IF I Had To Spin Up An Innocent Explanation...

I am not paid enough to do this, but if I had to spin the "Bush Authorized a Leak!!!" story, I would start with Bob Woodward, who had vast White House access back in 2003 since he was working on a book. 

This is from his account of his leak experience:

I also testified that I had a conversation with a third person on June 23, 2003. The person was I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and we talked on the phone. I told him I was sending to him an 18-page list of questions I wanted to ask Vice President Cheney. On page 5 of that list there was a question about "yellowcake" and the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's weapons programs. I testified that I believed I had both the 18-page question list and the question list from the June 20 interview with the phrase "Joe Wilson's wife" on my desk during this discussion. I testified that I have no recollection that Wilson or his wife was discussed, and I have no notes of the conversation.

So in late June Woodward wants to talk to Libby and Cheney about, among other things, the NIE.  Libby talks to Cheney, who says, sure, we spill our guts to Bob we never worry about whether it's classified.

A bit of time passes, and now Libby decides he wants to discuss the NIE with Judy Miller, so he asks Cheney if he can reprise his Woodward talk with her.  And Cheney says, no problem.

And there we are, sort of.  Now, per his excerpted testimony, Libby sought reassurance from Cheney that Bush had cleared this - why?  If I had to guess, I would say Libby is, hmm, misremembering this detail.  I would also say he misremembered that he had gotten clearance to talk to Woodward about the NIE, and neglected to mention that to Fitzgerald as well.  Well, June was an odd month for Libby - he also forgot to mention his June meeting wirth Judy Miller.

But in broad outline, the approval to "leak" to Miller followed in Woodward's wake, and the chat with Woodward was as pre-cleared as those chats ever were - I have no idea whatWoodward's arrangement is with the White House, but he clearly got access to classified info.

Here is what Woodward wrote about Libby:

I testified that on June 27, 2003, I met with Libby at 5:10 p.m. in his office adjacent to the White House. I took the 18-page list of questions with the Page-5 reference to "yellowcake" to this interview and I believe I also had the other question list from June 20, which had the "Joe Wilson's wife" reference.

I have four pages of typed notes from this interview, and I testified that there is no reference in them to Wilson or his wife. A portion of the typed notes shows that Libby discussed the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, mentioned "yellowcake" and said there was an "effort by the Iraqis to get it from Africa. It goes back to February '02." This was the time of Wilson's trip to Niger.

When asked by Fitzgerald if it was possible I told Libby I knew Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and was involved in his assignment, I testified that it was possible I asked a question about Wilson or his wife, but that I had no recollection of doing so. My notes do not include all the questions I asked, but I testified that if Libby had said anything on the subject, I would have recorded it in my notes.

And for what it's worth, Fitzgerald did ask Ms. Miller about Cheney:

Before the grand jury, Mr. Fitzgerald asked me questions about Mr. Cheney. He asked, for example, if Mr. Libby ever indicated whether Mr. Cheney had approved of his interviews with me or was aware of them. The answer was no.

Go Fish.  Well, at least she didn't say, "Go Cheney yourself".

UPDATE:  Here is the latest spin from the professionals:

President Bush declassified sensitive intelligence in 2003 and authorized its public disclosure to rebut Iraq war critics, but he did not specifically direct that Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, be the one to disseminate the information, an attorney knowledgeable about the case said Saturday.

Bush merely instructed Cheney to "get it out" and left the details to him, said the lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case for the White House. The vice president chose Libby and communicated the president's wishes to his then-top aide, the lawyer said.

No mention of Woodward in this story.

Comments

[MayBee]

TM-
what is in need of an innocent explanation?
The press's slant on the story, or the authorization for the release of NIE information?

[ghostcat]

TM -

With Woodward, Libby was willing to risk Bush not being aware. With Miller, he was not, she being a looser cannon.

[TM]

what is in need of an innocent explanation?

Good point - I am off my own talking points.

[clarice]

TM, didn't Judy say at one point that she had notes (not from her conversation with Libby) relating to unidentified person (or some such monicker which related she thought to Wilson and that she might have raised that with Libby?
Well, June was an odd month for Libby - he also forgot to mention his June meeting wirth Judy Miller. Maybe they never asked him about conversations in JUNE..Remember the focus early in the investigation was the period in July between the op ed and Novak's column.

Only after Feb 2002 (when it is obvious that no one in the WH leaked to Novak, that Libby went before the gj..Judy , too, was asked only about July (per her subpoena) but somehow in her testimony it came out she also had notes of a June 23 meeting when she was asked about this conversation.

You assume a rational, full investigation and fair treatment of the evidence. I don't.

[clarice]

after Feb 2004, that is...

[JJ]

Question: "What is in need of an innocent explanation?

The press's slant on the story, or the authorization for the release of NIE information?"

Reply: "Good point - I am off my own talking points."

Unloaded, innocent question, but don't both need some un-spin to push them to a more sensible level? As proven by the update.

The media could use more perspective, and the intelligence report was not a leak if it were declassified?

Even so, practically speaking, would the media ever have carefully considered or included in any part of their commentary the White House's stance on information on Iraq or White House's anger at a diplomat who returns from a "sensitive" mission to Niger and then starts talking outside what had to have been a defined area of authority?

Presenting a complete story is just full perspective, and not a game of leak vs leak.

But when the playing field is this out of balance, you either stand mute and watch the train wreck unfold and wait until the truth finally outs or you do the best you can at making a fuller picture even if the effort has limited effect.

Woodward could be seen as either a part of the perspective-broadening process by the White House or, if you like conspiracies, as someone who ruined a golden gotcha moment by playing the White House's dupe.

Either way, the many variables need more un-spinning.

...I have been doing taxes and my eyes are starting to cross...

[topsecretk9]

I't almost like they expected or wanted this feeder frenzy:

"...The government also points out that"much information about the investigation of the SP is in the public domain and therefore available to the Acting AT in exercising the power to remove the SP"...

...Whatever Edmond contemplated by "direction and supervision at some level," it surely meant something more than periodically checking the Washington Post to find out if one's unchecked "subordinate" has gone too far...

...Certainly, the Acting Attorney General cannot meaningfully oversee the Special Counsel by reviewing the overheated speculation about this case....

Page 13: ...much of the information in the public domain about this case is flat wrong.

Did Team Libby demonstrate these point to the new and only supervisor, Walton.. or did they expect a Fitz filing would? That Hume question did come out of nowhere.

[Daddy]

TM,
Thanks to the Woodward LINK of what he testified to in his deposition. I don't follow this near as hard as you guys, but I was always interested in when he first wrote "Wife Of Wilson" on the list of questions he carried when he interviewed these supposed White House Conspirator's: By no later than 20 June 2003.

As is evident from the LINK, Woodward, testified that from 20 June 2003 he was carrying this question along when he was specifically quizzing, among other administration officials, Libby, but that somehow the angle of attempting to punish Wilson via blabbing about his wife never came up.

Now personally I don't know what evidence Fitz would specifically need to "disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish Wilson", but don't ya' think Fitz could at least acknowledge this might amount to evidence of a piss poor conspiracy?

I can imagine Scooter in the restroom after the interview banging his head against the urinal and saying to himself, "Aw crap, I forget to tell him about Wilson's secret agent wife! Only NIE and Yellowcake. Darn it, Dick's gonna' be pissed. Gosh I hope I can remember to tell Woodward when I bump into him again every single freakin' day for the next 2 months.

I do recall reading lots of comments about how since Woodward was writing a book, he didn't really care much about this Plame business, so he'd be a conspirator's poor choice through which to start a Plame leak campaign. Reading his statement though exactly contradicts that, because he testifies that that is exactly what he did. He testifies that almost immediately after learning from NGO (Armitage?), he tells Pincus, his Post colleague, that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA on WMD as a WMD analyst. Granted Pincus says he didn't, and Woodward testifies he knows that Pincus says he didn't, but what I find interesting is the amount of stuff Woodward says he related to Pincus. Not just that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA on WMD as a WMD analyst, but also that Woodward remembers he also told Pincus that he couldn't reveal who his source was for that information. Testifying under oath that you recall telling someone that the information you were passing along couldn't be attributed to it's source certainly implies to me a remembrance of the back and forth of a conversation, as opposed to "well maybe I just meant to tell him, but didn't".

That's my 2 cents, and yes, you do not get paid enough for this.

[MayBee]

What's with the topless chick on the Amazon ad on the right, btw?

[MayBee]

Daddy- you crack me up.
And I agree about the Woodward/Pincus back-and-forth. Although I'm sure you could write for us a hilarious scene wherein Woodward stands at Pincus's desk, telling him all the inside scoop on Wilson and Plame, while Pincus continues to ignore him by fiddling with a stack of papers.

[Kate]

Interesting to see that the media, led by the Washington Post, views discrediting a critic as a criminal conspiracy.

The Washington Post, back in the good old Clinton days, had no problem with discrediting the critic, in fact, the Post used to help out.

Imagine in the alternate universe, where Clinton is the president and a right wing critic as slimy as Wilson, in fact, a worker in the opponents' polical campaign stepped forward with criticism and lies.

The "reporting" would be very different, the SP would not be heroic, the White House would be brave and trying to defend itself against a liar.

There are no longer standards, everything is situational. There are good leaks and bad leaks, good leakers and bad leakers, evil critics and noble critics who must never be criticized.

[Dwilkers]

The media are straight out lying about this, there's no other way to put it.

They make their livings with leaks and know damn well exactly what the difference is between a leak and an authorized release of information. They also damn well know what actually was released versus what they are attempting to portray.

They are deliberately attempting to mislead people - flat out lying. This isn't some innocent spin or out of context quoting.

I can't wait to watch Russert's little act this morning to see how far he goes to mislead his viewers.

[Kate]

Fitz had to know what he was doing when he presented this filing. One intrepretation could be that since the trial is scheduled for after the election, the White House might have put this whole episode on the back burner.

This is Fitz' way of letting the Administration know he could get the media all spun up and cause problems.

Perhaps Fitz case is falling apart and he wants Libby to plead. He can go back to Chicago content that the punished a high ranking WH official for the new 11th Commandment of Politics;

Thou shalt not criticize or respond to noble critic Joe Wilson.

[Patton]

Lets also be clear that the NIE DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY REALLY 'SENSITIVE' CLASSIFIED DATA.

The NIE is an assessment of the ACTUAL intelligence. With the actual intelligence data you would have stuff like MEDIUM (SIGINT, HUMINT, IMINT, etc.) where you knew whats sources were used. You would know if it was based on human reporting, back-up with bugs, or phone taps or electronic intercepts. That is the kibnd of data that doesn't get released because the adversary could track back and shut down those intelligence avenues.

The NIE is synthesided data, not the coruces nor the methods of collection of the original information.

[Patton]

IF THIS WAS THE CLINTON ADMINSTRATION:

Fitz would be a TOBACCO lawyer obsessed with Jews.

[Kate]

Actually, I think that there will be a new standard for judging the quality of one's existence on earth.

I may have lied, stole a few things, been mean to people but...

I never, never, criticized Joe Wilson, open those pearly gates!!

The Legend of Joe Wilson, the man who can't be criticized (AP/NewYorkTime/WAPO)

[Jake - but not the one]

Kate, your intent belies your words - the legend to which you really speak is better known as "George W. Bush, the President Who Would Not Be Criticized."

Jake

[Kate]

Jake-Bush is always criticized. Actually, more than criticized. Brilliant thinkers on the left, Ben Affleck among them, want Bush hung, for criticizing Joe Wilson, the one who can't be criticized. That's kinda harsh, don't you think? It's part of the left's new targetted Capital Punishment Initiative.

Bill Kristol finally criticized the prosecutor who can't be criticized and essentially said that Fitzgerald is on a mission to detroy the White House, finally.

[noah]

Hey, did anyone catch MTP this morning? I turned it on and there was Kerry with his fake grin...since I don't think that he has anything useful to say about much of anything I turned the show off.

Were there any good parts?

[clarice]

Cecil's comment and a tribute to him and to JOM contributors made it into today's American Thinker. http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=4834

[holycow]

I don't see why you guys complain about the MSM. The media is the only thing saving Bush's ass right now. And that's because they know they were complicit in misleading the American people about the reasons to go to war. Bush, Cheney leaked to them selectively, they published it, then administration officials could go on Timmeh's show and say in response to his question "Yes, Tim. We saw that report about the aluminum tubes in the NY Times too. Obviously, we have to act." The MSM is the only thing saving Bush's ass now. And only because they are as guilty as he is. Don't believe me? Read the lead editorial in the WP.

[jerry]

Maybe Woodward has formal security clearance? He spends most of his time on the "inside" these days. He used to be in Naval Security if I remember correctly.

It would be interesting if so.

[Jake - but not the one]

Kate, , I worded that SO carefully and you misread it anyway.

Now I have to be all boring and ....

Well, whatever.

I said "George W. Bush, the President Who Would Not Be Criticized."

WOULD, Kate. Not could.

Jake

[jerry]

I notice TM mentioned a special Woodward clearance yesterday.

[Kate]

Thanks, Jake for the clarification...would not could..got it!!

[boris]

I said "George W. Bush, the President Who Would Not Be Criticized."

But Jake, he already HAS BEEN criticized. Don't think it's going to stop either ...

[Rick Ballard]

WaPo Editorial

Compare and contrast with Clarice's piece on Cecil Turner's comment.

Cecil wins - the WaPo might be characterized as trying to get it right except for:

Rather than follow the usual declassification procedures and then invite reporters to a briefing -- as the White House eventually did -- Vice President Cheney initially chose to be secretive, ordering his chief of staff at the time, I. Lewis Libby, to leak the information to a favorite New York Times reporter.

which completely ignores the efforts (as detailed by Cecil) by the Administration to get the rebuttal out via standard channels.

Good for the WaPo though - much less lying than usual. Except about a critical point.

[noah]

Holycow: "saving his ass" in what sense? (I know, I know...don't feed them). Are you saying that he would be long since impeached if the press were not minimizing? If so, you are loony. Check out the feeding frenzy Friday at the WH press conference.

[clarice]

Rick, for the Wa Po this editorial is astonishing--I'd say Woodward is trumping Pincus:
"Mr. Wilson originally claimed in a 2003 New York Times op-ed and in conversations with numerous reporters that he had debunked a report that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger and that Mr. Bush's subsequent inclusion of that allegation in his State of the Union address showed that he had deliberately "twisted" intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraq threat." The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.

Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative. This prompted the investigation by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge. In last week's court filings, he stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame's identity. Mr. Libby's motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney. In fact Mr. Wilson was recommended for the trip by his wife. Mr. Libby is charged with perjury, for having lied about his discussions with two reporters. Yet neither the columnist who published Ms. Plame's name, Robert D. Novak, nor Mr. Novak's two sources have been charged with any wrongdoing.

As Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out at the time of Mr. Libby's indictment last fall, none of this is particularly relevant to the question of whether the grounds for war in Iraq were sound or bogus. It's unfortunate that those who seek to prove the latter would now claim that Mr. Bush did something wrong by releasing for public review some of the intelligence he used in making his most momentous decision."

[holycow]

Told ya. The WP brought, promoted and sold Bush's war including all the bogus WMD arguments. No way they are going to abandon him now. Woodward is tied to close with Bush's fate. He'll do whatever he can to prop Bush up. Including writing editorials.

[Jake - but not the one]

I was thinking about something said yesterday, by Rick, I think.

"There are a lot of lies going around." or something like that.

Then today I was reading a little Churchill, just quotes really, when I came across this:

Winston Churchill
"There are a lot of lies going around...
and half of them are true."

Now the ellipses may just have been in the web doc and not the original quote, but I thought them apropos.

The quote made me laugh, so I thought I'd share it with you all.

Hopefully, we can share the laugh as well.

Jake

[clarice]

holycow, the WaPo was an early promoter of Wilson's fairytale. It took the paper 2 1.2 years to asmit he was a serial liar. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4951

How foolish is it for the press to decry as scandalous the claim that being privately briefed on declassified information is a scandal? So ridiculous that even they know if adopted it would put them out of business. Hence this editorial which shows they are not completely deranged.

[clarice]

**correction--aDmit***

[boris]

for the Wa Po this editorial is astonishing ...

It could be one of a kind, from someone like Woodward who disapproved of the Fitz prosecution from the start. It could also be evidence of the herd changing direction. The last Fitz filing had the appearance of summation, laying enough cards on the table in the hope it hangs together for the case to continue (or maybe one last dig at the admin before it falls apart).

After the hoopla of the MSM getting the big picture all in one shot, there may be some cooler heads saying "is this it?".

As a peekaboo case it seemed like news. As a centerfold ...

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

The WaPo may have moved Pincus off the porch and into the attic for the moment but they make no mention of being part of Ambassador Munchausen's July 6 trifecta. The attempt to cast the Post as an 'observer' rather than a 'player' is rather pathetic.

I wonder if they'll give Pincus a gardening column after a bit?

[clarice]

Hearing from the other side can have that affect, Boris. For the longest time Fitz and the partisan leakers held sway. With Libby's motions the fog clears.
Plus the press in its heart must be pissed that they were drawn into this long after the fishing expedition came up with nothing and decided the old inner tube they dragged out of the water was worthy of the trip.

[windansea]

THIS WEEK (ABC): House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and actress Bernadette Peters .

anybody watch it? love to see Joe's response to WAPO editorial

[clarice]

Rick, it is odd and maybe just a coincidence, but the correction 2 1/2 years later of the Pincus volley came one day after I sent Kurtz an email detailing how the lies they printed in Pincus' piece had all been debunked and the paper had not printed a correction.

[clarice]

***the old inner tube they dragged out of the water was UNworthy of the trip.****

[windansea]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2125630,00.html

'Forgers' of key Iraq war contract named
Michael Smith



TWO employees of the Niger embassy in Rome were responsible for the forgery of a notorious set of documents used to help justify the Iraq war, an official investigation has allegedly found.
According to Nato sources, the investigation has evidence that Niger’s consul and its ambassador’s personal assistant faked a contract to show Saddam Hussein had bought uranium ore from the impoverished west African country.

[holycow]

Of course the WP knows it if foolish to decry leaks that they promoted. But not for the reason you guys say. Everyone knows that the WH selectively leaked information to bolster it's case for war. And then administration would then point to the same information the WP printed and say "See, what we are saying is true. Even the WP is saying it." What the WP didn't say is that much of the information they were given by Bush and co. was selective, wrong, or discredited. And the WP was too lazy and cared too much about access, to do any real investigative reporting. The WP is not going to stand up and say "Hey, we were used. We were completely naive to believe these guys. And we repeated there arguments without verification or skepticism. Sorry, my bad!" Thousands of our soldiers dead and tens of thousands have been wounded. So while some of the media may wake up ... the Post especially through Woodward, will continue to cover Bush's ass. The stakes are too high to not.

[clarice]

IIRC the article notes that their forgery was different than the Martino one--Curious and curiouser about Wilson's "the names were wrong and the dates were wrong" comments which did not relate to the forgeries we were given and which we handed over to the IAEA. Isn't it?

[clarice]

holycow, you get this morning's MMFOOHS award.

[windansea]

anyone watch Joe on This Week?

Clarice: yep

[clarice]

windansea, since the Martino forgery was French intel, doesn't it suggest that Wilson had some link there that is worthy of explanation? That is, how did a French concoction end up in Joe's hands and the Niger forgery (hidden in the Plame office safe for 6 months) end up in ours?

[windansea]

on the second page of the article it talks about a second document, a letter confirming Iraq mission to Niger was looking for yellowcake..which document went where?

[Jake - but not the one]

Another quote by Churchill:

One day President Roosevelt told me that he was asking publicly for suggestions about what the war should be called. I said at once 'The Unnecessary War'.
Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965), Second World War (1948)

If Chruchill thought WWII could be called unnecesary, I wonder what he would have thought of Iraq?

I don't imagine that Churchill meant that totalitarianism didn't need to be opposed. Perhaps he meant that there are better ways? I don't know - I only know what the quote says.

Perhaps he referred to the Munich Agreement.

One final quote:

"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."

That certainly fits us.

Jake

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

If the MMFOOHS is to be awarded twice daily, I would suggest conferring it earlier than 12PM EDT doesn't allow a fair competition. How are we to know for sure that someone with more (less) talent than brainlessbrahma might have been discouraged by the early award and not enter into the competition?

[SteveMG]

Jake:
I said at once 'The Unnecessary War'.

Good grief Jake. You surely must know what Churchill meant by that?

He meant that Hitler could have been easily stopped years before the Nazis had assembled their vast military arsenal. A preventative action taken earlier would have prevented (that's what they do) the loss of tens of millions of humans killed as a result of the "total war" that was later needed.

It was an "unnecessary war" because the West waited too long to confront Hitler.

SMG

[Robert]

Newbie here.

What is MMFOOHS?

I assume MMS is Making Most Sense, what about FOOH?