Kate O’Beirne has a point:
“For almost three years, at every minor twist or turn of Plamegate, there were media stakeouts at the offices and homes of of the suspected leakers that invariably made the evening news and played in constant loops on cable. So who’s on Armitage driveway duty? Richard Armitage isn’t being hounded to answer questions about his role in Plamegate because the media wishes he had no role.”
When Joseph Wilson’s dishonesty about his CIA-paid Niger trip was exposed in July 2003, he tried to change the subject by accusing President Bush’s political adviser Karl Rove of “outing” -- illegally revealing the name of -- Wilson’s CIA wife, Valerie Plame.
Ghosts of ‘Fitzmas.’ Late last year, Democrats even dreamed of “Fitzmas,” hoping special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald would indict Rove for this “crime” before Christmas. News reporters swarmed Rove’s house for months in anticipation of an arrest and “perp walk.” Rove was not indicted. No one was indicted for telling the press about Plame, because it wasn’t a crime.
This week, we found out that Richard Armitage, then a deputy secretary of state, was the real “leaker” of Plame’s name. Because Armitage opposed Bush on Iraq once the liberation began, it’s suddenly clear to even the Democratic news media that revealing Plame’s name was a purely innocent way to explain Wilson’s trip to Niger. (Plame is the one who suggested Wilson go.)
So no one is bothering Armitage today. The big media don’t care anymore. They won’t ask Armitage why he said nothing while Fitzgerald hounded Rove for three years over a crime that hadn’t been committed.
Corn’s apology? The real irony is that one of the two reporters today revealing Armitage’s role as “leaker” is The Nation magazine’s David Corn, who for these three years has been accusing Rove of illegally exposing “top secret agent” Valerie Plame.
If Rove was a felon in Corn’s eyes, what is Armitage? When can we expect Corn’s apology for inventing crimes and naming likely perpetrators?