Hubris? Chutzpah!

David Corn, co-author of "Hubris", is evidently a master at typing with a straight face - here he is, commenting on the Armitage/Plame story at his blog:

White House defenders are chortling. For some reason, they believe that the news from HUBRIS that Richard Armitage was the original leaker means there was nothing to the CIA leak case.

On the National Review site, Byron York writes

Whatever Armitage's motives, the fact that he was the Novak leaker undermines--destroys, actually--the conspiracy theory of the CIA-leak case.

He notes that the Newsweek story based on HUBRIS says that Armitage had "no apparent intention of harming anyone" and comments:

It's an extraordinary admission coming from Isikoff's co-author Corn, one of the leading conspiracy theorists of the CIA-leak case. "The Plame leak in Novak's column has long been cited by Bush administration critics as a deliberate act of payback, orchestrated to punish and/or discredit Joe Wilson after he charged that the Bush administration had misled the American public about the prewar intelligence," Corn and Isikoff write. "The Armitage news does not fit neatly into that framework." [Note: Actually, I wrote those lines on my blog; they were not part of the Newsweek story.]

Conspiracy theorist--moi? Where have I proposed a conspiracy theory? I have noted from the first that the leak might be evidence of a White House crime.

"Where have I proposed a conspiracy theory?"  Where indeed?  Let's start with his July 16 2003 article that launched this scandal, with comic emphasis added:

Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security--and break the law--in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?

It sure looks that way, if conservative journalist Bob Novak can be trusted.

...

Soon after Wilson disclosed his trip in the media and made the White House look bad. the payback came. Novak's July 14, 2003, column presented the back-story on Wilson's mission and contained the following sentences: "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate" the allegation.

Wilson caused problems for the White House, and his wife was outed as an undercover CIA officer.  Wilson says, "I will not answer questions about my wife. This is not about me and less so about my wife. It has always been about the facts underpinning the President's statement in the state of the union speech."

So he will neither confirm nor deny that his wife--who is the mother of three-year-old twins--works for the CIA. But let's assume she does. That would seem to mean that the Bush administration has screwed one of its own top-secret operatives in order to punish Wilson or to send a message to others who might challenge it.

... "Stories like this," Wilson says, "are not intended to intimidate me, since I've already told my story. But it's pretty clear it is intended to intimidate others who might come forward. You need only look at the stories of intelligence analysts who say they have been pressured. They may have kids in college, they may be vulnerable to these types of smears."

The Wilson smear was a thuggish act. Bush and his crew abused and misused intelligence to make their case for war. Now there is evidence Bushies used classified information and put the nation's counter-proliferation efforts at risk merely to settle a score. It is a sign that with this gang politics trumps national security.

Or then again, maybe it was just chit-chat.  Well, who ever could have guessed that in the heady days of 2003, when there were crimes and conspiracies to allege?

Mr. Corn's current insistence that he only alleged a possible crime is beside the point - a deliberate scheme to smear Wilson and intimidate critics could certainly be characterized as a "conspiracy" regardless of its technical criminality.

Let's close with the view of WaPo reporter Walter Pincus:

Pincus believes that the Bush administration acted obnoxiously when it leaked Valerie Plame’s identity, but he has never been convinced by the argument that the leaks violated the law. “I don’t think it was a crime,” he says. “I think it got turned into a crime by the press, by Joe” — Wilson — “by the Democrats. The New York Times kept running editorials saying that it’s got to be investigated — never thinking that it was going to turn around and bite them.” The entire Plame investigation, he says, has been a distraction from a more fundamental conversation about how the White House handled evidence before the war.

Hat tip and screen credit to Patrick Sullivan.

UPDATE:  Byron York is very funny on his attempt to discuss this with David Corn:

Corn mentioned that I had referred to him as a "conspiracy theorist" of the CIA-leak case. He didn't like that, but when I pointed to some of the stories he had written about the case — for example, his articles entitled "Rove Scandal: A Conspiracy Charge for the White House?" and "The Cheney Conspiracy?" — he declined to talk about that, too.

Although Corn and his publicist are clamming up, none dare call it a conspiracy of silence.

Comments

[topsecretk9]

Doesn't Corn sound alot like Nick Kristof did when he finally addressed the conservative "bloggers" a long while back?

[Semanticleo]

So if it was so clear to everyone involved that leaking Plame was no crime (non-NOC) why is the cloudy puddle still a muddle after all the fidgety efforts to prove she had no classified status? Add years of hindsight and brilliant Plausible Denialism to all the armchair theoreticians and it becomes even more puzzling that it was emiently clear three years ago, but not now.

and how, pray tell, does this somehow drive pure snow up Libby's ass?

It seems proper to ask, 'why did Libby lie?'

Rather than rankle the locals with my own
speculations, I'll let you all answer that question.

[topsecretk9]

AbuGonzales....

"...In particular, the bureaucracy at the State Department and the CIA appear to have used the indiscretion of Armitage to revenge themselves on the "neoconservatives" who had been advocating the removal of Saddam Hussein. Armitage identified himself to Colin Powell as Novak's source before the Fitzgerald inquiry had even been set on foot. The whole thing could—and should—have ended right there. But now read this and rub your eyes: William Howard Taft, the State Department's lawyer who had been told about Armitage (and who had passed on the name to the Justice Department)

also felt obligated to inform White House counsel Alberto Gonzales. But Powell and his aides feared the White House would then leak that Armitage had been Novak's source—possibly to embarrass State Department officials who had been unenthusiastic about Bush's Iraq policy. So Taft told Gonzales the bare minimum: that the State Department had passed some information about the case to Justice. He didn't mention Armitage. Taft asked if Gonzales wanted to know the details. The president's lawyer, playing the case by the book, said no, and Taft told him nothing more.

"[P]laying the case by the book" is, to phrase it mildly, not the way in which Isikoff and Corn customarily describe the conduct of the White House. In this instance, however, the evidence allows them no other choice.

[lurker]

LIbby did not lie, ali-cleown.

[Patton]

Semantic Leo: Its pretty clear that Libby was forced to lie by David Corn who had kidnapped his family in order to protect Richard Armitage.

See, we can make up conspiracy theories too.

[clarice]

To paraphrase CREW, just because Corn didn't kidnap Libby and force him to lie, doesn't mean he wasn;t planning to do so.

[Patton]

So the state Dept leaked the Plame info, then they hinted that the White House did it, then they kept quiet and let their friends in the press do the rest.

The lamestream media pursuing another rusty ambulance story.

[topsecretk9]

1x2x6

Is there any reason Joe Wilson was not the actual source for 1x2x6 and an "administration official" was used to confirm what Wilson said? Because when you read the passage the source familiar with the substance of the conversations to me, is Wilson...

Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. Wilson had just revealed that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account touched off a political fracas over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.

"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.

Sources familiar with the conversations said the leakers were seeking to undercut Wilson's credibility. They alleged that Wilson, who was not a CIA employee, was selected for the Niger mission partly because his wife had recommended him. Wilson said in an interview yesterday that a reporter had told him that the leaker said, "The real issue is Wilson and his wife."

A source said reporters quoted a leaker as describing Wilson's wife as "fair game."

The official would not name the leakers for the record and would not name the journalists. The official said there was no indication that Bush knew about the calls.

It is confusing, but even though it says "senior administration said"...

"a senior administration official said ""Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak."

I wonder if Wilson is the actual source for this information and the "confirming" source is creatively worked in here...(this reminds me of Pincus's first piece too). I wonder if this is why the Post has backed of this 9-28 story. Anyways, that makes sense especially if the confirming sources was Grossman.

[jerry]

That Pincus quote Tom gave is pretty interesting.

[topsecretk9]

Oh..meant to say that the confirming source confirmed the revenge theory and so therefore Wilson purposing the actual 2 senior administration sources called at least 6 reporters was accepted by the Post...to mean the Admin. official was confirming the actual 1x2x6 info....

Hmmm. This is my new official belief. Wilson was the actual 1x2x6 person.

[Patton]

TS9,

Remeber the reporters take as confirming information the fact that someone had 'heard that to'

So if Wilson called some Bush adminstration official and told him that Bush people were leaking his wifes identity to punish him..and he called reporters as well.

Then the reporters called the official Wilson talked to and he only had to say "I HEARD THAT TOO" and that would be 'in their minds' CONFIRMATION from a senior adminstration official.

Wilson knows the way the press works and he manipluated them from the start. He knew by the time the press figured out he wasn't aware of the forgeries at the time, etc. he knew an investigation would be in full swing and everyone would clam up as the prosecutor requested and the "Wilsons line" (Pusnished for telling truth) would be frozen until the investigation finally finished.

[Patton]

Wilson didn't take into account the tenacity of the internet bloggers.

Its the only thing that has kept this from being a complete railroad.

[jerry]

"didn't take into account the tenacity of the internet bloggers"

Funny, I just thinkng the same thing about Ted Stevens (AK).

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Semanticleo -- Will you list for me how Libby lied, what he lied about, please. Maybe if I could figure that out, I'd understand what is going on in this case.

Please try to avoid using anything from the Fitz presser as there doesn't seem to be a word of truth in it, except that baseball pitchers sometimes throw beaners.

[topsecretk9]

Patton

Yep, "I heard that too" seems about right, especially since the Post downgraded some of that original EM-FAS-SIS

[owl]

Wilson knows the way the press works and he manipluated them from the start.

I disagree. The press does not need to be manipulated. They are active participants. Corn is the perfect example. He helped birth it. He promoted it. Now he makes money by keeping part of his original lie alive in a book. Joe's little plan was nothing until he received active help from the press that deliberately decided to be BLIND.

[hrtshpdbox]

"Joe's little plan was nothing until he received active help from the press that deliberately decided to be BLIND."
Hey, you can't blame the press; they had to guess that the CBS forgeries plan might not fly, so the VRWC angle must've seemed a good back-up - there was an election to contend with!

[Semanticleo]

"Will you list for me how Libby lied, what he lied about"

Libby was indicted on one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements, court documents show.

Sara;

I forgot that you accept Libby's uber-protestestation; "I will be exonerated"
but the 'ham-sandwich' defense does not apply. Fitz has a sound case or it would be
'Auf Wiedersehen!'.

[hrtshpdbox]

"Fitz has a sound case or it would be
'Auf Wiedersehen!'."
Yeah, he really did sound pretty confident during the presser (of course, nearly everything he said there was unalloyed BS, but still...).

[PeterUK]

Semanticleo,you really need your own blog,how about calling it,"INSIPIDPUNDIT"?

[PeterUK]

"Libby was indicted on one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements, court documents show."

You understand,do you not ,Septic,that indicted does not mean convicted?
In fact there has not even been a trial as yet,as the saying goes,"There's many a slip t'wixt cup and lip",so hold onto the drool a bit longer if you can old girl.

[lurker]

Fitz had to prove that Libby lied, ali-cleown.

Don't forget about Cowles.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

semanticleo, you cheated, I said not to use anything from the presser, which, of course, would include the indictment, which is what the presser was all about. Fitz starts off by telling us that Libby was "the first" to talk to reporters, the first leaker." He tells us that even though months earlier he knew that Armitage was the first and he threw Judy Miller in jail, even though he knew that she had talked to Armitage or someone before talking to Libby. Libby was telling the truth, Fitz knew it and charged him with lying anyway. Fitz needs to be prosecuted for lying and obstruction.

[fdcol63]

So ... has Joe Wilson stopped beating his wife yet?

LOL

[Sara (Squiggler)]

The way it stands right now, the Cooper testimony is gonesville, the Miller testimony is virtually out or more helpful to the defense, which leaves only Russert. Libby says he DID talk to Russert, Russert says he did not. Everything else Libby has said has turned out to be truthful, Russert is a known partisan snake, I will believe Libby or take the position that he has mixed up two conversations. In any event it is moot since Libby never contacted anyone to push forward some kind of Wilson/Plame smear and was not responsible for publicizing Plame's name. If this is any kind of plot, it is a State Dept. plot to discredit the WH, not the WH/OVP trying to smear Wilson. The WH/OVP didn't care about Plame, they cared about setting the record straight on WMD. Plame was incidental gossip propogated by the press and Old Blabbermouth Wilson himself.

[topsecretk9]

Poor Mr. Cowles.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

fdcol63, you've got it backwards, the question should be, has she stopped beating him (or yanking his chain).

[maryrose]

Cleo is promoting the same tired mantra of the left regarding Libby. This is their story since they couldn't get Rove or Cheney. They also say President Bush lied. I call these untruths projection on cleo and the left's part. They are the ones lying and they are projecting it on others. It's a form of psychosis which they are experiencing. They do not see or understand reality as it truly exists. Joe Wilson and Val are the masters of this kind of stinkin thinkin.

[Chants]

PUK said:

"Semanticleo,you really need your own blog,how about calling it,"INSIPIDPUNDIT"?"

That's a great name! How about "FACEPLANT -- Where every post is a mistake"

[vnjagvet]

I guess Jeff called SCLEO for a "spell".

Unfortunately, she has neither his institutional knowledge or persistence in this matter.

Strictly second string.

[GnuCarSmell]

If I understand this correctly, Fitzgerald knew from day one that:
a) there was no underlying crime
b) the "first leaker" was Armitage.
That means that the entire investigation was a fraud, no?

[JM Hanes]

tsk9

Well, the revenge meme sure sounds like Wilson speak, doesn't it? But then Jeff says the WaPo is absopostivelutely scrupulous & precise about its designation of unamed sources so.... BTW, meant to mention that Rove made the "fair game" comment to Matthews after Novak's column was in play (and IIRC Matthews immediately called Wilson to pass that info along). I think you were asking about the timing or some such on the previous thread?

[JM Hanes]

Patton:

"So the state Dept leaked the Plame info, then they hinted that the White House did it, then they kept quiet and let their friends in the press do the rest."

Deliberately casting false blame on the WH is the ultimate perfidy here, isn't it? If Grossman or anyone else did so knowing that Armitage had been "gossiping," he deserves to share the dais with Armitage & Powell. It's still execrable even absent info on Armitage; since the revenge theory is patently false, whoever floated it necessarily knew it was a lie. I, for one, certainly want to know who it was. Damned if I'll buy the book, though, on the off chance that Corn & Isikoff actually come that clean.

[topsecretk9]

--BTW, meant to mention that Rove made the "fair game" comment to Matthew's after Novak's column was in play (and IIRC Matthew's immediately called Wilson to pass that info along). I think you were asking about the timing or some such on the previous thread?--

No I was asking about the "CONTEXT", I knew it was after Novak's column. Whether or not Wilson is being honest about what Matthew's running to Wilson (like a child would!) said Rove said -- regardless, neither of the 2 have ever been pressed on the "context" of Rove's "fair game"..

I just find it hard to believe that Rove was calling reporters indiscriminately to inform them

"Oh, by the way, in case you are wondering Joe Wilson's wife is "fair game"

SO...what was the context Matthew's and WIlson conveniently left out....

Was Matthew's contentious in his questioning taking Wilson's side, admonishing Rove and the Administration for bringing up the origins of Wilson trip?

Did Matthew's ask sneaky questions that in the course elicited a "fair game" "response of the Admin"?

Was the answer just solely about Wilson's wife or in the context of the Administrations right to respond to a smarmy, arrogant lying crud ball?

Which segues nicely with my belief that Wilson parlayed that one telegraphed-- by Matthew's-- phrase "fair game" into a "smear campaign" that he in turn telegraphed to the WAPO into 1x2x6.

1x2x6 was Sept. 03 - when the media at large still thought Wilson was credible.

all roads lead back to....

[MayBee]

Corn:Conspiracy theorist--moi? Where have I proposed a conspiracy theory? I have noted from the first that the leak might be evidence of a White House crime.---

He comes from the Andrew Sullivan College of Only Airing the Possibility.

What next? An emailer telling him how great he is? Beagles?

[JM Hanes]

tops:

Matthews did talk about it at the time on Hardball. He was incensed, but as he described the conversation, I remember thinking that Rove's comment didn't strike me as all that outrageous. At the time, I was more surprised by the fact that Matthews had called up Wilson to tell him about it -- as opposed to just reporting on it as news on his show.

[JJ]

The best quote from Hitchens' article, TS9, is the one where he quotes Corn's conclusion in a July 16, 2003 blog:

Sez Corn:

"The Wilson smear was a thuggish act. Bush and his crew abused and misused intelligence to make their case for war. Now there is evidence Bushies used classified information and put the nation's counter-proliferation efforts at risk merely to settle a score. It is a sign that with this gang politics trumps national security."

[topsecretk9]

--tops:

Matthew's did talk about it at the time on Hardball. He was incensed, but as he described the conversation, I remember thinking that Rove's comment didn't strike me as all that outrageous. At the time, I was more surprised by the fact that Matthew's had called up Wilson to tell him about it -- as opposed to just reporting on it as news on his show.--

Incensed. Called Wilson (like a high school cheerleader gossip , not a "reporter" or host of a pundit show)He has had his head so far up Wilson's ass he doesn't even see straight anymore. Sad.

I still want to know what his TRUE context was though.

[Gary Maxwell]

Pincus wants us to consider this all a distraction and get back to having a discussion about the war. Sounds like another case of Chutzpah to me. Someone remind me how Pincus was playing this in the heady "large conspiracy to get Val" days participated in to a large degree by his paper the Post.

[cathyf]

I agree about the context, TSK9. I wonder if Rove said that Wilson was fair game because he wrote a NYT op-ed?

But even if what Rove said was that Mr. Wilson had made Mrs. Wilson "fair game" then he was right. Once Wilson LIED about who sent him, then the TRUTH about who sent him became "fair game." Joe Wilson put his wife into play by lying about her. (<snark> Wilson claimed his wife was the Vice President of the US. Surprisingly enough, some folks noticed the difference between the sexy blonde and the balding old guy with the bum ticker. </snark>)

[Gary Maxwell]

sexy blonde

??? The skank that hangs around snake oil Joe? The homewrecker sleeping with a married man on her third date?

[MayBee]

If Valerie wasn't covert (or whatever) or they didn't know she was covert (or whatever), then her role absolutely was fair game. She was part of the story, I don't know why she should be protected from being "fair game", unless it's because she's pretty little nibbler.

[cathyf]

Sorry, Gary, I guess I shouldn't be speaking outside my area of expertise. I'll defer to the males on that subject.

I think Cheney is actually pretty sexy. Not as sexy as Rumsfeld, of course, but sexy. :-)

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Rummy is sexy, George Bush is SEXY, Ollie North is REALLY SEXY ... but Cheney, I don't know about that one Cathyf

[JM Hanes]

tops:

Cross posted this on the wrong durn other, other Armitage thread:

Yeah, I know what you mean about wanting the real story. I commented on Corn's blog that the book I'd pay to read would be called: What Reporters Knew and When They Knew It.

[JM Hanes]

Cheney? He'd have to have a pair of really hot ear muffs.

[cathyf]

but Cheney, I don't know about that one Cathyf

All right, all right, you guys. Cheney bears a rather strong resemblance to my dad. Somewhere inside is daddy's little girl who still thinks daddy is the most handsome, most brilliant, most wonderful man in the world...

[Sara (Squiggler)]

LOL, cathyf, then with that reasoning I will have to admit I used to have the same feelings when I saw Henry Hyde. Unfortunately, my Dad died at 49, and Rep. Hyde just kept aging, so I lost it somewhere about 15 years ago. LOL.

[topsecretk9]

--Cheney bears a rather strong resemblance to my dad. --

HEY...my dad does that lower lip stretch out/shift when he talks about something important, like Cheney - actually my dad has the same mouth as Cheney -- so maybe my interest is a little Freudian too!

[MayBee]

Cheney? He'd have to have a pair of really hot ear muffs.

Ha!