Below I chronicle the "Big Lie" swallowed whole by the Media that Fitzgerald said that Libby was
definitely the first Administration official to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity to the Media.
One could explain this is the Media being its typical incompetent self, but believing unquestioningly the statements of defense lawyers is pretty rare even for the Media. Moreover, some new elements make this interpretation unlikely. First, this outrageously stupid Moonie Times editorial:
Bob Woodward's just-released statement, suggesting that on June 27, 2003, he may have been the reporter who told Scooter Libby about Joseph Wilson's wife, blew a gigantic hole in Patrick Fitzgerald's recently unveiled indictment of the vice president's former chief of staff.
. . . [T]he heart of his perjury theory was predicated upon the proposition that Mr. Libby learned of Valerie Plame's identity from other government officials and not from NBC's Tim Russert, as claimed by Mr. Libby. Indeed, Mr. Fitzgerald seemed to have a reasonable case because Mr. Russert, a respected and admired journalist, with no vested interest of his own, denied that he discussed the Mr. Wilson's matter with Mr. Libby.
However, given Mr. Woodward's account, which came to light after the Libby indictment was announced, that he met with Mr. Libby in his office -- armed with the list of questions, which explicitly referenced "yellowcake" and "Joe Wilson's wife" and may have shared this information during the interview -- it is entirely possible that Mr. Libby may have indeed heard about Mrs. Plame's employment from a reporter.
. . . Accordingly, Mr. Fitzgerald should do the right thing and promptly dismiss the indictment of Scooter Libby.
This is too funny for words. And actually shows why Scooter Libby is really screwed here. Fitzgerald has smoking gun proof that Libby did NOT learn about Valerie Plame's CIA identity from a reporter, but from Vice President Cheney himself on June 12, 2003.
So why float this nonsensical story? Is this all Scooter has as a defense? I don't know if that is all Scooter has, but the reason for this editorial is clear -- to muddy the waters of course.
I'll explain some more on the flip.
The second new development is, as
Josh Marshall points out, the
NYTimes reports today that:
A senior administration official said that neither President Bush himself, nor his chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., nor his counselor, Dan Bartlett, was Mr. Woodward's source. So did spokesmen for former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, former C.I.A. Director George J. Tenet and his deputy John E. McLaughlin.
A lawyer for Karl Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff who has acknowledged conversations with reporters about the case and remains under investigation, said Mr. Rove was not Mr. Woodward's source.
Vice President Cheney did not join the parade of denials. A spokeswoman said he would have no comment on an ongoing investigation. Several other officials could not be reached for comment.
So maybe Cheney IS Woodward's source. And the question is WHY would Cheney suddenly "remember" this? It is a very risky proposition for him if he was Woodward's source.
The third development is provided by murrayewv, who reports that on the Today Show Russert:
admitted subtly that the [R]epublicans are mounting a big offense and saying their insiders have been asking for 3 weeks when it would come.
murrayewv is not clear if this was just about Libby, or Iraq. Probably both.
So let's add it up. Why did the Media take a dive on the alleged Fitz "contradiction?" Because a defense lawyer said something? Not likely.
But when the Mighty GOP Wurlitzer gets going, the Media is ALWAYS helpless. This was the big counteroffensive for Scooter.
The question is who is the mastermind of this offensive - Cheney or Rove?