Armitage Woodward's Source? "A Fair Assumption"

Vanity Fair will have a story about Plamegate by Marie Brenner, but Matt Drudge is already there:

THE WASHINGTON POST's famous Watergate editor Ben Bradlee claims that it was former State Department Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage who was the individual who leaked the identity of CIA official Valerie Plame.

In the latest issue of VANITY FAIR: "Woodward was in a tricky position. People close to him believe that he had learned about Plame from his friend Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's former deputy, who has been known to be critical of the administration and who has a blunt way of speaking. 'That Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption,' former WASHINGTON POST editor Ben Bradlee said."

'I had heard about an e-mail that was sent that had a lot of unprintable language in it.'"

We eagerly await a bootleg copy of the article.

As to the case for Armitage, let's review - when the story broke that Bob Woodward had received a leak about Valerie Plame in mid-June, a number of news services contacted Administration officials and sought their comment or denial as to whether they were Woodward's source.  CNN and the WSJ noted that Richard Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State, was conspicuous by his absence; the NY Times (see UPDATE) also splashed some ink on the reasons to suspect Armitage.  Very briefly, Armitage was in the loop on the Plame connection to the Wilson trip, and was a long-time source for Woodward's books.

Isikoff and Thomas of Newsweek also pointed to Armitage.

From another direction, court documents were recently released which discussed the sources for Woodward and Novak source but with names redacted.  Two researchers tackled this, EmptyWheel from the left and MJW from the right, and you can't fight MicroSoft Word - Armitage is a good fit for the redactions.

Well - a recent court hearing strongly suggested that Woodward and Novak shared a non-White House source - Special Counsel Fitzgerald is concealing the name to avoid sullying the mystery person's reputation, since he does not face charges.

Baffling - a mystery source outed Plame to two different reporters and "forgot" to mention his leak to Woodward in his initial interviews with investigators and in his grand jury testimony.  One might have thought this chap had both harmed national security and impeded the Fitzgerald investigation.  Yet his reputation must be preserved!

We can't wait to see Vanity Fair.

UPDATE:  OK, we have seen Vanity Fair - save yourself the newsstand price, unless hot pics of Natalie Portman are your cup of tea - Matt Drudge squeezed the juice with that paragraph.  However, Armitage gets a mention elsewhere in the story as Woodward's source, and no other names are offered.  As bonus speculation, the Vanity Fair reporter did speak to Woodward, so I presume Woodward did not engage in a vigorous wave-off of the Armitage speculation.  That said, Woodward probably settled for an icy stare and "No comment about my sources".

And more - you may have thought you knew Richard Armitage, but you don't know... oh, never mind.

THE WAPO JOINS IN:  Diamond Jim Vandehei enters the fray:

Vanity Fair is reporting that former Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee says it is reasonable to assume former State Department official Richard L. Armitage is likely the source who revealed CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward.

In an article to be published in the magazine today, Bradlee is quoted as saying: "That Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption." Armitage was deputy secretary of state in President Bush's first term.

In an interview yesterday, Bradlee said he does know the identity of Woodward's source and does not recall making that precise statement to a Vanity Fair reporter. He said he has no interest in unmasking the official who first told Woodward about Plame in June 2003.

"I don't think I said it," Bradlee said. "I know who his source is, and I don't want to get into it. . . . I have not told a soul who it is."

...

Beth Kseniak, spokeswoman for Vanity Fair, said the reporter who wrote the story, Marie Brenner, was traveling in India and was unavailable for comment.

Bradlee, currently Post vice president at large, said he learned the source's name from someone other than Woodward. Woodward said he did not reveal the source to his friend and former boss.

"He is not in the management loop on this," Woodward said. "Maybe he was alerted from somebody else, if he in fact did learn" the source's name.

Woodward and Bradlee refused to disclose the source's name. Armitage did not return phone calls requesting comment.

Comments

[Jim E.]

What the heck is the context for this line?: "I had heard about an e-mail that was sent that had a lot of unprintable language in it."

Is this referring to an Armitage-to-Woodward e-mail? Or Woodward's editors writing to Woodward? Or Woodward writing to Armitage? (Or is it predicting a future Woodward e-mail to Bradlee?) I don't get it.

[clarice]

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5322

When do you suppose some journo will get an interview with him to discuss this? Except for the Prosecution's refusal to consider any evidence that didn't point to Libby and Rove, what possible explanation can you come up with for his treatment of UGO?

[Reg Jones]

Fitz not indicting Armitage is a positive prhaps very positive signal to Rove.

[clarice]

At Tradesports you can't give away a bid on Rove's being indicted.
Very funny, JimE. In context, I read it as saying Armitage's emails were--um--salty.

[Chants]

Devil's Advocate time "A/K/A Keeping Hope Alive (TM):

OK, what possible reason could explain why Armitage and Libby have received such apparently different treatment?

Perhaps Armitage managed to convince the Prosecutor that he knew about Plame simply through informal office gossip. Wilson worked at State in the not so distant past. He knew she was at the CIA. He had no idea, and no reason to know, that her job was classified.

Libby, on the other hand, had no such connection to Wilson or Plame. His knowledge likely came to him through official channels, which more than likely clearly set forth her true classified status.

In short, Libby's situation is closer to meeting the scienter requirement of the IIPA than Armitage's. Libby knew it was a secret and blabbed about it. Armitage did not know it was a secret and blabbed about it. Since Armitage did not know, he did not receive the scrutiny Libby received.

Well, it's a theory. Keep hope alive.

[cathyf]

Hey, Jim E. I have exactly the same question! Imagining the various possibilities is certainly an amusing pastime.

cathy :-)

[cathyf]

Clarice, on the subject of the Tribune's sudden interest in CIA incompentence, it's not new. On Christmas Day they published an account of the astonishingly incompentent job the CIA did when they nabbed an imman from the streets of Milan in Feb, 2003. Porter Goss is apparently absolutely appoplectic over it.

I posted a link to it at the time, but I think there were lots of people otherwise occupied. Read it -- I think you'll see why the "CIA bungler" story is now a Trib beat.

cathy :-)

[JM Hanes]

Fair enough Chants, as to original intent. Unfortunately for the KHA folks, Fitz has made it clear that original intent is irrelevant, where throwing sand in the ump's eyes is a serious crime. Ironists among us might wonder if Armitage used the "too busy to remember" defense in explaining a rather extraordinary ellipsis in his initial interview.

[clarice]

Thanks, but then it does seem that at a minimum there are CIA vets trying to straighten out what's going on there, doesn't it? At least folks willing to work with the paper on this stuff..kind of a counter VIPS..(Sane Veteran Intelligence Professionals) as it were.

[Lou Grunt]

"Libby, on the other hand, had no such connection to Wilson or Plame. His knowledge likely came to him through official channels, which more than likely clearly set forth her true classified status."

Her true classified status? Do you have any evidence of that? If so, please forward it to Fitzgerald because he doesn't appear to have any.

Fitz has also never claimed, even if Plame was "classified", that anyone specially told Libby about her status. Some say "Fitz should have checked with the CIA". I guess Armitage could have checked as well.

It appears that reporters knew about Plame before Libby mentioned "Wilson's wife" to any reporters. Fitz does not intend to show that Plame was classified and has no proof of any damage done. So with Armitage the first to mention Val what is Libby guilty of? Mis-remembering while trying to set the record straight about something that was already known to reporters about a questionable, or non-classified item that had no impact on the CIA.

[BumperStickerist]

Fairly OT, but Tom's ears might be burning and he not know the reason:

What’s up with the people at JustOneMinute? It’s a parallel universe. Everything’s A-OK in the Bush World: Joe and Val are lying traitors who work for Clinton. My retirement investments are doing fine and the Dow is over 11000. What ski resorts are your favorites? Fitz is a lying, deluded hack and I’m donating to Scooter’s Defense Fund.

I don’t understand. What weird kind of crack are they smoking? I’ve gone there to try to figure out what the other side is thinking, but they are so out of touch I can barely suss out their deluded ramblings. - Bob in Pacifica at Balloon-Juice in the 'Sopranos' comment section

one click later I'm at Bob "Non-Crack Smoking Parallel Universe Inhabitor" in Pacifica's website where I find this:

...[We] have invaded Iraq, unleashed a civil war which we are unable to control, and yet are making military threats to Iran.

The best estimates are that Iran is probably ten years away from a nuclear device, if they choose to proceed with one. Iran has not violated any international law yet with regards to its nuclear program.

Iran has a standing army of 800,000 men, about six times the number of people we have in Iraq.

The Shiite majority in Iraq is aligned with the Iranian Shiite mullahs.

Iran has an air force and a substantial supply of cruise missiles that could halt all supplies passing through the Strait of Hormuz, meaning that they could, for some period of time, stop supplies going to our troops in Iraq, and stop the flow of oil out of that region.

So, how's the skiing, TM?

The Reality-Based haven't quite sussed the fact that there is the very supportable belief held by Republicans and/or Conservatives that NO MATTER HOW BAD THINGS ARE UNDER BUSH, THEY'D BE WORSE UNDER KERRY.

Or Gore, for that matter.

It's certainly more sustainable a belief than the Chimpy McHitlerburton tripe put forth by Bob et al.

[TM]

OK, what possible reason could explain why Armitage and Libby have received such apparently different treatment?

Chants, I klike the way you approach this - I have been spending a fair amount of time saying to myself, "OK, Fitzgerald is far from foolish, he has something in mind, but what?"

But I'm stuck - Either it is some bolt from the blue, or Fitzgerald really did subscribe to the "Protect the whistleblower" theory - Armitage's leaks were OK because he wasn't trying to discredit Joe; however, Libby's heart was not pure.

Or, Fitzgerald is convinced there is a WH conspiracy, but he just can't crack it. Of course, "Conspiring to respond to your critics" isn't in the statute books yet, and Wilson was an advisor to the Kerry campaign, but who knows.

[larwyn]

Clarice,
The DOJ just screwed up the Moussaoui sentencing phase and we see Fitz on this and that his other team gave the defense copied docs they should not have seen.

I asked you a question based on this at the old thread "Libby to get"

I really hate for the media, Vips and Wilsons to walk on all this.

[JM Hanes]

The authoritarian cult on the left must be thanking their lucky stars that they've still got Lyin' Libby to hang the Vicious White House meme on. Not that such mythologies, like the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" or "Bush Lied, People Died" ever suffer much for lack of evidence; it's just nice to have a couple of face savers in your tool kit.

[clarice]

Larwyn I answered you on that thread.

[Sue]

Tom,

Fitzgerald really did subscribe to the "Protect the whistleblower" theory - Armitage's leaks were OK because he wasn't trying to discredit Joe; however, Libby's heart was not pure.

This is my guess, especially after seeing Fitzgerald's responses stating why some people were subpoenaed and others weren't.

[Rick Ballard]

From page 4 of the indictment - Fitzgerald's recital:

6. On or about June 11 or 12, 2003, the Under Secretary of State orally advised LIBBY in the White House that, in sum and substance, Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that State Department personnel were saying that Wilson’s wife was involved in the planning of his trip.

Armitage was not an Under Secretary but Deputy Secretary - one up the chain of command. Out of the loop on Wilson? Considering that Armitage was very tight with Powell it is very difficult to think so. It is almost impossible to think that an Undersecretary would not memo the substance of a report to the VP to his immediate superiors.

[clarice]

TNR reported ages ago that the Under Secretary was Grossman and that the SP's office had confirmed that, Rick. Yes, that is impossible that he'd not have sent the memo to Armitage.

[cathyf]

Or, Fitzgerald is convinced there is a WH conspiracy, but he just can't crack it. Of course, "Conspiring to respond to your critics" isn't in the statute books yet...

Just to join in the head-scratching, didn't the criminal referral ask the DOJ to investigate the unauthorized release of classified information? Just how did this morph into investigating the "unauthorized release of classified information but only by people who work at the white house"? Do prosecutors normally get to ignore investigating the crimes in a criminal referral and instead investigate non-crimes?

cathy :-)

[Rick Ballard]

One might wonder if Grossman's oral recital included "oh, by the way, her status is X". Considering her shift to State, wouldn't State have been apprised of her status?

I'm just looking at "unwitting" and "Armitage" and taking them for a spin wrt Plame. They don't fit unless 'not' is included - as in 'Armitage was not unwitting of Plame's status but was aware that her transition obviated a formal change'. That works.

[clarice]

The caveat was in super special secret invisible ink which only Fitz could read, cathyf.

[topsecretk9]

Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that State Department personnel were saying that Wilson’s wife was involved in the planning of his trip.

Personnel.

Wilson (although his version has morphed) called many in the State Department. Also, was urged by Scowcroft to go to the papers. I've always felt that there were a small faction at State who were repeating Wilson claim brought to them by Wilson.

So Armitage is told of Wilson through office like gossip. He bats it away in his head as white-noise. Later, gets an official word from the Under that this "Wilson's" claim is twisted and he was sent by CIA not Cheney. His first instinct is confirmed, dumbass CIA set up a dumb trip over objections and the findings were here nor there. Carry on.

Later when discussing with reporters he relates his reaction as to the overall situation...

It was boondoggle. They didn't pay attention --- because in Armitage's mind there was NOTHING there TO PAY attention to. The guys wife works for the dumb CIA and that is how this fellow came about being selected, apparently. And since the genesis of "the" trip was dumb, it added nothing. So why should anyone care, there is nothing to care about here?

[Javani]

Sue:

""Fitzgerald really did subscribe to the "Protect the whistleblower" theory - Armitage's leaks were OK because he wasn't trying to discredit Joe; however, Libby's heart was not pure.""

-------

Not trying to "discredit" Joe? Libby telling so and so Wilson's wife was involved any different?

Nope. Armitage is not charged because he committed no crime. Simple as that. The fact that Novak Leaker No. 1 story is not the no. 1 storyline of this affair is because Novak signaled early on that the leaker was non-partisan. Non-partisan = problems for the discourse. Hence ignored by the MSM.

[JM Hanes]

TM

The piece that I have trouble placing was supplied by Judge Walton.

The idea that a judge might find UGO's identity irrelevant to the Defense is not unduly surprising, and there's ample precedent for protecting "innocent accuseds." The idea of not sullying the reputation of someone who -- if we're using the Libby standard -- deserves indictment for misleading the prosecution, however, strikes me as a sort of bizarre twist, if not an actual wild card, here.

Does it tell us something about UGO, or does it hint of certain judicial attitude toward the Special Prosecutor's whole approach to this case? Perhaps I'm just not asking the right question yet, but that phrase from the Walton decision is the bouncing ping pong ball chez moi.

[Sue]

We haven't forgotten those explosive emails have we? We don't know what information might be in them.

Keep hope alive...

[clarice]

I don't think "unprintable" is the same as "explosive" and I don't think they relate to Plame but rather to Armitage's opponents in the Administration.

[maryrose]

There is a double standard at play here and I don't see how Fitz makes these indictments of Libby stick. He is not the original leaker. I wonder if Libby knew Armitage had leaked the info and the name. Why doesn't one hand know what the other hand is doing? In Libby's testimony could he have said Armitage has been open about this with reporters from the get-go.

[Sue]

Nope. Armitage is not charged because he committed no crime.

Nope. Just like that? No possibly not. I disagree? Just nope?

Well, I won't say just nope back atcha, but I will say I disagree. Fitzgerald said that when he decided who to subpoena, that was his criteria.

[AJStrata]

Chants,

It doesn't matter how one learned of Val's employment. Everyone knows not to mention CIA employment because you don't know whether they are covert or not. Plus, Libby's indictment all but stipulates Libby did not pass on his internal knowledge of her status to reporters. He is indicted for telling the prosecution he misled reporters.

[Sue]

Clarice,

Not the new emails. The ones that were all the rage last week. 250 pages of them. ::grin::

So many emails. So little time.

[clarice]

And for "throwing sand" in Fitz' eyes, AJ, unlike Armitage.LOL

[Sue]

FITZGERALD: Those fine distinctions are important in determining what to do. That's why it's essential when a witness comes forward and gives their account of how they came across classified information and what they did with it that it be accurate.

Man, if Libby's defense team isn't allowed to mention UGO, how can the exploit this from the presser? We know UGO withheld information about telling Woodward.

[Javani]

""And since the genesis of "the" trip was dumb, it added nothing. So why should anyone care, there is nothing to care about here?""

Yeah it was "dumb." But a nifty way for Joe to get a free air ticket to Niger where he was looking into some gold mining business.

But then Joe hitches up with the Kerry campaign and with visions of the Ambassadorship to France calling (conflict of interest there?) he decides to ratchet up the import of his mint-tea laced sojourn.

Yeah, the Senate Committee recorded that the CIA and State staff thought the trip would prove nothing, of course the Nigeriens would deny everything. But why not give Val a perk? And hey, for some of the folks, the information Wilson came back with increased their belief Iraq was asking around about uranium.

[Sue]

FITZGERALD: That's the way this investigation was conducted. It was known that a CIA officer's identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it.

He knows the leaker. And the answer is apparently no, we shouldn't prove it. UGO could leak because...it wasn't a crime. She wasn't covert. I'm sorry, Javani, I wasn't following your logic earlier. Now I see why you said there was no crime. She wasn't covert.

[topsecretk9]

Washington Times--Tapes reveal WMD plans by Saddam

Audiotapes of Saddam Hussein and his aides underscore the Bush administration's argument that Baghdad was determined to rebuild its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction once the international community had tired of inspections and left the Iraqi dictator alone.
In addition to the captured tapes, U.S. officials are analyzing thousands of pages of newly translated Iraqi documents that tell of Saddam seeking uranium from Africa in the mid-1990s. ...

[cathyf]

So, I'm still mulling this over. On the day that Fitzgerald indicted Libby, did Fitzgerald know that UGO (Armitage or whomever) had told Woodward who sent Wilson to Niger?

cathy :-)

[AJStrata]

Clarice,
How can you throw sand in someone's eyes when they have their eyes shut tight?

[Javani]

Sue:

"Nope. Just like that? No possibly not. I disagree? Just nope?"

Nope. I take that back. :) You're right, I shouldn't be so firm. But I do think (hope?) Fitzgerald is following some legal principles. He had the chance to charge Libby with the leak but didn't. He didn't charge Armitage with the leak. I assume that's because the leaks weren't illegal. Too much to assume?

With focus on Armitage another can of worms is opened, one generally ignored (at least on this board in the short time I've visited.) That can includes Powell, the upper echelons of State, all sorts of people. Why would they be talking about Wilson? One anonymous leak/spin to Kristof to leak and spin? Nope. :)

What was happening in Britain? The dodgy dossier scandal. Wilson interjected himself into that debate and members of parliament were citing Wilson leaks to British persons/papers as proof "Blair lied." Think there were any calls from Blair's people to Powell? There had to have been.

[TM]

As to Armitage knwoing about Plame (and its hard to see how Grossman could have forgotten to menbtion the INR memo), the LA Times had this (via Jeralyn Merritt):

After a June 12 Washington Post story made reference to the Niger uranium inquiry, Armitage asked intelligence officers in the State Department for more information. He was forwarded a copy of a memo classified "Secret" that included a description of Wilson's trip for the CIA, his findings, a brief description of the origin of the trip and a reference to "Wilson's wife."

[topsecretk9]

So, I'm still mulling this over. On the day that Fitzgerald indicted Libby, did Fitzgerald know that UGO (Armitage or whomever) had told Woodward who sent Wilson to Niger?

I don't think so. I know I am a loner here, but I don't think they (Prosecutor, FBI) ever asked UGO anything beyond what he told Novak.

[clarice]

Rick--How bad this makes Armitage look..

Why didn't the DoS step out then and say so? Why did Armitage leave Libby and Rove twisting in the wind--refusing to let Woodward go to the SP until AFTER the Libby indictment? Why--though he apparently didn't tell Fitz about Woodward, is Fitz trying to protect him, instead of charging him with obstruction?

[cathyf]

Heh, AJ, it wasn't just that his eyes were squeezed shut. He had a nice wide comfy blindfold which he had tied around his own face.

So I will repeat my prediction that Fitz will come to regret the baseball metaphors. Every brilliant heckle-the-umpire witicism ever hurled from the stands is going to be recycled for use on him.

cathy :-)

[topsecretk9]

Why did Armitage leave Libby and Rove twisting in the wind--refusing to let Woodward go to the SP until AFTER the Libby indictment?

It was Fitz's statement..."Libby was the FIRST official"

Woodward was actively trying to stay out of being subpoenaed, and was only trying to nag his source for a "bombshell" story, presumably a story that would counter the active smear meme.

Once Fitz said "First Official" Woodward had no choice but to step forward-- Rock and hard place for his story and avoiding being called by the defense months from now and whoo buddy think of that court room moment.

[topsecretk9]

Clarice
I would think that Armitage didn't think the "TIMING" of telling reporters was the focus...It was the "info" that mattered.

[clarice]

According to the time table as I recall it, DoS knew when Wilson was making his charges that they never had the "forgeries" until months after his trip was over. Were their mouths stapled shut?

It seems to me that Powell and Armitage were more than happy to let Libby and Rove and indeed the President suffer these lies and the loss of credibility the lies engendered rather than getting their skirts dirty. That Armitage refused to give Woodward a timely waiver just underscores my belief that they were dogs in the manger.

[Sue]

I wonder how long Fitzgerald planned his baseball analogy? It wasn't an off-the-cuff moment. Did he practice it in front of the mirror?

You also might wonder whether or not the pitcher just let go of the ball or his foot slipped, and he had no idea to throw the ball anywhere near the batter's head. And there's lots of shades of gray in between.

You might learn that you wanted to hit the batter in the back and it hit him in the head because he moved. You might want to throw it under his chin, but it ended up hitting him on the head.

FITZGERALD: And what you'd want to do is have as much information as you could. You'd want to know: What happened in the dugout? Was this guy complaining about the person he threw at? Did he talk to anyone else? What was he thinking? How does he react? All those things you'd want to know.

And then you'd make a decision as to whether this person should be banned from baseball, whether they should be suspended, whether you should do nothing at all and just say, "Hey, the person threw a bad pitch. Get over it."

In this case, it's a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us.

My guess is Fitzgerald considered Armitage to have just let go of the ball or his foot slipped, and he had no idea to throw the ball anywhere near the batter's head

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

' On the day that Fitzgerald indicted Libby, did Fitzgerald know that UGO (Armitage or whomever) had told Woodward who sent Wilson to Niger?'

No, it was Fitz claiming that Libby was at the head of the chain mentioning Plame that Woodward knew to be wrong. That got Woodward to call his source to remind him. Which led the source to contact Fitz with the news.

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

Armitage is allied with Powell, he resigned the same day as Powell and I believe he actually left at the same time. I don't think history will be particularly kind to Powell. He did nothing to change State's feckless Arabist behavior, he botched the play (or failed, at any rate) with Turkey and he allowed deVillepin to plant a knife right between his shoulders. Not a sterling record.

I don't know if there is a grudge involved but there are egos in play that get parked in blimp hangars in the evening.

[clarice]

That means either (a) Fitz never asked him who he'd told or (b) Armitage answered falsely.
If (a) Fitz had no business saying Libby was the first. If (b) He has no reason to protect Armitage.

[clarice]

Yes, RIck, you are right. I think Powell and Armitage were furious that the neo cons prevailed on the invasion of Iraq and to assuage them Rice let them overrule DoD on the occupation--with the disastrous consequence that he lost valuable time in turning things over to the Iraqis as Bremmer played vice-counsel. And, natch, the press placed the blame for that on DoD.
I do not think history will treat Powell kindly , but what does he care, he'll be dead by the time the truth is written.