No surprise here, but all the Kos Kids were wrong and Fitzmas will never come.
It wasn't Scooter Libby, it wasn't Karl "Darth" Rove.
It was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.
According to the Washington Post, "Mr. Armitage was one of the Bush administration officials who supported the invasion of Iraq only reluctantly. He was a political rival of the White House and Pentagon officials who championed the war..."
The Post article also says:
It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue.
Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.
More on the subject from Ace
And what the hell was Fitzgerald doing investigating at all, when he knew who the leaker was from the get-go?.
The Threshhold Question: ...was, as I wrote before, whether or not a crime had been committed at all. And this could have been determined by a day at the law library. No crime = no pretext for investigation.
The fact that Fitzgerald knew from the start who the leaker was just makes this stink even worse.
I'm trying to find the Fitzgerald quote where he claims to be investigating an alleged "politically-motivated conspiracy" to punish Plame. Now, that is not a crime. There is no law on the books against such a "conspiracy." The relevant statutes were the Espionage act and IIPA and such.
Whether there was a "conspiracy" to out someone who'd already been outed is not the domain of a prosecutor, as it is simply not a crime. It is an interesting question, and one worth digging into-- but by a reporter, not a prosecutor with subpoena power, as it is, again simply not a crime.
And Fitzgerald knew that from the beginning.
Fitzgerald had to postulate a non-crime in order to have the pretext to continue an "investigation" into what he already knew was NOT a crime, and, furthermore, in a "case" in which he already knew the culprit committing the non-crime.
It's time to investigate Fitzgerald.