Home > Domestic Disputes > Fitzmas fizzle

Fitzmas fizzle

July 12th, 2006

Game over:

For nearly the entire time of his investigation, Fitzgerald knew — independent of me — the identity of the sources I used in my column of July 14, 2003. A federal investigation was triggered when I reported that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, was employed by the CIA and helped initiate his 2002 mission to Niger. That Fitzgerald did not indict any of these sources may indicate his conclusion that none of them violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Following my interview with the primary source, I sought out the second administration official and the CIA spokesman for confirmation. I learned Valerie Plame’s name from Joe Wilson’s entry in “Who’s Who in America.”

And that, as they say, is that. No frogmarch, no impeachment, no buggering Karl Rove in prison. Now just sit back and watch as the moonbats get busy weaving ever more intricate conspiracy theories to avoid directly confronting the incontrovertible fact that they are and have from the beginning been plainly, simply, utterly wrong.

Again.

  • Share/Bookmark
Comments appear entirely at the whim of the guy who pays the bills for this site, and may be deleted, edited, ridiculed, or otherwise pissed over as he in his capricious fancy sees fit. Thank you.
  1. Randy Rager
    July 12th, 2006 at 10:30 | #1
    Again.

  2. Randy Rager
    July 12th, 2006 at 10:43 | #2
    Whoah. Where the hell's the rest of that comment?
  3. Scott
    July 12th, 2006 at 11:49 | #3
    Happy to hear Fitz has closed his investigation on Novak - does that mean that's it? The whole thing is closed, or just Novak's part in it?

    Novak's article was kind of rambling and while he did say that his "second source" was the Who's Who article, I thought he mentioned having others - Harlow or something?

    Eh. Non-issue to begin with, dunno why I bothered to even read Novak's article...

  4. Zorro
    July 13th, 2006 at 16:46 | #4
    Public depositions - under oath - can be quite enlightening. It ain't over till it's over...
  5. Zorro
    July 13th, 2006 at 16:47 | #5
    Public depositions - under oath - can be quite enlightening. It ain't over till it's over....
  6. Randy Rager
    July 13th, 2006 at 21:45 | #6
    BWHAHAHAHA!

    Yeah, surely, this time, finally, after so many failures, the Left will finally get their man!

    Oh God. I'm laughing so hard I'm hurting here. Zorro, you're the most pathetic creature on Earth.

  7. July 14th, 2006 at 08:10 | #7
    If a grand jury investigation didn't find enough, then it is highly unlikely that a civil suit deposition will find anything damning. And in a civil suit, both sides can depose the other, and file counterclaims. In that atmosphere the Wilsons would be exposed to answering questions under oath, which may not be in their interest at all.

    And by the time this is over we will be working our way up to the 2012 elections and this will be totally old news.

  8. joss
    July 14th, 2006 at 09:46 | #8
    Valerie's lawsuit strikes me as a Clinton-esque attention whoring tactic, and a partisan one at that. Why does she name Cheney but not Bill Harlow, the CIA source?
  9. July 15th, 2006 at 04:01 | #9
    With the the investigation over, and cameras moving on to other stories, today Joe Wilson and his wife filed a lawsuit against people cleared in the investigation of doing anything to them....

    There's your headline

Comments are closed.