It’s really interesting the way the mainstream media reports a non-story. Here’s a bit from an Associated Press article that caught my eye today:

President Bush on Thursday acknowledged publicly for the first time that someone in his administration likely leaked the name of a CIA operative, although he also said he hopes the controversy over his decision to spare prison for a former White House aide has “run its course.”

“And now we’re going to move on,” Bush said in a White House news conference.

The president had initially said he would fire anyone in his administration found to have publicly disclosed the identity of Valerie Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and a CIA operative. Ten days ago, Bush commuted the 30-month sentence given to I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby by a federal judge in connection with the case.

I had to laugh at the first paragraph. I can almost hear the media hounds barking over the tired old bone of who leaked Valerie Plame’s name to the media. *bark*bark* “Bush admits his administration did it!” *bark*bark*

But it is the third paragraph that really cheesed me off. It contains two sentences that have nothing to do with each other, but by placing them together, the media gets a twofer. First, they get to *tsk-tsk* the President for saying he’d fire someone who leaked the name and didn’t, and second, they bring up Libby right after, linking his sentence and commutation with the President’s pledge to fire the leaker.

But Libby didn’t leak the name. And shame on the unnamed Associated Press hack(s) who wrote this story to make people believe he did. They know Libby didn’t leak the name. When Patrick Fitzgerald started his investigation into the leak, he knew Libby wasn’t at fault. Attorney General John Ashcroft knew that Libby wasn’t the leaker. They all knew who the leaker was.

The leaker was Richard Armitage, the number two man under then-Secretary of State Colin Powell. And President Bush couldn’t fire him because he had already left his post as Deputy Secretary of State on Feb. 22, 2005.

But isn’t it interesting that in the entire AP story, Armitage’s name never even appears?

Leave a Reply