NYT editorial: Fitzgerald should provide answers or admit he's through

[DeepModem Mom]

Editorial
Time for Answers
Published: September 6, 2006

For three years, Washington has been periodically consumed with the question of who unmasked a covert C.I.A. agent to the columnist Robert Novak. It has been a huge distraction for the White House, resulted in the unjustified jailing of one reporter, and led to perjury charges against the vice president’s chief of staff. Last week, it was reported that Richard Armitage, then deputy secretary of state, was the first to mention Valerie Wilson to Mr. Novak, and that the federal prosecutor knew this more than two and a half years ago.

The revelation tells us something important. But, unfortunately, it is not the answer to the central question in the investigation — whether there was an organized attempt by the White House to use Mrs. Wilson to discredit or punish her husband, Joseph Wilson. A former diplomat, Mr. Wilson debunked the claim that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger to make nuclear weapons.

Mr. Armitage, a White House outsider, would be an odd participant in such a plot. He is said to have learned from a State Department memo that Mrs. Wilson had recommended sending her husband to check the Niger story since he had worked there as a diplomat. The memo was prepared for Mr. Cheney, who was eager to prove that there was an Iraqi nuclear weapons program and to silence critics.

It’s conceivable that Patrick Fitzgerald, the federal prosecutor, has evidence that suggests the information in the memo was used in some illegal manner. Or his investigators may have learned something troubling about the second, unknown, source cited in Mr. Novak’s column, or about some other illegal activity. But whatever it is needs to be made public. The Armitage story is mainly a reminder that this investigation has gone on too long....

***

It’s time for Mr. Fitzgerald to provide answers or admit that this investigation has run its course....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/06/opinion/06wed2.html?_r=1&ex=1157774400&en=7458de75f4b23328&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

[tuvor]

1. Is there a deadline?

And if so, is it real or arbitrary?

[Lerkfish]

2. I'm interested that the NYT is badgering Fitzgerald, considering their

conflict of interest in the case, seeing as how their own reporter was jailed for contempt and later fired.

[H2O Man]

12. Good point.

No evidence that Mr. Armitage told Judith Miller about Valerie Plame. Nor is there any indication Armitage was telling Matt Cooper or Chris Matthews. Perhaps there need to be some LTTE to remind our beast fiends at the NY Times of thesesimple facts.

[Horse with no Name]

3. It would sure be nice

If the Republicans could have this pesky mess over and do damage control before the elections...however...seems Fitz has been prosecuting other bad little Republicans who don't play nicely. Didn't he just send one to prison last week?
So many Republicans...so much crime...not enough time.

[HereSince1628]

4. It's hell when a prosecutor isn't authorized to report to the public

but that's just the way it is. Unless some law is passed requiring Fitzgerald to make a report I don't believe he will. I don't expect such a law to be passed or signed.

[JDPriestly]

5. And where did Armitage get his information?

[DeepModem Mom]

6. From the memo prepared for Dead-Eye Dick. nt

[noonwitch]

10. Armitage worked for Powell, who worked for Bush

So it still came from the Bush administration. I don't see how this vindicates the Bush administration at large-it perhaps vindicates Rove, and Libby is not being charged with leaking, but with obstruction of justice.

[tularetom]

7. There was an "unjustified jailing of one reporter", eh?

If it's Judy Miller they're talking about why did they shit can her?

[Catherine Vincent]

8. The NYTimes has got some nerve telling Fitzgerald what to report.

Give me a break!

[chelsea0011]

9. Hell yes. Why it only took Starr about 7 years to release a statement

that Hillary didn't kill Foster, so why shouldn't this one wrap up quickly now.:sarcasm:

[radwriter0555]

11. So the media has the right to say it's time for federal investigations to

cease?

Since when?

[Igel]

13. Since 12/15/1791

According to this site, at least.

It could be wrong, so that the press actually has no right to disagree with a prosecutor appointed by the government.