Valerie Plame Continues to Spin 'Bush Administration Retribution' Myth
Richard Armitage. I repeat, Richard Armitage. One more time...RICHARD ARMITAGE.
I just made Valerie Plame wince three times once she reads this article. Why? Because the name Richard Armitage completely destroys the myth she is desperately hanging onto after all these years that the Bush administration deliberately leaked her name as a CIA employee in order to discredit her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson who criticized the decision to invade Iraq. Unfortunately for both Plame and the Left who have been clinging to that myth for years, it was completely undone when the name of the real leaker, who was an internal critic of the Bush policy in Iraq, was finally revealed...Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Yet despite their precious myth blowing up in their faces, Plame and the Left continue to spin it as happened yet again yesterday when Plame referred back to it in a Politico article she wrote about Edward Snowden:
...In the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, my husband, Amb. Joe Wilson, questioned President George W. Bush’s claim that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. In an effort to distract from the substantive questions about those alleged weapons, the Bush White House tried to shift public attention to my husband and me, seeking retribution by revealing my work for the CIA.
Um, no Valerie. The attention brought to you and your husband was done by Richard Armitage who you again very conveniently refuse to mention even though he was the one who leaked your name to columnist Robert Novak. In fact, you only very reluctantly say his name when forced to under questioning. And it isn't only Plame who continues to perpetuate this myth but also much of the maintream media. A recent example happened last week when the Los Angeles Times "revealed" that the leaker was Scooter Libby and then was forced to retract when their misinformation was pointed out. Newsbusters' Tom Blumer wrote about this.
Included in Blumer's blog was a link to Bob Novak's column which puts the key role of Richard Armitage in its proper perspective that Valerie Plame and her allies would like to ignore:
When Richard Armitage finally acknowledged last week that he was my source three years ago in revealing Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA employee, the former deputy secretary of state's interviews obscured what he really did. I want to set the record straight based on firsthand knowledge.
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 ambassador Joseph Wilson. Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear that he considered it especially suited for my column.
An accurate depiction of what Armitage actually said deepens the irony of his being my source. He was a foremost internal skeptic of the administration's war policy, and I had long opposed military intervention in Iraq. Zealous foes of George W. Bush transformed me, improbably, into the president's lapdog. But they cannot fit Armitage into the left-wing fantasy of a well-crafted White House conspiracy to destroy Joe and Valerie Wilson. The news that he, and not Karl Rove, was the leaker was devastating for the left.
Valerie Plame can contine to spin her myth about retribution but every time she does she can expect to be publicly called on it. Oh, and she will also be confronted with that name she wishes to forget that completely destroys her false claim...RICHARD ARMITAGE.