Circling Back To Ari Fleischer

Josh Marshall sort of points us to a discrepancy in the Ari Fleischer story.  From today's Times:

Among those asked if he had seen the memo was Ari Fleischer, then the White House press secretary, who was on Air Force One with Mr. Bush and Mr. Powell during the Africa trip. Mr. Fleischer told the grand jury that he never saw the document, a person familiar with the testimony said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the prosecutor's admonitions about not disclosing what is said to the grand jury.

From a recent Bloomberg story to which Dr. Marshall linked:

On the flight to Africa, Fleischer was seen perusing the State Department memo on Wilson and his wife, according to a former administration official who was also on the trip.

Well.  I am sure he is a great American, but this is not good.  And, as with Karl, since Ari was involved with the Wilson push-back, why would he *not* have seen the memo, or been apprised of it?

Ari's July 7, July 11, and July 12 press briefings are helpful in gauging his involvement in the message management.

And yes, if Ari is The One, since he left the Administration on July 14, 2003, we are back to an Incredible Shrinking Scandal.

MORE:  We are getting a lot from Bloomberg - do we have confidence in these reporters?

Comments

[Tollhouse]

Dueling anonymous sources. What a farce.

[Syl]

LOL!

[spongeworthy]

If you see the name Hunt attatched to the piece, you know how much stock you can put in it.

I get calls from Bloomberg reporters and I give them fuck-all these days. And I tell them why, too. They're no longer business media but part and parcel of the problem.

I've caught them in gross inaccuracies, appalling bias and misleading headlines and they have never responded to my complaints.

Bloomberg is not a serious news organization.

[Martin]

Who cares if you trust Bloomberg. The reporters report. Do you trust their sources?

It's abundantly clear that people inside the administration (some former) and/or government agencies are pushing this story. So the left and their reporters are secondary. You've got an inside faction looking for payback. Awesome.

[Tollhouse]

You know, if the media was just more responsible when it came to anonymous sources we wouldn't be here... Just saying.

[Martin]

Yes if Rove hadn't told Cooper he was to be anonymous, this would be much further along.

[Banjo]

Apart from the MSM faced with the need to get through a dull summer, the Kos left, and certain bloggers who I guess used to pass the time with pornography, the interest in the rest of the country in what Rove did or did not know or do is approximately nil.

[TexasToast]

We are getting a lot from Bloomberg - do we have confidence in these reporters?

Why not? Considering your last post, they seem to be among the few in Washington who arn't a part of the story they are covering.

[Walter]

Tom, you might want to add the July 9, 2003 Press Briefing, held in Pretoria and found here: http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/press/2003/july/071002.html

[Walter]

This is from the July 9 press briefing, 3 days after Wilson's op-ed and 2 days before Cooper spoke with Rove. No mention of Plame, but much criticism of Wilson...

Q: Ambassador Wilson said he made a case months before that there was no basis to the belief --

MR. FLEISCHER: No, he reported that Niger denied the allegation. That's what Ambassador Wilson reported.

Q: Was that report weighed against other --

MR. FLEISCHER: And of course they would deny the allegation. That doesn't make it untrue. It was only later -- you can ask Ambassador
Wilson if he reported that the yellow cake documents were forged. He did not. His report did not address whether the documents were forged or not. His report stated that Niger denied the accusation. He spent eight days in Niger and concluded that Niger denied the allegation. Well, typically, nations don't admit to going around nuclear
nonproliferation.

Q: But he said there was a basis to believe their denials.

MR. FLEISCHER: That's different from what he reported. The issue here is whether the documents on yellow cake were forged. He didn't address that issue. That's the information that subsequently came to light,
not prior to the speech.

[Walter]

One final snippet from the July 9, 2003 press briefing. This is 2 days after Fleischer first backed away from the "16 words" and 2 days before Rice and Tenet did likewise:

Q: What's the final language, Ari, your final position on the State of the Union speech and the uranium -- I know they were working on stuff last night, but I never got a chance to read it.

Q: Is this on the record?

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, we're back on the record. After the speech, information was learned about the forged documents. With the advantage of hindsight, it's known now what was not known by the White House prior to the speech. This information should not have risen to the level of a presidential speech. There was reporting, although it wasn't very specific, about Iraq's seeking to obtain uranium from Africa. It's a classic issue of how hindsight is 20-20. The process was followed that led to the information going into the State of the Union; information about the yellow cake was only brought to the White House's attention later.

[Jim E.]

Regarding the "MORE: Can we trust these reporters?"

In the previous post you bemoaned the fact that reporters were sitting on their involvement in this story. Now we have a story that breaks new news with regards to a reporter's involvement (Russert's). Instead of welcoming the story, you darkly question Bloomberg's trustworthiness. WTF?

[Geek, Esq.]

I've been wondering when Darth Bolton's name would pop up?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_07_17.php#006150

Ruh roh, Shaggy.

[Appalled Moderate]

Has the Bloomberg article been changed? All I see when I follow your link is a brief comment that "Fleisher had seen the July 7 memo" that isn't attributed to anybody.

[Appalled Moderate]

Strike last comment, I multitasked my way right past the paragraph....

[Geek, Esq.]

Here's that Bolton Link:

Darth Bolton gets busted.

[DW West]

Circling back to Ari Fleischer... Taken together, the 4 press briefings show an increasing level of aggressiveness towards Wilson. Already they are blaming Wilson for things not in his report inspite of the narrow focus of his assignment, and that fact that he had never seen the disputed report that was later shown to be based on forgeries.

Maybe that is a result of the process described in the Times today, with Rove and Libby working together to develop a rationale for the '16 words' having been first included in the SOTU and later found to have been based on forged documents.

[Appalled Moderate]

TM:

I'm not sure how that NYT story helps your case. It's another one where Libby and Rove are tied together on a common mission to deal with Wilson's op-ed. If these two are engaged in that task, it seems a lot more likely that someone would have told this dynamic duo the background behind the assignment to Wilson. Thus, the "I heard from reporters" excuse rings far less true. If the powers that be let Ari know, they surely are going to let the people tasked to handle the political fallout know.

Ari, to me, sounds like a useful cover story. "Ari blabbed to all the reporters on air force one, and then they all went to Rove and Libby with it." It helps that he's conveniently resigned.

Fianlly, I am at the point where I just have too much difficulty with the "reporter told me" thing. Libby's "Tim Russert told me" defense is a joke. Where is Tim Russert going to get information that thus and so is a CIA person? He's an interviewer, for heavens sake, not a beat reporter. Rove's "can't remember" becomes harder to support. The Wislon business was a central concern during the time, not a "one of the many things I have to do today" situation. I can buy that he does not remember the specifics about a converstion with a specific reporter. The rest, I can't buy.

PS, after talking to Rove, why did Cooper know to try to get his confirmation from Libby? has he said?

Challenge to TM's readers and supporters. How is this analysis wrong?

[Miller]

Ari Fleischer? Someone is going to have to take the fall; better for the White House that it be someone who left 2 years ago. Look where those leaks about Fleischer are coming from - obviously from the inside.

[Jon H]

"Where is Tim Russert going to get information that thus and so is a CIA person? He's an interviewer, for heavens sake, not a beat reporter"

And if Russert knew, then Novak certainly ought to have known. So why bother calling around to spread the information?

Further, if everyone in Washington knew Plame was CIA, why didn't someone come out with that on their own? At the very least, it could have run in Lloyd Grove's gossip column. But it didn't. I'd think such a juicy tidbit about Wilson would have been run if it were really common knowledge.

[Marianne]

Would Fleischer be willing to go down alone, or would he take others with him? maybe he wouldn't have much choice if Fitzgerald threatens conspiracy charges.

[DW West]

Appalled Moderate:

- Libby and Rove didn't normally work so closely together but this was an extraordinary circumstance. Libby was Cheney's top aide, helping him direct the key foreign policy and intelligence priorities while pursuing Cheney's longtime objective of taking out Saddam. In the first term Rove was Bush's top political aide. For Rove and Bush the priorities were: win the 2002 mid-terms, build up Bush's security credentials via a quick war, then coast to victory in 2004. Their respective interests coincided because Wilson exposed a flaw Cheney's WMD propaganda. Full disclosure would impact the chances of the ticket being reelected, and maybe even force Cheney off the ticket.

- Yes, the "reporter told me" defense doesn't stand up to scrutiny but helps blur the issues.

- It was logical for Cooper to go to Libby because the Vice President's office had been tied to the Wilson trip. Maybe Rove referred him there. Maybe Cooper called Libby first and was told to go to Rove and then come back. All speculation.

[Mark Coffey]

Tom, regarding the Bloomberg question (do we trust 'em?), Stephen Spruiell at National Review in the negative.

[Mark Coffey]

Pardon me, that should have read "answers in the negative"...

[bangthedrumslowly]

John H asks why Plame's name didn't show up in Lloyd Grove's column in the WaPo. Grove left the Post for the NY Daily News in July 2003, smack in the middle of L'affaire Plame!

Coincidence? Doubtful. Odds are high that either Rove or Pincus had him sent out of town and had Zuckerman instructed suitably in advance. Probably also no coincidence that Katherine Graham was not there to protect Grove the way she did Woodward & Bernstein. She died almost exactly two years before Mt. Wilson erupted, in July (!) 2001 (!), from 'head trauma' (!) after a fall (!) at big media (!) conference in Sun Valley. Move on, folks, nothing to see here!

Also note that Graham's NYT obituary was written by Gloria Steinem, who started Ms. Magazine with money from Mort Zuckerman's seed. When Zuckerman hired Grove away from the WaPo, the circle was complete.

All true facts. Scared yet? Mrs. Wilson should be. (Valerie, Watch out for Steinem with a shiv in the sunroom!)

On a slightly more serious note, Mickey Kaus could just ask his friend Lloyd Grove. We'll see if Marty Peretz and his friend Mort will let that question be asked and answered.

[Martin]

The purpose of today's NYT story is obvious. Either Rove or Libby is trying to pull away from the other, and one of the camps leaked this to keep them roped together.

[BumperStickerist]

I just have too much difficulty with the "reporter told me" thing. Libby's "Tim Russert told me" defense is a joke. Where is Tim Russert going to get information that thus and so is a CIA person? He's an interviewer, for heavens sake, not a beat reporter.

Russert or any celebrity reporter knowing that 'Plame was working for the CIA' is the least of the stretches involved. Since 1999 Valerie Plame commuted to Langley.

I don't have the links to any guest lists or press write-ups from a DC paper's Society Pages, but I don't find it implausible that Ambassador Wilson and Spouse attended get togethers with non-beat reporters like Russert or Mithcell and word got around that she 'worked at the CIA' -- up until the Wilson published his article, that Ambassador Wilson's wife 'works at the CIA could just as easily been 'works at DOJ' or 'works at NASA' or 'works at Johns Hopkins'.

Not the 'undercover agent' NOC stuff from pre-1997, or the WMD portion of her work at the Agency - just an "Ambassador Wilson's wife just had twins and 'works, I think, at the CIA" level of awareness.

That's certainly as plausbile as Evil Rove rubbing his palms, putting down the INR memo talking over with Cheney and Fleischer how they're going to get Wilson. And then waxing the fake Snidely Whiplash mustache Karl puts on when he's feeling Extra Evil.

[J Mann]

a person familiar with the testimony said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the prosecutor's admonitions about not disclosing what is said to the grand jury

It is somewhat hilarious that the press is clutching its pearls about this leak while running roughshod over grand jury secrecy.

Maybe for Plamegate II: Now It's Personal, Fitzgerald can expand his mandate and search for the grand jury leakers.

[Martin]

J Mann-those leaks aren't illegal.

Bumperstickerist et al.-did you catch Larry Johnson's statement today?

Somebody else for you to destroy-have fun.

[Martin]

Here's a snippet:

"As noted in the joint letter submitted to Congressional leaders earlier this week, the RNC is repeating the lie that Valerie was nothing more than a glorified desk jockey and could not possibly have any cover worth protecting. To those such as Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, P. J. O'Rourke, and Representative Roy Blunt [and Bumperstickerist-ed.] I can only say one thing--you are wrong. I am stunned that some political leaders have such ignorance about a matter so basic to the national security structure of this nation."

I myself am not stunned, but, anyway, have at it.

[ArminTamzarian]

Oh, Larry "Declining Terrorist Threat" Johnson is yapping? Cry me a river.

[Truzenzuzex]

Martin:

J Mann-those leaks aren't illegal.

They might be. It depends on who leaked them. If they are covered under FRCP 6e, the leaker could (and most likely would) be jailed for contempt, at the very least.

[Jim E.]

Just when I was trying to wrap my head around the Republicans denigrating a decorated military veteran at their convention (and not just the veteran, but the specific award, an award lots and lots of people proudly receive), now they mock and denigrate CIA operatives. Nice.

Too bad everyone else is so partisan, right?

[ArminTamzarian]

I'm not mocking anyone. I'm pointing out that he has little credibility.

[Martin]

Sorry Truz-all the grand jury testimony is well known on the washington cocktail circuit-so it actually can't be leaked. Precedent, you know.

Armin-a completely irrelevant line of attack, but what's new? Too bad Bush apparently agreed with Johnson, or else how could he get a memo in August 2001 titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." and go on vacation the next day?

[Jim E.]

"I'm pointing out that he has little credibility."

Because you disagree with him on the seriousness of the Plame matter?

[ArminTamzarian]

Well, that, and the whole "undercover for three decades" bit.

[Truzenzuzex]

Martin:

Sorry Truz-all the grand jury testimony is well known on the washington cocktail circuit-so it actually can't be leaked. Precedent, you know.

To quote The Blogfather: Heh.

[PS]

If Fleischer had the information and knew it was secret and told others, then doesn't the buck stop with him?

If, theoretically speaking, Rove heard about Wilson/Plame second-hand, then he's not the leaker, right? Especially if whoever told him didn't also tell him this was secret stuff.

Why are people like Marshall ignoring Fleischer's much clearer potential culpability and trying instead to draw a circuitous and unsubstantiated roadmap back to Karl Rove?

[Jim E.]

I don't know what the "three decades" quote refers to. But it's pretty close-minded of you to consider those you disagree with to have little credibility merely for disagreeing with you, especially someone who has relevant experience in the area under discussion.

But thanks for being so honest about your hackishness. I don't mean that as an ad hominem, since I think you'll agree that you've basically admitted to being a hack.

[J Mann]

J Mann-those leaks aren't illegal.

Martin, you can't seriously tell us that you will lose interest in the Plame leak if it turns out to have been legal, will you? (Let's make it a little tougher - what if we learn that the leaks were (1) not against the law and (2) didn't endanger anyone).

Anyway, the grand jury leaks are illegal if they come from almost anyone working for the government or the courts, so we don't know if they're illegal or not, and we won't know until Fitzgerald begins his second leak probe.

[Martin]

Got you J Mann-I was specifically to people leaking their own testimony, e.g. Rove, through Luskin, telling us what Rove said to the grand jury.

What specific leaks have you seen that seem to be other than by witnesses?

[Slartibartfast]

I myself am not stunned, but, anyway, have at it.

If Larry Johnson indeed retired from the CIA prior to 1990 as his bio says, he's also not authorized to know anything classified about Plame. So, either Johnson is fibbing, or Johnson has effectively outed himself.

[Martin]

Maybe retiring in 1990 was part of his cover?

Has anyone from the CIA-I mean any one-stepped forward to say Plame was not undercover?

[ArminTamzarian]

Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy:

Johnson said twice that Plame was "undercover for three decades," which was an outright lie since she was 40 years old at the time. That shows me he's a hack for needing to lie to make his point (or, to be more charitable, exaggerating so grossly and knowingly as to be equivalent to a lie).

And yes, a guy who writes a New York Times op-ed article that turns out to be entirely wrong and then tosses it down the memory hole when he goes around being an "intelligence expert" is a hack. The simple remedy for such hackery is to say, "Whoops, I was wrong."

[Slartibartfast]

Has anyone from the CIA-I mean any one-stepped forward to say Plame was not undercover?

Has anyone from the CIA stepped forward to say that she was undercover? Anyone with a name, that is?

[Slartibartfast]

Maybe retiring in 1990 was part of his cover?

Some cover: counterterrorism consultant. I know I'd be fooled.

[Martin]

Ah yes-her old supervisor. Per Johnson:

"Some reports, such as one in the Washington Times that Valerie Plame's supervisor at the CIA, Fred Rustman, said she told friends and family she worked at the CIA and that her cover was light. These claims are not true. Rustman, who supervised Val in one of her earliest assignments, left the CIA in 1990 and did not stay in social contact with Valerie. His knowledge of Val's cover is dated. He does not know what she has done during the past 15 years."

Slarti-where did you see it was Johnson who retired in 1990-he says he only started in 1985.?

[Seven Machos]

1. The Bush-Rove-evil-bad faction here clearly feels obligated to make Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame into something more than they are. It's out of necessity. Otherwise, this is a technicality at best, not any HUGE SCANDAL proving that BUSH LIED!!!.

2. Just for the record, Wilson did not expose "a flaw in Cheney's WMD propaganda." Despite the vociferous protestations of the Bush-Rove-evil-bad faction, Dick Cheney is Vice President of the United States, not Minister of Enlightenment and Propaganda.

3. Am I the only person here who has even so much as skimmed the Senate Intelligence Report? It concludes that Wilson was wrong about virtually everything and that the CIA did a woeful job of actually everything before September 11. I think we can all agree that the Senate's credibility remains high.

[Slartibartfast]

One five-second Google later:

From 1985 through September 1989 Mr. Johnson worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. During his distinguished career, he received training in paramilitary operations, worked in the Directorate of Operations, served in the CIA’s Operation’s Center, and established himself as a prolific analyst in the Directorate of Intelligence. In his final year with the CIA he received two Exceptional Performance Awards.