Wingnuts, Armitage, and Plamegate

Debra Saunders, who never met a Republican talking point she didn't like, jumps on the Plamegate-is-really-nothing-because-Armitage-was-the-leaker bandwagon:

WITH the disclosure that former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the initial source for Robert Novak's July 2003 column that outed CIA operative Valerie Wilson -- also known as Valerie Plame, wife of former ambassador and Iraq-war critic Joseph Wilson -- it is now clear that all the hype about a Bush-inspired vendetta against the Wilsons is bunk.

The basic premise (for Saunders, and for all the other wingnuts repeating the party line) is that only the leak to Novak could possibly be considered wrong, and that any subsequent leak was perfectly okay.

To illustrate one reason why this is ridiculous, here's a little timeline:

• June, 2003: Armitage tells Woodward about Plame; Woodward sits on the information.


• June 23, 2003: Libby tells Judy Miller Wilson's wife might work for the CIA.


• July 8, 2003: Libby gives Miller more details about Plame's position. Armitage meets with Novak and tells him.


• July 11, 2003: Rove tells Marc Cooper.


• July 14, 2003: Novak column about Valerie Plame.

In other words, both Libby and Rove leaked the information before it was common knowledge. Miller testified that Libby was her original source, and Cooper testified that Rove was his.

And then there's the enormous leap of logic to the conclusion that "all the hype about a Bush-inspired vendetta against the Wilsons is bunk." To accept that, we would have to assume that Armitage's leak erases the actions of Rove and Libby--that because Armitage was apparently first, what Rove and Libby did not only wasn't wrong but didn't happen at all. But we know it happened. We know they did what they did. We know that both of them lied about it (although Rove ultimately skated on that charge). We also know that Cheney gave Libby a copy of the Wilson piece with notes that appear to be marching orders for the anti-Wilson pushback ("did his wife send him on a junket?").

I won't go so far that the case is proven...but, really now: we have the documents; we know who Cheney is, and how he operates; we know who Rove is, and how he operates; we know what the administration as a whole is, and how it operates; and it all adds up to circumstantial evidence strong enough for ordinary people (if not a Federal grand jury) to judge them guilty. The claim that the Armitage leak vindicates the White House--that it proves their innocence--is a sad and desperate attempt to deny the obvious.

Update: Via Atrios, I see that the WashPo editorial board are also drinking the Kool-Aid.

[That's all, folks]