Brava, Clarice

Saturday, September 16, 2006
Clarice Feldman provides a comprehensive review of the Plame matter in an article for the Weekly Standard. I know that many are bored with this seemingly unending story but I strongly suggest reading this account in order to understand how the Presse Ancienne manufactured (with Democratic help and sustenance) Mt. Everest from not even a mole hill.

The saga begins with a witting attempt by Armitage to undermine Wilson's fantastic tale, not through standing up in opposition but by the anonymous use of the 'unnamed source' stiletto. His motive for doing so was to protect the overgilded reputation of Powell, who, as Clarice clarifies, was a knowing participant in the decision to maintain silence and allow the press to continue in their nasty work. If Powell or Armitage had, either together or separately, a shred of courage or honor, they could have stopped this fable at inception. The low quality of their characters allowed them to think that they could sit in silence, protected by a prosecutor so bent on a malicious prosecution that he would never bring their scurrilous acts into public view.

They were also counting on their lapdogs in the press to provide public cover for their malfeasance in the same manner in which the press studiously ignores the same type of character defects in Senators McCain and Graham. Any nominal Republican willing to disparage the head of his party gets a free pass and pat on the back from the press whores.

It is not serendipity which caused McCain to name both Powell and Armitage as campaign advisors. It was the appeal of a common low character which raises personal advancement and self-glorification to the level of the highest goals to which a human being might aspire.

Honorable men know the right path to take when they find themselves in opposition to an elected leader. They present their case and if overruled search their convictions to see if they can continue to serve with honor and dignity. If they cannot, they resign and if they truly felt that their elected leader is in error they make their feelings known by public opposition. Honorable men do not reach for the stiletto of the 'anonymous source' as their first and primary tool. Honorable men do not watch in silence as innocents are persecuted in their stead. They do not sit on their hands as the press mounts a very damaging attack on an administration in which they have agreed to serve.

It is fitting that McCain and Graham have selected Powell and Armitage as advisors. They are well matched. It will also be fitting to remind the public of the manner in which they are matched whenever the opportunity arrises.

13 comments:

reliapundit said...

ARMITAGE LEAKED TO BOLSTER WILSON AND HURT BUSH

THE AMERICAN THINKER:

A.J. Strata draws our attention to Robert Novak fighting back against the deceptions of Richard Armitage. (Via Drudge)

Novak, attempting to set the record straight writes:

“First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he ‘thought’ might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked, and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former Amb. Joseph Wilson. Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column.”

Novak slams Armitage for holding back all this time.

Armitage’s silence for “two and one-half years caused intense pain for his colleagues in government and enabled partisan Democrats in Congress to falsely accuse Rove of being my primary source,” Novak explains.

FACT: Armitage was anti-Iraq War.

I - relipaundit - assert that he leaked Plame's ID and her role in the Wilson mission in order to BOLSTER Wilson's cred's. And hurt Bush and Cheney.

When Cheney and Libby Rove became SUSPECTS (a secondary and unplanned for side-effect of the leak), Armitage kept silent because HE WAS HAPPY HE'D HURT THEM - AND BUSH. And Powell played along.

This is the ONLY scenario which explains everything. It passes Ockham's Razor.

CF said...

Thank you, Rick, for all your generous support.

Fresh Air said...

Oh my. I just had a terrible thought. John McCain is nominated and selects Lindsey Graham as his running mate.

Sounds kind of plausible, doesn't it?

The Milquetoast Express!

Rick Ballard said...

FA,

They're beginning to take notice of that at home. Smarmy isn't the worst thing for a pretty boy pol but it really won't put you in the WH. Nor will tieing yourself to a loser.

Fresh Air said...

Rick--

That's good stuff. I was wondering how the first state to secede from the Union would tolerate the Lindsey Olive in the McCain Martini.

I'm pleased to see his constituents are less than satisfied. I think we many have been better off with Ernst Hollings.

Syl said...

Well, I hope you all read the entire article in the WS by Clarice.

Many haven't followed as closely as she has. Even if you're only interested in the political implications, this excellent overview of the details is necessary reading.

In fact if you're interest is purely political, this article is imperative.

But then I'm a Plamiac myself and a Clarice fan.

Peter UK said...

With this article Clarice has lifted up the stone,things are going to start,creeping, crawling and scuttling from under it.
A fine piece of work.

ex-democrat said...

an excellent summary indeed. this issue is far from unimportant. on the contrary, it contains within it a taste of most of the scourges of our modern politics; in many ways an object lesson in the venality and, yes, disloyalty of the Democratic elite.
clarice notes The White House's "poorly considered" admission of error, and Tenet's even more stupid public acceptance of blame. This latter is a near-perfect example of the lesser-known conequence of political correctness: brain rot.

loner said...

It's long past time for the president to call in the attorney general, seek an accounting of the case from Fitzgerald, and order him to dismiss the charges or be dismissed himself.

Why? I want this to go to trial. I want as many of the people involved as possible to be required to take an oath "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." I want them to be cross-examined. If "Scooter" is convicted and the President decides to pardon him, in the interest of justice, so be it, but I'll be ticked if the Executive, at this late date, interferes before then—not that I think there's much chance that it will.

terrye said...

Isn't it just amazing how a thing can take on a life of its own?

Syl said...

Loner

I'd rather everyone write 'tell all' books, whether fictional or fact, than carry out this trial just to satisfy my curiosity.

When Fitzgerald started, he already knew who the leaker was. Yet he investigated a White House conspiracy to out a covered agent in revenge because that's what he read in the paper. He put his blinkers on and forged full speed ahead in the wrong direction.

He blames Libby because he himself could not find any conspiracy. Fitz questioned selected reporters about selected sources and thus was doomed to failure.

He indicted Libby because he didn't indict Armitage, didn't have evidence that Libby 'outed' Plame, nor that Libby had revealed classified information, so getting Libby for false statements and obstruction in a non-crime would serve justice as a substitute.

You didn't hit Johnny, you weren't even there, but you're going to bed without your supper anyway. That'll teach you.

Fitz has criminalized the efforts of a government to answer a critic who had his facts wrong.

This is not serving justice, it is in fact a travesty. And wanting the trial to go forward to satisfy curiosity is more than a little silly.

David Thomson said...

Washington DC is about the only place where there is an outside chance of Scooter Libby being convicted. He is a white Jewish Republican who will be judged by mostly black Democrats. Still, the odds are far less than 5%.

loner said...

Syl—

Your curiosity plays no part in my hope that this goes to trial. On the other hand, your trashing of Fitzgerald does. If you're right, there's no reason to think that a judge and/or a jury won't reach similar conclusions and express them either in an opinion or in interviews.

Best.