Notes Ex Machina

The NY Times delivers a shocker in the Plame case - per notes taken by Lewis Libby, George Tenet, former director of the CIA, told Dick Cheney that Ms. Wilson was involved in Joe Wilson's trip to Niger.  Dick Cheney then relayed this information to Libby on June 12, 2003, the day of the oft-cited Walter Pincus article.

Why is this big huge?  As the Times recounts, up to now various leaks have suggested that Libby is relying on a "Blame the media" strategy: Libby has reportedly testified that he first learned about the "Wilson and wife" story from reporters in conversations that took place in July.

That story fell a bit flat when Judy Miller reported that Libby seemed to have mentioned the Wilson's wife at their June 23 meeting (more Miller excerpts at the end of this post).

Of course, if these earlier leaks are to be believed, then if Libby *actually* learned about Wilson's wife on June 12, Libby lied!  And maybe Cheney did too!  Among the left-leaning blogs, there is a parade that lacks only a marching band: Jane Hamsher thinks Cheney lied; Jeralyn Merritt thinks Libby lied to protect Cheney, as do Mark Kleiman and Steve Clemons; and the emptywheel thinks the Tenet connection is a misdirection (we score that as interesting, but...).

Fascinating.  A few of these fine bloggers take a stab at a very obvious question - where did these notes come from?  Libby is cooperating and has finally turned them over seems to be the consensus among those who hazard any guess at all; put the Anon Lib in that group. [And the WaPo deflates that idea a day later, telling us that Fitzgerald seems to have had these notes for a long time; see UPDATE.]

We score this a "Maybe".  Maybe Libby has hidden these notes all along, and has hoped that (a) Cheney lied or forgot his talk with Libby when interviewed as part of the investigation; (b) Tenet lied or forgot his talk with Cheney; or, (c) to fit the emptywheel notion, Cheney was foresighted enough to lie to Libby about his source when Libby was taking notes back in June 2003; and (d) neither White House nor CIA phone logs and sign in sheets would put Cheney and Tenet in a meeting where Wilson might have been discussed and about which they might have been questioned.

All possible in the Grand Conspiracy and cover-up!  But let's take a few steps back, and conjure a conspiracy of our own.

First, the NY Times reported in Feb 2004 that Fitzgerald's investigation was relying on Libby's "copious notes" which were delivered (we guessed) in response to a Sept 2003 document request when this Plame leak investigation started.

Now, the high priced legal talent is paid to review everything submitted to the prosecutor.  What are the odds they overlooked this morsel that Cheney told Libby about Wilson's wife?

So let's guess that Libby's counsel, and Libby, knew all about the Cheney connection more or less at the outset of the investigation.  Libby would have been advised to be forthcoming with the grand jury - after all, as the Times notes, "It would not be illegal for either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby, both of whom are presumably cleared to know the government's deepest secrets, to discuss a C.I.A. officer or her link to a critic of the administration."

And on to the conspiracy!  Why do the Commentariat think Libby testified to a "Blame the media" strategy?  Is this conventional wisdom based on leaks from Fitzgerald?  No. 

As many have noted, most of these leaks are coming from lawyers whose clients work for the Administration (a few reporter's attorneys have been swept up as well, of course).

So, suppose Libby's attorneys have been whiling away the summer months, and on into autumn, feeding the press a partially true cover story that Libby was blaming the Plame leaks on Tim Russert, and encouraging speculation about Judy Miller.  Clinton's team made the mistake of attacking the prosecutor and drawing return fire; this time, the White House was crafty enough to attack the press.

Right wing running dogs (my hand is held high!) are always ready to denounce the media; the left was hopelessly distracted by Judy Miller; and Dick Cheney was kept out of the story until the final week.  If that was an objective, Mission Accomplished.

In this theory, Fitzgerald (if he reads the papers) is laughing out loud - Libby testified to Cheney's role almost two years ago, and Fitzgerald doesn't care about Cheney.  The Times certainly gives that impression, noting that Cheney is not being reinterviewed by Fitzgerald.

As to Libby's "Blame the media" pose - his actual testimony may only be a bit different from the staged leaks.  For example, perhaps Libby testified that he only talked with reporters about Wilson's wife after hearing about it from other reporters, and in leaks to the press that conveniently morphed into "Libby only knew about it after talking with reporters".  Blame the media, shield Cheney, disclose the near-truth - a trifecta!

And why did Fitzgerald pursue the media so intently?  Because he still needs to know who leaked, and Libby's "blame the media" strategy" is relevant to that line of inquiry even if Cheney's role has been fully disclosed.  As to the current gloomy atmospherics at the White House - well, they aren't staging that.  Libby may well have other problems with his Judy Miller/Tim Russert testimony that have nothing to do with Cheney.

Here we are.  Even some aficionados are growing weary of this speculation and leak-parsing (but not me!).  Since Fitzgerald is expected to announce something (anything!) this week, this debate has the feel of ruminating about which team has the best chance to win the World Series with two outs in the ninth inning of the seventh game.

Put another way - Time will tell, shortly.  But don't rule out the possibility that all of those leaks about Libby's testimony have been a misdirection play.  That seems at least as plausible as a grand conspiracy involving eerily prescient missing notes, tampered records and false statements from Cheney and Tenet.

MORE:  Now, if we can just come up with a scenario in which Fitzgerald indicts Harriet Miers...

TIMES SELECT SPECIAL ALERT:  Neither Kristof nor Tierney see big things coming from this investigation.  Kristof is worried about equivocal evidence and overzealous prosecutors, mentions "Inspector Javert, and reprises his Oct 11 2003 column telling us that Ms. Plame was outed to the Russkies in 1994.

Tierney is also worried about perjury and obstruction charges for a non-crime.  Best line:

The special prosecutor was assigned to look for serious crimes, not to uncover evidence that bureaucrats blame other bureaucrats when things go wrong.

UPDATE:  The Wednesday WaPo deflates the idea that Fitzgerald received these notes recently:

Two lawyers involved in the case said that, based on Fitzgerald's earlier questions, the prosecutor has been aware of Libby's June 12 conversation with Cheney since the early days of his investigation. The lawyers said Libby recorded in his notes that Cheney relayed to him that Wilson's wife may have had a role in Wilson taking the CIA-sponsored mission to Niger. According to a source familiar with Libby's testimony, Libby told the grand jury he believed he heard of Wilson's wife first from reporters.

We still have a troublesome "source familiar" recycling Libby's "Blame the media" defense.  However, this WaPo reporting can not be squared with the idea that a newly cooperative Libby has turned over new notes.

Ahh, but maybe it is a leak designed to conceal Libby's cooperation?  Very conspiratorial...

AFTER-ACTION: The transcript of Fitzgerald's press conference announcing the indictment of Lewis Libby provides a very solid indication that Libby testified about a conversation with Cheney to the grand jury in March 2004, which strongly suggests he was aware of his notes (or had an independent recollection) at that time.  However, this belated admission (which corrected false statements he made to investigators in October 2003) was apparently incomplete, since Libby had had conversations both with Cheney and with other people.  From the transcript:

That brings us to the fall of 2003. When it was clear that Valerie Wilson's cover had been blown, investigation began. And in October 2003, the FBI interviewed Mr. Libby. Mr. Libby is the vice president's chief of staff. He's also an assistant to the president and an assistant to the vice president for national security affairs.

The focus of the interview was what it that he had known about Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, what he knew about Ms. Wilson, what he said to people, why he said it, and how he learned it.

And to be frank, Mr. Libby gave the FBI a compelling story.

What he told the FBI is that essentially he was at the end of a long chain of phone calls. He spoke to reporter Tim Russert, and during the conversation Mr. Russert told him that, Hey, do you know that all the reporters know that Mr. Wilson's wife works at the CIA?

And he told the FBI that he learned that information as if it were new, and it struck him. So he took this information from Mr. Russert and later on he passed it on to other reporters, including reporter Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, reporter Judith Miller of the New York Times.

And he told the FBI that when he passed the information on on July 12th, 2003, two days before Mr. Novak's column, that he passed it on understanding that this was information he had gotten from a reporter; that he didn't even know if it was true.

And he told the FBI that when he passed the information on to the reporters he made clear that he did know if this were true. This was something that all the reporters were saying and, in fact, he just didn't know and he wanted to be clear about it.

Later, Mr. Libby went before the grand jury on two occasions in March of 2004. He took and oath and he testified. And he essentially said the same thing.

He said that, in fact, he had learned from the vice president earlier in June 2003 information about Wilson's wife, but he had forgotten it, and that when he learned the information from Mr. Russert during this phone call he learned it as if it were new.

When he passed the information on to reporters Cooper and Miller late in the week, he passed it on thinking it was just information he received from reporters; that he told reporters that, in fact, he didn't even know if it were true. He was just passing gossip from one reporter to another at the long end of a chain of phone calls.

It would be a compelling story that will lead the FBI to go away if only it were true. It is not true, according to the indictment.

In fact, Mr. Libby discussed the information about Valerie Wilson at least half a dozen times before this conversation with Mr. Russert ever took place, not to mention that when he spoke to Mr. Russert, Mr. Russert and he never discussed Valerie Wilson or Wilson's wife.

He didn't learn it from Mr. Russert. But if he had, it would not have been new at the time.

Let me talk you through what the indictment alleges.

The indictment alleges that Mr. Libby learned the information about Valerie Wilson at least three times in June of 2003 from government officials.

Let me make clear there was nothing wrong with government officials discussing Valerie Wilson or Mr. Wilson or his wife and imparting the information to Mr. Libby.

But in early June, Mr. Libby learned about Valerie Wilson and the role she was believed to play in having sent Mr. Wilson on a trip overseas from a senior CIA officer on or around June 11th, from an undersecretary of state on or around June 11th, and from the vice president on or about June 12th.

Comments

[politicaobscura]

How is it possible that a supposedly smart man like Lewis Libby could ever get tripped on a perjury charge based on White House guest sign-in books and his own notes!! Something sounds very strange. Did he give Fitz the notes and think that Fitz's staff would not read them? That is what I am wondering about, how can Libby have "lied" about something he KNEW Fitz would find?? It doesn't make any sense based on any scenario I can think of... or Libby might just be stupid, or these supposed leaks via the Times are untrue.... thoughts?

[Strick]

Looks like you nailed it. I couldn't imagine why Fitzgerald wouldn't have known this all along and you spell it out. Thanks.

As for a smart man like Libby getting involved in perjury, it's worse than that, isn't it? How does an extremely competent lawyer get caught up in it? There's got to be more to this part of it.

[Jeff]

Even some aficionados are growing weary of this speculation and leak-parsing

Ok then, onward and upward -- to the Niger forgeries. TM, clarice, topsecretk9, kim, and the rest, get ready. How about we start with this:

HADLEY NAMED. La Repubblica has a dynamite series this week on the origin of the yellowcake forgeries. Laura Rozen reports:
With Patrick Fitzgerald widely expected to announce indictments in the CIA leaks investigation, questions are again being raised about the murky matter that first led to the appointment of the special counsel: namely, how the Bush White House came into possession of discredited Italian intelligence reports claiming that Iraq sought uranium "yellowcake" from Niger.
The key documents supposedly proving the Iraqi attempt turned out to be crude forgeries on official stationery stolen from the African nation's Rome embassy. Among the most tantalizing aspects of the debate over the Iraq War is the origin of those fake documents and the role of the Italian intelligence services in disseminating them.

In an explosive series of articles appearing this week in the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, investigative reporters Carlo Bonini and Giuseppe d'Avanzo reveal how Niccolo Pollari, chief of Italy's military intelligence service, known as SISMI, brought the Niger yellowcake story directly to the White House after his insistent overtures had been rejected by the Central Intelligence Agency in 2001 and 2002.

Today's exclusive report in La Repubblica reveals that Pollari met secretly in Washington on September 9, 2002, with then–Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. Their secret meeting came at a critical moment in the White House campaign to convince Congress and the American public that war in Iraq was necessary to prevent Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons.

The La Repubblica article quotes a Bush administration official saying, "I can confirm that on September 9, 2002, general Nicolo Pollari met Stephen Hadley."

September 2002, that's about a month before October 2002, isn't it? I wonder what the head of SISMI was talking about with Hadley. I hope we can find out, and maybe you all can persuade your Republican colleagues to be more aggressive about getting to the bottom of the Niger forgeries, so that wrongdoers can be identified and the innocent cleared. Like Hadley.

[larwyn]

Mrs. Greenspan????

"Early" appointment of Bernanke as
Fed Chair to replace Mr. Andrea Mitchell??

Mrs. Greenspan's leak of classified
CIA information started all this
when she went public with the information that the CIA sent the
"outing" up to Justice.

FACTS:
Wall Street HATES uncertainty.

GW likes PREEMPTION.

Any dots here????

[Anonymous Liberal]

You're right. It seems that we are left with one of two possibilities: 1) a grand far-reaching conspiracy or 2) a devilishly deceptive misdirection campaign by the attorneys representing the potential targets (particularly Libby). Both of those scenarios sound entirely implausible, but I can't think of any other possibilities.

I hope Fitzgerald doesn't string us out much longer.

[clarice]

I posted it elsewhere--the Telegraph reports today that Martino has admitted that he forged the documents while in the pay of French intelligence in order to undermine the US and British justification for war.

Now, since Wilson consistently told everyone that he'd seen the documents at a time which preceded our having them, and since Russo said they were prepared in 2000, maybe that is the one part of Wilson's story that is true and that he did see them before we did and he saw them because French intelligence made then available to him, in which case the necon Fitzmas may be a banquet.

Remember, he was in Niger in 1999 when the Niger Embassy was broken into and some documents taken.
His ex-wife was a French consular official , widely believed to be a cover for French intelligence.
And he did stop over in France before returning from his Mission to Niger.
Finally, Fitz did spend time reviewing these forgeries in the course of this case.

[Geek, Esq.]

Who the hell knows?

Things still don't add up. They just fail to add up in a different manner now.

[Keith]

So, in other words, the White House has been playing the media all along by leaking "testimony" that didn't quite match what the real testimony actually was. That way, they kept the attention focused on the media and away from Cheney.

Brilliant.

[TM]

Ok then, onward and upward -- to the Niger forgeries.

Keep hope alive, Jeff! But I may collapse of terminal brain fog any day now.

Oh, I *HATE* her lead paragraph, which asks, How did the "Bush White House" come into possession of the forgeries?

Is she breakig news here - I thought the documents were at CIA, INR, DIA, etc. When *did* the WH come into possession of them?

I suppose should read on...

[fitzgerald & the notes]

OK...none of this makes any sense, but I love being a tea-leaf reader nonetheless.

Explain this to me mr. just one minute - the use of the word "now" in the article below. He may have known about the contents earlier, but if the Times story is true, he has only recently received them (thus, they are "now in Mr. F's possession."

"But the notes, now in Mr. Fitzgerald's possession, also indicate that Mr. Libby first heard about Ms. Wilson - who is also known by her maiden name, Valerie Plame - from Mr. Cheney."

[Rick Ballard]

Keith,

Separating the pros from the yokels in this has never been too difficult. Making jackasses of the Demsm is pretty easy - look what you have to start with.

I have to start working on some lyrics for "It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Fitzmas".

Corn, Kristof and Pincus should have to wear 'Kick Me - I'm Stupid' signs as a condition of further employment.

[Jeff]

clarice - Are you referring to today today, or September 19, 2004 today? I can't find anything in today's Telegraph. In any case, I may be skeptical of the Telegraph report, but who cares? If you buy it, all the more reason to pursue the question, and we'll see where it leads. I sure want to know what Pollari and Hadley were meeting about on September 9, 2002.

I also still don't get how your grand conspiracy is supposed to work. 1)The documents were forged in 2000 to undermine the US and British justification for war? The French have that much foresight? 2)Can you give the source for the 1999 Niger break-in. I was under the impression it was the Nigerien embassy in Italy, and it was 2001 or 2000. 3)Did Wilson really tell people that he had seen the documents? Who, where? Kristof says otherwise. Maybe it's Pincus? And remember, seeing documents is different from learning the contents of them, from, say, what is said to be verbatim text of documented agreements between Niger and Iraq, which is what we've heard the U.S. got from the Italians in February 2002.

[Marcel]

Karl Rove looks to be a bit player in all of this, as the focus shifts towards the Office of the Vice President. Maybe Rove won't be charged with anything, and survive to help Pres. Bush and the Republican Party get back on track.

[Gary Maxwell]

WTF I dont see any there there again. I watched a smug Larry O'Donnell on Scarborough last night so I may be predisposed to discount something here simply because Loquacious Larry thought it was a big deal. Is there anyone dumber than this guy?

TM you are dead on. Lewis Libby was a good enough lawyer to defend Marc Rich. Rich guys like Rich dont hire blithering idiots ( nice contrast here with O 'Donnell ). He aint stupid and would know what he produced to a grand jury and if it existed at all. Plus talking about it with another person who has security clearance is no crime.

[Geek, Esq.]

It appears that France and the Niger documents are to the Bush administration as some dirty trickster was to Dan Rather.

[Jeff]

clarice - That's you misleading over at dkos, isn't it? Classy.

[Jeff]

clarice - That's you misleading over at dkos, isn't it? Classy.

[Jeff]

clarice - That's you misleading over at dkos, isn't it? Classy.

[Geek, Esq.]

It appears that France and the Niger documents are to the Bush administration as some dirty trickster was to Dan Rather.

[Jeff]

clarice - That's you posting misleading things over at dkos, isn't it? Classy.

[Geek, Esq.]

It appears that France and the Niger documents are to the Bush administration as some dirty trickster was to Dan Rather.

[Sue]

Huh?

If I was confused before, I'm totally baffled now. :)

[Sue]

Huh?

If I was confused before, I'm totally baffled now. :)

[Thomas]

That would be a brilliant feint. But counterproductive, if he had nothing to hide. If nobody lied in the grand jury, his name was going to come out eventually and if he all Cheney did was tell Libby her name, then he should have come clean with some Friday afternoon leak that he told his aide her name. It would have been news, sure, but he at least doesn't come off looking some manipulator, which by making Libby look guilty, he really does. Plus, the whole move being simply political, it seems far worse to have an ongoing trial of Libby with Cheney hanging over it as some sort of mastermind who orders his aides to screw themselves publically.

[Rick Ballard]

Jeff,

Here is the original article referenced in the Rozen tickler. Take a moment and scroll down to the date at the bottom. July 16, 2003 doesn't exactly qualify as "news" in any sense I'm aware of. The paragraph just above the date gives this statement from the Italian government:

"Le notizie di trasmissione da parte italiana ad altri organismi d'intelligence di documenti di provenienza nigerina o irachena sono destituite di ogni fondamento: i servizi italiani non hanno mai fornito alcun documento."

I can translate it for you but I don't think that you will like the result.

[nandrews3]

"...and Dick Cheney was kept out of the story until the final week."

Question: Why would any of those "lawyers whose clients work for the Administration" be *putting him in* to the story now?

[Thomas]

That would be a brilliant feint. But counterproductive, if he had nothing to hide. If nobody lied in the grand jury, his name was going to come out eventually and if he all Cheney did was tell Libby her name, then he should have come clean with some Friday afternoon leak that he told his aide her name. It would have been news, sure, but he at least doesn't come off looking some manipulator, which by making Libby look guilty, he really does. Plus, the whole move being simply political, it seems far worse to have an ongoing trial of Libby with Cheney hanging over it as some sort of mastermind who orders his aides to screw themselves publically.

[Rick Ballard]

Jeff,

Here is the original article referenced in the Rozen tickler. Take a moment and scroll down to the date at the bottom. July 16, 2003 doesn't exactly qualify as "news" in any sense I'm aware of. The paragraph just above the date gives this statement from the Italian government:

"Le notizie di trasmissione da parte italiana ad altri organismi d'intelligence di documenti di provenienza nigerina o irachena sono destituite di ogni fondamento: i servizi italiani non hanno mai fornito alcun documento."

I can translate it for you but I don't think that you will like the result.

[nandrews3]

"...and Dick Cheney was kept out of the story until the final week."

Question: Why would any of those "lawyers whose clients work for the Administration" be *putting him in* to the story now?

[Sue]

Huh?

If I was confused before, I'm totally baffled now. :)

[John P]

"As to the current gloomy atmospherics at the White House - well, they aren't staging that."

Maybe. Although I don't recall the exact details, I remember the Clinton White House playing up some key piece of testimony (I believe Lewinsky's) as being borderline disastrous. People were talking about rumors that there was cocaine on the blue dress (in addition to the other stuff) and Lord knows what else. Then...

fizzle.

Expertly managing the "expectation" game--hell, that almost sounds Rovian.

[clarice]

It's in today's Telegraph--Russo has completely recanted of his prior tap dance. I cited this on the prior thread.

And here's a report on why reporters , not just Miller,had painted such a dire portrait of Saddam's WMD programs and possession--because long before Bush came into office they were hearing the same thing from Clinton officials.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102401405.html

[Thomas]

That would be a brilliant feint. But counterproductive, if he had nothing to hide. If nobody lied in the grand jury, his name was going to come out eventually and if he all Cheney did was tell Libby her name, then he should have come clean with some Friday afternoon leak that he told his aide her name. It would have been news, sure, but he at least doesn't come off looking some manipulator, which by making Libby look guilty, he really does. Plus, the whole move being simply political, it seems far worse to have an ongoing trial of Libby with Cheney hanging over it as some sort of mastermind who orders his aides to screw themselves publically.

[Sue]

Huh?

If I was confused before, I'm totally baffled now. :)

[John P]

"As to the current gloomy atmospherics at the White House - well, they aren't staging that."

Maybe. Although I don't recall the exact details, I remember the Clinton White House playing up some key piece of testimony (I believe Lewinsky's) as being borderline disastrous. People were talking about rumors that there was cocaine on the blue dress (in addition to the other stuff) and Lord knows what else. Then...

fizzle.

Expertly managing the "expectation" game--hell, that almost sounds Rovian.

[steve sturm]

Since I can't get trackback to work, here's my post on why this memo isn't bad news for Libby

[Jeff]

Rick Ballard - Funny, i didn't see anything about Hadley in that old Repubblica article, and yet Rozen appears to say that today's article talks about Hadley. Funny too, I didn't catch the link to that old article in Rozen's tickler. Could it be that you're wrong that the 2003 article is the one Rozen is referring to? Would it make a difference to you?

clarice - Could you please provide the link? And while you're at it stop bsing here and over at dkos? It makes you seem desperate and ready to give up the game already.

[Sue]

I'm even more baffled as to why my post keeps posting itself.

[clarice]

I think Thom is right on. And I bet this isn't the only head fake by the WH.

[pollyusa]

Jeff

Thanks for the information, this is bit interesting.

brought the Niger yellowcake story directly to the White House after his insistent overtures had been rejected by the Central Intelligence Agency in 2001 and 2002

[Cecil Turner]

Okay, time for an attempt at a unified leak theory. First, the kickoff, Kristof's May 6 article, and Wilson's story:

I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged. [points of contention in bold]

Kristof later snarked: "And now an administration official tells The Washington Post that Mr. Cheney's office first learned of its role in the episode by reading that column of mine. Hmm." (I suspect that's exactly what happened.) The question was put to Condi Rice on June 8th. She was clearly unprepared:

The president quoted a British paper. We did not know at the time, no one knew at the time in our circles—maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew—that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery.

Two days later, the famous INR memo is drafted; (Tenet involved?) two days after that, Cheney and Libby discuss it. The leak fest begins, apparently directed at trip initiation and Wilson's report.

Judith Miller didn't write a story, but apparently Libby was selling the story on June 23rd:

• the C.I.A. "took it upon itself to try and figure out more" by sending a "clandestine guy" to Niger to investigate.
• "Veep didn't know of Joe Wilson"
• "No briefer came in and said, 'You got it wrong, Mr. President.'"

Pincus:

• "Wilson's mission originated within the CIA's clandestine service after Cheney aides raised questions during a briefing. 'It was not orchestrated by the vice president,' the official said."
• "He added that it was reported in a routine way, did not mention Wilson's name and did not say anything about forgeries."

Novak:

• "The CIA's decision to send retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson to Africa in February 2002 to investigate possible Iraqi purchases of uranium was made routinely at a low level . . ."
• "CIA officials did not regard Wilson's intelligence as definitive, being based primarily on what the Niger officials told him and probably would have claimed under any circumstances."

Cooper:

• [Administration officials charged] "that his 2002 report, made at the behest of U.S. intelligence, was faulty and that his mission was a scheme cooked up by mid-level operatives . . ."

The story is recapped by Tenet:

• "CIA's counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn."
• "There was no mention in the report of forged documents -- or any suggestion of the existence of documents at all."

Best guess: hamfisted news management, with legitimate points about Wilson's trip. Leak of Plame working at CPD (covertness unknown) was added for convincing detail. Both sides leaked some classified information, possibly inadvertently, probably believing it justified.

[Sue]

Cecil,

That has been my guess all along. The leaks were made, an oops moment occurred, and the rest is history...maybe. Unless I'm wrong. ;)

[Rick Ballard]

Jeff,

No, you didn't see anything in that old article - except that it was the origin of today's article which doesn't have a single named source in it for all of Bonini and D'Avanzo's conjectures. These guys are less credible than Corn.

The Telegraph article that Clarice cited shreds Bonini and D'Avanzo's fairy tale with Martino's confession. The provenance of the Niger forgeries seems to lie in Provence - rather unsurprisingly.

Keep shoveling though - there's gotta be a pony in there somewhere.

[Cecil Turner]

On re-reading, it strikes me that I'm assuming a single leak, and that the known facts would be more sensible if there were a second leak from the INR memo circulating on AF1 on July 7th or so (best guess: Fleischer). That might explain both the time lag and why Rove and Libby were apparently confused. (And whether they are or not, I certainly am.)

[Karen]

Isn't the leak today a crime? How can a prosecutor investigating a leak allow a crime to occur? It seems to me Joe Wilson is going to look like Linda Tripp when this is done: an out of work, lazy husband who needs his wife to get him a job. If he was working for the CIA, anything he told a reporter is a crime. I can't wait to see Joe Wilson find his fifth wife in a jail cell.

[Bruce Hayden]

I think that that is really it. This is really political, from the get-go. And you can really see the politics here with the NYT trashfest of Judith Miller going on right now.

I remember my original impression reading the Novak article before all this blew up - that he and the Republicans believed that the Democrats had been playing politics with the CIA and WMD. That this whole Wilson thing was political from the first. After all, why should a Clinton political operative be giving this sort of job in the first place?

And, yes, maybe there is a little paranoia in the Administration about the CIA. The CIA has been leaking like crazy for a long time, and many there seemed to be going out of their way to bring down the President.

Add to that that the really big story here is that of the CIA desperately trying to shift blame away from their massive Iraqi WMD intel failure. This seemed to really be the big thing on the mind of at least Libby when he was talking to Miller.

[Lastango]

I doubt Libby or the White House would orchestrate a leak campaign in this situation, because the leaks have kept the story on the front page, where the White House doesn't want it.

That's an entertaining theory though, and if I had the time I'd work one up myself just for the hell of it.

[Geek, Esq.]

The story involving France is over a year old.

[TexasToast]

this debate has the feel of ruminating about which team has the best chance to win the World Series with two outs in the ninth inning of the seventh game.

Albert Pujols, anyone?

[andrea mitchell]

Please god, let them take Viagra and Cialis off the market...

The 'old man' is starting to shows signs of inflation.