Richard Armitage knows a stand-up guy when he sees one.

On July 14, 2003, the day columnist Robert Novak published his now-famous column identifying Valerie Plame as a CIA “operative,” Armitage — who was Novak’s source — appeared on Fox News’ “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.”

Of course Van Susteren didn’t ask Armitage, then the number-two man at the State Department, about his leak to Novak.  Nobody knew it at the time.

But she did ask Armitage about the day’s news, which was the controversy over the president’s statement that Iraq had sought to obtain uranium in Africa. 

It was a mistake, Armitage said.  What was really amazing, he continued, was that George Tenet, then the CIA director, stood up and admitted it.

“I think at least political Washington is quite shocked that someone like George Tenet, our excellent director of the Central Intelligence Agency, would stand up and actually accept responsibility for this,” Armitage said.  “And they don’t know how to deal with it, and so they’re gumming it to death.”

“How does a mistake like that happen?” Van Susteren asked.  “Is it the bureaucracy?”

“I think that’s exactly — it’s a mistake,” Armitage answered.  “It’s not good. It was a bad thing, but it was a mistake. And it just happened. Someone took their eye off the ball. George Tenet accepted responsibility, and it’s a really stand-up thing to do.”

Fast-forward more than three years.

All this time, Armitage has known his leak to Novak — his mistake — was the source for the column that set off the CIA leak investigation, and he has never publicly accepted responsibility.

Even after he got word that he would not be charged in the case, he remained silent.

And even now, after the new book, “Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War,” by David Corn and Michael Isikoff, revealed his role, he has still said nothing.

Now, he told leak investigators all the way back in October 2003 —let’s remember that important fact.  But he stood quietly by while Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Lewis Libby, and others faced a constant stream of attacks over the leak controversy.

You remember those attacks, don’t you?

You remember the time Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) appeared on the liberal radio network Air America and was asked, “Karl Rove is guilty of treason, isn’t he?”

Lautenberg answered, “Yes, I think so.”

You remember the time Doug Hattaway, a former spokesman for Al Gore, was asked about Rove on CNN and said, “The bottom line is, there’s a traitor in the White House who betrayed America …”

And you remember the hundreds of stories suggesting that Cheney, Rove, Libby, and perhaps others in the White House had conspired to out Valerie Plame to punish her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, for speaking out against the Iraq war?

Of course, Rove and Libby faced a lot more than public condemnation.  Rove, who also told prosecutors in October 2003 that he had talked to Novak, was called before the grand jury investigating the case not one, not two, not three, not four, but five times.  All under threat of criminal prosecution.

Libby was ultimately indicted on perjury and obstruction charges.

And don’t forget the reporters who were forced to testify about their sources in court.  And former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who went to jail for 85 days before doing so.

Armitage had nothing to say publicly about all of that.

Perhaps Patrick Fitzgerald, the CIA leak prosecutor, asked Armitage not to talk.  He’s done that with other witnesses.

Maybe Armitage thought that was the best thing to do — although he was under no obligation to do as Fitzgerald asked. 

Still, he was silent.

And come to think of it, some other people are staying pretty quiet these days, too.

We haven’t heard anything from John Ashcroft, the former attorney general, who recused himself from the CIA case and whose top deputy, James Comey, appointed special prosecutor Fitzgerald.

They did all of that when they already knew who leaked to Novak.

Why?  Nobody has said.

Of course we haven’t heard anything about this from Fitzgerald, either.

After his rather spectacular news conference announcing the Libby indictment, he has spoken only in court or in court papers.

At some point, though, it would be useful to hear why he spent three years on the CIA leak investigation even though he knew the identities of the CIA leakers on day one.

Don’t hold your breath to hear it, though.  Unlike the old independent counsels, who were required by law to report on their investigations, Fitzgerald has no obligation to explain himself to anybody.

Neither does Ashcroft, or, for that matter, Armitage.

But the public has a right to know why all this happened.  The key people involved ought to give some answers.

It would be a really stand-up thing to do.