Richard Armitage - Still The One

The AP uses the Freedom of Information Act to get ahold of the appointment calendar for then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, and learns this:

Then-deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage met with Washington Post
reporter Bob Woodward in mid-June 2003, the same time the reporter has testified an administration official talked to him about CIA employee Valerie Plame. Armitage's official State Department calendars, provided to the Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act, show a one-hour meeting marked ``private appointment" with Woodward on June 13, 2003.

...A person familiar with the information prosecutors have gathered, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because the material remains sealed, said Woodward's meeting with the confidential source was June 13, 2003.

I don't think this news is exactly a shocker - even Chris Matthews had speculated that Armitage might be the original source for both Woodward and Novak.  The proceedings had made it pretty clear that Woodward and Novak shared a source - here is a WaPo story and an old post on that specific legal tussle; here is an old post with background  on Armitage as a candidate to have been Woodward's source, and in this post I tried to track Novak's use of Armitage as a source (guess what - they were pretty friendly).

LEST YOU HAVE TROUBLE CARING:  Before your eyes glaze over completely, consider this, from the Times story telling us that John McCain's Straight Talk 2008 bus is getting ready to leave the station:

But as he has tried to claim the mantle of Mr. Bush’s natural successor, Mr. McCain has expanded his orbit to encompass supporters who have been part of Mr. Bush’s circle, and others who have not previously backed the senator.

His still-informal network includes Richard L. Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state;

If Armitage's likely role in the Plame case emerges in a trial beginning early next year, that may be a (tiny) speed bump for McCain. 

Comments

[Other Tom]

Public outrage about the disclosure of Plame's employment is not detectable, except among professional Democrats.

[Great Banana]

this again requires us to ask the question - why the hell is Fitz prosecuting Libby? B/c of different recollections of 2 year-old conversations? What is the point of this? And why did he not go after Armitage - b/c no crime was committed at the outset? Then why did he continue his investigation for so long and at so much expense?

I really think we need to start holding these runaway prosecutors accountable for the damage they do to people's reputations and for the taxpayer money they piss away in search of personal glory and fame.

Can anyone really name a time when a "special prosecutor" has obtained justice at a reasonable expense that did the nation the least bit of good?

- GB

[lurker]

GB, hence the razzle dazzle website, which was an attempt to write a letter to AG but hasn't seen much activity in a while.

Anyone know what kind of reactions from the leftwing sites to this news? Jeff having second thoughts?

[owl]

this again requires us to ask the question - why the hell is Fitz prosecuting Libby? B/c of different recollections of 2 year-old conversations?

Just guessing but I would say he took a perfect opportunity to go after Judy Miller. And he wanted whoever Miller was talking to ....phone records.

That's assuming he was not a card carrying sufferer of BDS who adored his drooling MSM fans.

[Adsen]

Fitz's job was to investigate Congressmen and have them banned for five years from Commmittees. He goes after poiticians and not the bad agents, they all get along just fine.

Bolton's goal was to find no WMD. Plame's job was at CIA and to sell off the covert CIA WMD program before the war: 'There is no WMD.' Bolton may not be CIA, but is probably considered a 'friendly.'

Leftwing news is that Rice, Bush, and Armitage had time. So, when the NASA Executive Program was moved to Langley and CIA analysts to NSA/DIA this makes sense that NASA is no longer in charge, but maybe someone like Plame. Second thoughts.....

'The One' a reference to the 'Matrix?' You know, its all about a computer programmer going insane and running a computer world after the corporations sells him off.......

[Great Banana]

Adsen,

What? Was that in English? Or in some kind of conspiracy code that only true disciples can decipher? I have no idea what you just tried to say.

- GB

[SunnyDay]

Haldol time.

[Other Tom]

Much as I hate to say it, special prosecutor Leon Jaworski did the nation a service concerning Nixon and Watergate.

[mark c.]

not to mention what he did for the Philadelphia Eagles.Getting them to the Super bowl and all.

[Sue]

What does NASA have to do with Plame? Other than I think she is "out" there? Spacey thoughts...

[Jeff]

Jeff having second thoughts?

Think again, dude! There's no news in the fact that Armitage was Woodward's source and Novak's first source. I'm proud to say I was one of the first people to confidently assert it - more confident earlier than Tom, more assertive about it than most others. Certainly Armitage's role complicates the story, but it hardly annihilates it, like the all-purpose fool Hitchens would like to assert.

There's news, though not big news, in nailing down the date of Armitage blowing Plame's cover with Woodward - the day after Pincus' article. I also would like to know why Armitage says he can't talk about it; is he just hoping to avoid feeding the flames, or does he not have the all-clear from Fitzgerald yet? What kind of cooperation is he talking about? Is that a gesture for sympathy from the left to which he does not belong, at all, or what? Much as you'd like to make Armitage into a Democrat, he's a rock solid Republican, as well as a serious guy and a smart cookie. Just look at who he's advising, perhaps the only politician in America who is still willing to voice the view that we should send many more troops to Iraq - which, let me add, strikes me as the only serious Republican proposal on Iraq.

[vnjagvet]

Jeff is a true believer, indeed. The detail that Armitage and Woodward had a meeting on June 13, together with the timeline with Libby's conversations with reporters at least tends to undermine the inference that the Office of the VP was running a vendetta against Wilson by "outing" Plame.

If that were not so, why did the prosecution protect Armitage to the extent of urging the Judge to keep his identity secret?

Now that it is established that Libby was not the first administration official to disclose Plame's identity to a reporter, the narrative recited by Fitz when he announced the indictment seems significantly undermined.

What am I missing Jeff?

[Bob]

adsen looks like he/she/it took the same "writing" correspondence course that semanticleo did.

[Jeff]

The detail that Armitage and Woodward had a meeting on June 13, together with the timeline with Libby's conversations with reporters at least tends to undermine the inference that the Office of the VP was running a vendetta against Wilson by "outing" Plame.

I don't think that's so. It's not a surprise that there was a lot of activity around the Wilsons in June-July 2003, not all of it coordinated. I do think Armitage's role as Novak's source tends to undermine the inference that OVP's vendetta directly produced Novak's column (though Rove's role remains to be clarified). But like Fitzgerald said at his press conference, Novak's column was the first sign of Plame's cover being blown; but when the FBI looks into $1 million dollars missing from a bank, it's not like they just go looking for wire fraud and if they find embezzlement, they fold up their tents.

Speaking of Rove's role, I recently came across an online righty who, honest to g-d, vehemently believed that Rove was not one of Novak's sources. It was hilarious.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

The President authorised officials in service to the White House to disclose information to Woodward for his book.

If Armitage is the Plame source for Woodward and Novak, does he go down or does he have a defense?

Does Armitage even care? He's been knighted into the Queen's court.

[Jeff]

That is a very good set of questions, Gabriel Sutherland.

[SunnyDay]

But like Fitzgerald said at his press conference, Novak's column was the first sign of Plame's cover being blown;

Then why hasn't Armitage been indicted? Do you think he will be?

According to the docs that were filed, Rove said "I heard that too" or "oh you heard that too" - does that make him a source?

[Jane]

I do think Armitage's role as Novak's source tends to undermine the inference that OVP's vendetta directly produced Novak's column (though Rove's role remains to be clarified).

Oh dear. Is the latest wingnut talking point that the OVP actually "produced" Novak's column. We are all Rove's puppets after all.

So does that make Kos the puppeteer on the left?

[Jeff]

does that make him a source?

Oy vey: Novak's original July 14 column cited two senior administration officials for the claim that Wilson's wife suggested his name for the mission. Those two senior administration officials were Richard Armitage and Karl Rove. Armitage was Novak's first source, and Rove his second. Get over it. Rove's casuistic, legalistic, technical way of getting out of moral responsibility for what he did and for spreading false information to the American people about it is not that he was not Novak's source, but that he didn't know that he was Novak's source. Hence, because he did not know he was Novak's source, he wasn't lying to McClellan and thereby to the American people when he told him he was not Novak's source. Even though he was Novak's source. Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you honor and dignity restored to the White House!

And just for the record, there is some dispute between Novak and Rove over what it was that Rove said that Novak took as confirmation of the Plame information he'd gotten from Armitage.

[Gary Maxwell]

Jeff laughing about someone's vehement beliefs. The mind boggles. And quite hilarious.

[SunnyDay]

I really didn't expect anything else. I just couldn't resist seeing what he would answer.

It's just true. How stupid can I be?

[Other Tom]

If, like Karl Rove, I had said in response to Novak's question, "Oh, you heard that too?" (or "Oh, you know that too?"), I also would say that I was not a source for Novak. I would assume that Novak had a sufficient source for whatever he was going to write before he ever called me. In making that assumption I would be on an equal footing with the CIA spokesman with whom Novak spoke, and whom no one is calling a "source." And I would happily accept "moral responsibility" for stating the truth in response to Joe Wilson's now-established falsehoods.

[megrez80]

Hmm...I thought Novak's source of Plame's name was Wilson's Who's Who entry? So, in the context of what we're discussing, the outing (ie. identifying) of a CIA covert operative, no one in the administration was a source.

[Jeff]

Ah but Gary it was not the vehemence alone that was the hilarious thing. And for what it's worth, Other Tom, my online righty was not just calling Harlow a source for Novak (which is true) but calling Harlow Novak's second source blowing Plame's cover, in place of Rove. Rove certainly did not state the truth when he told McClellan and thereby the American people that he was not involved in the outing of Plame. The most that Rove is now claiming - his technical out into the land of honor and dignity - is that he thought he was telling the truth, even though it turned out to be false.

Of course, technically speaking, I believe McClellan's claim was that it was ridiculous to say that Rove was involved, not that it wasn't true. Ridiculous but true, now that's honor and dignity.

[SunnyDay]

What on earth is Armitage thinking? He knows everyone knows. Maybe there is more to the story?

(not Jeff's version, thanks anyway).

[Jeff]

megrez80 - Good variation on the main theme! The only trouble, aside from the fact that Novak's story about Who's Who remains completely unbelievable, is that it blew her cover to have his two senior administration officials tell Novak that Wilson's wife was CIA and suggested, or authorized, or sent Wilson on his mission. And of course, the Who's Who entry would have been meaningless unless Novak knew that Wilson's wife was CIA and had purportedly suggested his name for the mission. Nice try, though.

[SunnyDay]

Gotta go see how the armada is coming along.

[boris]

but calling Harlow Novak's second source blowing Plame's cover

Harlow was more a "source" than Rove. Who Novak and Jeff consider a source may be different than the reality.

Rove's statement confirms only the existence of the rumor, not it's validity. Harlow confirmed the validity.

[Extraneus]

The first time I read the "honor and dignity" comment, it just made me smile to think back eight years or so, but do we really have to recount the sordid litany of jailed cronies, thong-snapping bible-carrying cigar sex, miraculously-found missing billing records, unknown White House "security office" hires, FBI files, travel office firings, pork-belly fortunes, smelly pardons, crying mauled widows and witness coaching in a thread about Richard Armitage?

[lurker]

Jeff, I don't care whether Armitage was a democrat or republican. All's I care was that Armitage was either the original source or the confirming source of Who's Who, whichever you want to look at.

As for Rove, I see him as a confirming source but not a leaker. All's he did was to confirm what Armitage told Novak about Plame. I haven't seen anything that proved that Rove leaked the information.

I also haven't seen anything coming from OP, OVP, or Rove's office as a vendetta towards the Wilsons. Why would they want to make it a vendetta when Joe Wilson was proven to be wrong?

[Lew Clark]

So.
Armitage was the first to "commit a not-crime". Rove was complicit in the not-crime, but not the first to commit it, just aid and abet. Libby came along latter and may, or may not, have recommited the not-crime. So if we're prosecuting the not-crime, then Armitage should be indicted with the big indictment, Rove as an accomplish, and Libby with a lesser charge.

But, it's not, never has been, about the crime of disclosing the identity of a "CIA Operative". It is about political crimes against American leftism. The rank order of criminals against leftism are Bush, Rove, Cheney, anyone else in the White House. Libby is in the "anyone else in the White House" group and was not a prime target. But he was the highest ranking figure that they could indict. For perjury and obstruction of justice. Code for being a bad (rightwing) witness whose testimony contradicted the good (leftwing) witnesses.

Using that criteria, Armatage is a righty (by Jeff's assertion), but not in the bunch of righties they were after. A very broad prosecution for "political crimes" might have netted Armitage. But this was directed at a specific group of righties, to which Armitage did not belong.

Armitage belonged to the Powell group, whose crimes against American leftism were minor at best. So there was/is no reason to punish him.

BTW, I don''t think Fitzgerald was/is a true believer lefty. I think he is a "useful idiot" in this. A prosecutor who does what? Prosecutes. Although that does beg the point of why Libby and not Armitage. Since Fitzgerald knew, early on, that Armitage was the first kid on the block, not Libby. And certainly he had as much chance to convict Armitage by twisting the "classified nature of Plame's identity", as to prosecute Libby for perjury. Which makes you think Fitzgerald had some criteria for determining good leakers/bad leakers.

[lurker]

When did Fitz know about Armitage?

Did Libby know that Armitage met with Novak? Did Libby know that Armitage was the original source or the second source after Who's Who?

[lurker]

"Just look at who he's advising, perhaps the only politician in America who is still willing to voice the view that we should send many more troops to Iraq - which, let me add, strikes me as the only serious Republican proposal on Iraq."

Funny, we just increased the number of troops to clean out Anbar.

And history proves "so what?" We continue to learn lessons over the years. Warfare and technology have change so drastically, that the history books are being rewritten to accomodate new methods, procedures, lessons. We're not fighting an army but rather guerilla fighting so it's different.

[lurker]

Jeff, I have a question for you and hope you answer it.

What crimes were committed by Armitage or Who's Who leaking Plame's identity? And exactly what is Plame's status at CIA during those two or three months?

[Lurker]

And, Jeff, do you believe in Joe Wilson's report that Iraq actually purchased uranium? And exactly what did Bush say in that SOTU speech?

[Lurker]

Lew, if Fitz already knew that Armitage was the original source long before he indicted Libby, how can Libby perjure or obstruct justice?

This case continues to get bizarre every minute.

[Sue]

I see Jeff is bringing us the new, improved version of Fitzmas.

[Jane]

Someone asked what the left was saying:

This is part of what they are saying:

"Libby is not being prosecuted for being hte leak, but
for hindering an investigation. Perhaps yo may wish to do some more
research.

"http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Lewis_%22Scooter%22_Libby_indicted_on_five_charges"

"Mr. Libby is charged with obstruction of justice, two counts of
perjury to a Grand Jury, and two counts of making false statements to
the FBI in the Justice Department's investigation into the Plame leak."

How does the revelation that another government official spoke ot
Woodward change these charges?

Of course, you will ignore this direct question as it challenges your
percpetions. Please prove me wrong and answer it."

[Sue]

I have thought all along that Fitzgerald kept going because he wanted Miller.

[Jeff]

What crimes were committed by Armitage or Who's Who leaking Plame's identity? And exactly what is Plame's status at CIA during those two or three months?

Obviously, I'm not in a position to answer those questions - though i can say with confidence that you are relying on a false premise in your belief that Who's Who leaked Plame's identity, if by the you mean or include the crucial information that she was a CIA employee. It was never any secret that Joe Wilson was married to the former Valerie Plame, and there is no problem with anyone publishing that Joe Wilson was married to the former Valerie Plame. Moreover, it's impossible to leak information that's in Who's Who, at least under most circumstances. The problematic leak was the one that blew her cover as a CIA employee, and for that to happen there is no necessity to use her name - though it is hard to imagine why Novak would refer to her by her maiden name unless he had been told that that was her name, which of course it wasn't. Her name was Valerie Wilson.

But blowing Plame's cover per se is not necessarily a crime, as Fitzgerald made clear in the press conference. There are a number of requirements that have to be met, in terms of what the person who blew her cover knew and why and how he or she was doing it. So Armitage blew her cover with Woodward and Novak. Did he commit a crime? We don't know. So far, Fitzgerald has not charged him with a crime, and I suspect he is unlikely to charge him with a crime for blowing Plame's cover.

I will admit I still find it hard to see how Armitage did not commit a crime in not disclosing the fact that he blew Plame's cover with Woodward in June.

As for Plame's status at the CIA, we know it was classified. Beyond that, there have been reports that she was covered in some sense - was she covert under IIPA? Hard to tell, and a lot of the relevant information has been filed under seal in the case. But we do know that her status was classified. I don't think even Byron York is tooting his horn on that matter anymore.

[vnjagvet]

Jeff sez:

"Novak's original July 14 column cited two senior administration officials for the claim that Wilson's wife suggested his name for the mission. Those two senior administration officials were Richard Armitage and Karl Rove. Armitage was Novak's first source, and Rove his second. Get over it. Rove's casuistic, legalistic, technical way of getting out of moral responsibility for what he did and for spreading false information to the American people about it is not that he was not Novak's source, but that he didn't know that he was Novak's source. Hence, because he did not know he was Novak's source, he wasn't lying to McClellan and thereby to the American people when he told him he was not Novak's source. Even though he was Novak's source."

This boils down to Novack cited Rove as a source, therefore he is a source.

But the type of source is critical. Rove's "You heard that too?" is a confirming source in only an indirect sense, and certainly does not create the inference of a vendetta-like motive except to the most committed to that view like Jeff. It is to me more consistent with inadvertance than with other, more sinister motives.

The sheer mental gymnastics quoted above tends to show that Jeff does not subscribe to Occam's teachings.

[Sue]

is that it blew her cover to have his two senior administration officials tell Novak that Wilson's wife was CIA and suggested, or authorized, or sent Wilson on his mission.

One senior administration official tells Novak. Novak calls Rove, not the other way around, and Rove said one of 2 versions, i.e., heard that, know that. The senior administration official who started the questions was Armitage. And Jeff (and probably the entire left) have to suddenly tie Armitage and Powell's office as colluding with Cheney to out a CIA agent. Otherwise their theory doesn't work.

[Jeff]

And, Jeff, do you believe in Joe Wilson's report that Iraq actually purchased uranium? And exactly what did Bush say in that SOTU speech?

Oh, man, you've been snookered. Where oh where, my friend, are you getting your information that Wilson's report reported that Iraq actually purchased uranium? And I know precisely what Bush said in his SOTU speech. Even if you want to argue, in the most Clintonian fashion, that it was true - which is a little bit of a problem, because it requires you to argue that the British had learned something that wasn't true - the fact of the matter is that the US intel community had told the British they were too strong in their claim on the Niger story before the British published their White Paper, and CIA had even briefed Congress on the fact that it had told the British as much, and CIA had even worked really hard to get the claim taken out of Bush's October 7 2002 Cincinnati speech, not least because they had told the British they were too confident in their claim, and including having Tenet himself personally call Stephen Hadley and persuade Hadley, over his objections, to take the damn claim out of the speech. Those sixteen words attributing the claim to the British didn't belong in the speech. What's more, the other source for the claim, the October 2002 NIE, which the administration apparently didn't want to use publicly, had not included the Niger story among the key judgments, and in fact all the agencies involved in producing the NIE except one (DoE) had not relied on the uranium from Africa claim at all as a basis for the NIE's judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. Thus, it should never have been used as part of the public justification for the war, as evidence for the claim that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program.

[boris]

One senior administration official tells Novak.

Exactly ... Armitage. Rove's interpretation of the incident is different than Novak's, so Jeff's assertion is based strictly on Novak's. Novak considers Rove a source, true. Rove actually was a source, false (or at least not strictly true).

[Jeff]

And Jeff (and probably the entire left) have to suddenly tie Armitage and Powell's office as colluding with Cheney to out a CIA agent.

Sue, thanks for the offer of assistance, but no thanks. This is, in fact, the diametric opposite of what I believe.

[PaulV]

So Jeff it that an admission that Rove never told Novak Plame's name and neversaid that she was an operative?

[David Walser]

Jeff, I fail to see why anyone should be upset at the "corruption" evident in Rove telling what he thought to be the truth. Suppose my wife asks me if I've got the car keys, and, after checking my pants pockets, I tell her, "No." If the car keys are in my jacket pocket, have I lied to my wife? If I knew that the keys were in my jacket pocket (and the checking of my pockets was just part of my effort to deceive her), then claiming I did not have them would be a lie. However, if I did not know the keys were in my jacket, telling my wife I did not have the keys would not be a lie. It would be an honest mistake. A lie is a deliberate falsehood. There is nothing in the record that indicates that Rove knew Novak considered him to be a source. Assuming he did not believe he was Novak's source, there was nothing dishonorable in his claiming he was not. Demanding we be upset because Rove was mistaken is nothing more than a poorly played game of gotcha.

[Sue]

Sue, thanks for the offer of assistance, but no thanks. This is, in fact, the diametric opposite of what I believe.

Not buying it, Jeff.

Much as you'd like to make Armitage into a Democrat, he's a rock solid Republican, as well as a serious guy and a smart cookie. Just look at who he's advising, perhaps the only politician in America who is still willing to voice the view that we should send many more troops to Iraq - which, let me add, strikes me as the only serious Republican proposal on Iraq.

As much as you would like to make Armitage part of the Cheney cabal, it won't happen.

[Great Banana]

Jeff,

Well, it seems pretty clear that we now know that Rove responded to Novak - "oh you heard that too?" or something to that effect. And that Novak used that statement as a confirming source, along with Harlow, to apparently confirm what Armitage told him (Novak).

the question I have, is so what? Nobody has been indicted in a crime for "outing" Plame. thus, so what? Fitz has apparently deduced that no crime of "outing" plame was committed.

So, if no crime was committed in the "outing" of a file clerk at CIA, then what is your point?

Do you still believe in Fitzmas? Is that it?

That is so cute.

- GB

[boris]

Thus, it should never have been used

When it comes to national security the elected official in charge of that responsibility gets to decide what possible dangers to inform the public about. Considering the effectiveness of the CIA in general, taking all sources of intel, especially a close ally like the Brits is reasonable AFAIC, but then coming from a pro military family that have served in the last few wars I could be biased.