Reincarnation and Michael Barone

If we’re reincarnated and we get three wishes before we come back, mine will be :

1) I’m married to the same woman I’m married to now

2) We have the same grandchildren we have now

3) And I’m half as smart and talented as Michael Barone.

Like so many of you, I’ve known for years Barone is a wise person and a fine columnist.

But lately, I've learned what a terrific blogger Barone is.

Just look at Barone's Sept. 15 post, “What a load of Armitage!”

Barone begins ---

That's the headline on Victoria Toensing's dynamite column on the Plame case in today's Wall Street Journal. In it she raises several uncomfortable questions about Joseph Wilson, Richard Armitage, and Patrick Fitzgerald.

About Wilson, a serial liar, there is not really much more to say, and Toensing simply notes that Wilson confirmed that his wife, Valerie Plame, returned to the United States from a foreign assignment in 1997–which means that disclosure of her identity in 2003 could not have been a crime under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, since that 1982 law covers only disclosures of the names of covert agents stationed abroad within five years of the revelation.

Toensing also clears up any ambiguity as to whether Plame could have been a covert agent:

As the Senate negotiator for this 1982 act, I know a trip or two by Ms. Plame to a foreign country while assigned to Langley, where she worked in July 2003, is not considered a foreign assignment. I also know covert officers are not assigned to Langley.

As to Armitage, she notes that he has said he did not disclose that he was the source of the disclosure of Plame's name publicly because he was asked not to do so by special prosecutor Fitzgerald.

But Armitage learned that he was the source on Oct. 1, 2003, and Fitzgerald was not appointed special prosecutor until Dec. 30, 2003.(bold mine)

And "any witness is free to talk about his or her testimony." She puts the responsibility for the controversy squarely on Armitage's silence:

Put aside hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer funds squandered on the investigation, New York Times reporter Judith Miller's 85 days in jail, the angst and legal fees of scores of witnesses, the White House held siege to a criminal investigation while fighting the war on terror, Karl Rove's reputation maligned, and "Scooter" Libby's resignation and indictment. By his silence, Mr. Armitage is responsible for one of the most factually distorted investigations in history.

I think the most troubling questions she raises are about Patrick Fitzgerald, who "knew from the day he took office that the facts did not support a violation of the act."

So why did [Fitzpatrick]continue the investigation? I think he has a responsibility to answer that question. And why didn't he find out that Armitage had disclosed Plame's name to Bob Woodward a month before he disclosed it to Robert Novak?

Mr. Armitage, who came forward after Mr. Libby was indicted, was told in February 2006, after two grand jury appearances, he would not be indicted.

Mr. Rove, however, after five grand jury appearances, was not informed until July 2006 he would not be charged. Mr. Fitzgerald made the Rove decision appear strained, a close call.

Yet of the two men's conduct, Mr. Armitage's deserved more scrutiny. And Mr. Fitzgerald knew it. Each had testified before the grand jury about a conversation with Mr. Novak. Each had forgotten about a conversation with an additional reporter: Mr. Armitage with Mr. Woodward, Mr. Rove with Time's Matt Cooper.

However, Mr. Rove came forward pre-indictment, immediately, when reminded of the second conversation. When Mr. Woodward attempted to ask Mr. Armitage about the matter, on two separate occasions pre-indictment, Mr. Armitage refused to discuss it and abruptly cut him off. To be charitable, assume he did not independently recall his conversation with Mr. Woodward. Would not two phone calls requesting to talk about the matter refresh his recollection?

Now we also know Messrs. Armitage and Novak have vastly different recollections of their conversation. Isn't that what Mr. Libby was indicted for?

To be charitable: Armitage has an honorable record of public service, and we should not assume he intentionally concealed the Woodward conversation.

But, really, how likely is it that he forgot about it for all that time? Novak's most recent column on the subject makes it clear that Armitage was not a regular Novak source, as I had assumed he was; Novak says he never talked to Armitage before Armitage's office summoned him to the interview in which Armitage disclosed Plame's name.

But Armitage surely was a regular Woodward source. Any fair reading of Woodward's books on the Bush administration shows that Armitage and the boss to whom he was fiercely loyal, Secretary of State Colin Powell, were Woodward sources. Would you forget that you had been interviewed by Bob Woodward?

I think Victoria Toensing has made a powerful case that Fitzgerald should have ended his investigation before it was begun, that Karl Rove was unjustly brought before a grand jury five times, and that Scooter Libby was unjustly indicted. But, as Glenn Reynolds says, read the whole thing.
______________________________________________


Thank you, Michael Barone.

You can read the whole Toensing op-ed here.

More about Barone's post and Toensing's op-ed tomorrow.