Why Was Libby Tried and Not Armitage?

People who have read my opinions about the FBI raid of Rocky Flats and the actions by the Justice Department in the months and years to follow probably won’t be surprised that I am interested in how our government applies what they call justice. The manner in which the “Plame affair” evolved is an interesting example. The story began with the January 28, 2003 State of the Union Address by President George W. Bush in which he said, “The British government had learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Nigeria.” State Department official Joseph C. Wilson travelled to Nigeria to investigate the claim for the CIA, and wrote a series of articles disputing what the President had said. One article published in the New York Times was titled “What I Didn’t Find in Africa.” There was an extensive investigation after a Robert Novak column about the dispute identified Valerie Plame to be Wilson’s wife and a CIA operative. The investigation was to determine the source of Novak’s information, and whether that person had violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who had been Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff, was the only person tried, and he was tried for perjury and not for being the Novak’s source. Patrick Fitzgerald, the Special Counsel who led the investigation is said to have known from early in the investigation that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the source of Novak’s information, but Armitage was never indicted.

The Novak column created a maelstrom that consumed media reporting and partisan politics. President Bush promised that anyone in his administration responsible for revealing Plame’s identity would be held accountable, and the investigation focused on Vice President Cheney, Libby, Karl Rove, Press Secretary Air Fleisher, and many other assorted Bush Administration staff members and assistants. Cheney’s many enemies were rooting for his name to come out on top. However, the facts didn’t play out to be as sinister as the original stories implied. Novak was quoted as saying, “I learned Valarie Plame’s name from Joe Wilson’s entry in ‘Who’s Who in America’.” He confirmed the Wilson/Plame connection in a conversation with Richard Armitage. Karl Rove was eventually identified as Novak’s second source about Plame. Rove testified to the grand jury that he had learned of Plame’s CIA affiliation from journalists. Novak had told Rove what he knew about Plame, and Rove responded, “Oh, you’ve heard about that.”

Armitage was aggressively investigated, and was directed to divulge his role to no one, including President Bush. He is said to have been very distressed about the matter, prepared a resignation letter, but stayed in the State Department for some time to prevent speculation if he departed suddenly. He fully cooperated with investigators without legal counsel, and was not indicted because investigators believed he had been honest with them and hadn’t considered Plame to be an undercover agent when he talked to Novak. Armitage was advised in February 2006 that he would not be charged.

Fitzgerald intended to indict Rove until he learned that Rove had instructed his aides to “find any records of that contact” in reference to his off-hand comment to Novak. Libby wasn’t as fortunate. Libby had learned of Plame’s identity from Vice President Cheney in early June 2003. He discussed her with several other government officials and at least two reporters in early July 2003. He originally told the grand jury he had first heard about Plame from reporter Tim Russert, and Russert testified that his discussion with Libby about Plame came after the Novak column.

The jury was torn about what to decide about Libby. One said that they had commented they wished they weren’t judging him. “We don’t like being here…What we came up with …was that Libby was told about Mrs. Wilson nine times…We believed he did have a bad memory, but it seemed unlikely he would not remember…after being told so many times.” One woman on the jury cried when the verdict was announced, and said she hoped Libby would eventually be pardoned by President Bush. She also said, “It kind of bothers me that there was this whole big crime being investigated and he got caught up in the investigation as opposed to the actual crime that was supposedly committed.” I don’t think there is a need to add anything to that comment.

What tax rates are fair, and who decides?

News reports are filled with politicians debating whether cuts in tax rates passed in the Bush era should be extended, or whether rates for people making the most money should have their rates increased.  Would you be surprised to hear that the share of the tax burden paid by the highest income earners increased after the Bush tax cuts were fully in effect, according to the data in the Tax Foundation report?  The top 0.1% of earners paid 15.68% of all taxes in 2003 and 18.47% of the total in 2008. The top 1% of earners paid 34.27 % of total taxes in 2003 and 38.02% in 2008.   On the other end of the spectrum, the bottom 50% of earners paid 3.46% of the total tax burden in 2003, and that percentage has dropped every year since to 2.70% in 2008.

What tax rate is fair? The Freeman Online has a quote that, “Under Roosevelt, the top rate was…raised—first to 79 percent and later to 90 percent. In 1941, in fact, Roosevelt proposed a 99.5 percent marginal rate on all incomes over $100,000. ‘Why not?’ he said when an adviser questioned him.”   I would hope most people wouldn’t think that to be either good policy or fair.  I believe we have a powerful economy and country in large part because there are incentives to succeed through energetic efforts and willingness to take risks.  Those who have their risks rewarded gain wealth for themselves and employ others.  Some politicians encourage us to resent those who have succeeded financially, and promise they will take more from the wealthy and dole out services to those deemed worthy by massive, inefficient bureaucracies.  Margaret Thatcher said, “The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money” (The quote is included in Mike Rosen’s column on page 11B of the Denver Post, December 10, 2010.)

Video of Nuclear Detonations 1945-1998

This post provides a link to the subject video that is a haunting presentation prepared by Isao Hashimoto of the 2053 detonations in the 53 year time frame.  I also put the link in the book about Rocky Flats, but want to make it available to as wide an audience as possible.  The United States conducted 1032 of the total detonations.  The first was Trinity and the next two were over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  It takes about 15 minutes to watch, but I recommend it.

Money is no object, world of credit?

A portion of the RockyFlatsFacts.com website is dedicated to “Expressions” because I’m interested in the derivation of how we communicate. I believe the two expressions mentioned in this title can be used to develop a commentary about how our nation is being run today. We want our representatives to give us everything now, and we don’t want to worry about the impact for the future. What is the meaning of “money is no object?” The word “object” in this case is usually taken to mean money is no cause for attention or concern. What I’m inferring is that the expression instead means that we are behaving as if money is not real. We can print it at will to buy everything the government thinks we want right now. The other expression “a world of credit” is usually intended to mean that someone has performed admirably, and deserves credit from everyone. My interpretation is that expression has changed to mean that we are, in addition to printing money freely, borrowing from everyone in the world to fund our excesses.

About RockyFlatsFacts.com

I began this blog primarily to share a book I’ve written about the Rocky Flats Plant in Colorado.  I watched the reputation of the site decay from the early days when it was  thought to be an important part of national defense to be considered a blight.  I watched the workers at the site strive to do everything in their power to safely and responsibly complete the mission assigned by our nation’s leaders in compliance with all laws.  Our neighbors were reading and watching stories that gave a very different impression.

I’ve always been interested in history, and this blog is dedicated to expanding awareness of why the nation believed Rocky Flats was necessary to maintain its freedom.  Many of the reviews I intend to post are about the threats that existed when the decisions were made that the plant needed and continued to operate through the Cold War.  Some of the content will also deal with other history and historical figures.

I welcome your comments.  I know there are many divergent views, and I hope we can learn from each other in a constructive and civil manner.