lefty hate Bush bubble" will buy this crock.

They'll no doubt echo Wilson's promised talking points.

They'll continue to lie.

They'll continue to undermine the country.

It's what they do best.