Byron York On The Latest Libby Filings

Byron York discusses the latest Libby filings in the Plame case.  We have links to the filings and lots of excerpts here.

Let's also include this MSNBC article, which touches on the question of the Woodward/Armitage connection:

Did Woodward tape CIA name leaker?

‘Scooter’ Libby’s defense team argues tape will help his defense

WASHINGTON - A snippet of a conversation between Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward and an unnamed source in mid-June 2003 appears to be a major focus of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby's defense in the CIA leak case.

According to a newly released transcript of last week's motions hearing in U.S. District Court, William Jeffress, one of Libby's attorneys, is focusing on three words — “Everyone knows it.”

Libby, a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, was indicted last year on charges that he lied about how he learned that Valerie Plame Wilson was a CIA operative and when he told reporters.

...Woodward revealed in November that a senior administration official — in addition to Libby — told him about Plame and her position at the CIA nearly a month before her identity was disclosed by syndicated newspaper columnist Robert Novak in July 2003.

A transcript and affidavit filed Thursday indicate that Woodward taped his conversation with his unnamed source.

Jeffress was given a redacted transcript of the conversation Woodward had with his unnamed source, according to an affidavit filed by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald on Thursday. The Libby team wants the full transcript of the conversation in order to argue that the phrase “Everyone knows it,” uttered by Woodward's source in that 2003 conversation, means that Plame's job at the CIA was common knowledge among Washington journalists.

“Who did he mean by ‘Everyone knows it'?” Jeffress asked the judge.

According to Jeffress, the only inkling of the source's identity in the redacted document “is some person not in the White House.”

...In asking for access to the tape, Jeffress said, “We know of two reporters that 'official one' talked to. ... We do know that he did discuss Ms. Wilson with at least two reporters.”

The Libby defense said the information would help it investigate which other reporters knew and might have mentioned Plame's name. Jeffress also said he wants “to confront Mr. (Tim) Russert with what other reporters knew."

Ahh - this story ties in to a question raised by the defense filing, which said that "There has been media speculation that Mr. Woodward’s source and Mr. Novak’s source are the same person."

"Media speculation"?  Fueled by whom, we might ask?  In the transcript cited by MSNBC, Mr. Jeffress [part of the Libby defense team] said that:

"We know of two reporters that 'official one' talked to. ... We do know that he did discuss Ms. Wilson with at least two reporters.”

In this context, we are talking about sources and reporters known to Fitzgerald and 9mostly) to the public.  The only sources which are still a mystery are Bob Novak's primary source, and Walter Pincus' source.  And eventually, Mr. Pincus told NPR (and the WaPo told the world) that Mr. Pincus had a White House source.

Meaning what?  Well, if "Official One" was not in the White House, the two reporters with whom he spoke must be Woodward and Novak.  Conversely, if the statement made by Mr. Jeffress - "some person not in the White House" - is wrong, misleading, or being misinterpreted, then perhaps Official One leaked to Woodward and, later, Pincus.  In that case, Hadley of the NSC emerges as a prime candidate.

MJW and the EmptyWheel studied the redacted documents to see whether these or other names fit - Armitage was the preferred good match, and Fleischer (and Rumsfeld!) were close.  In the comments, MJW advises me that Hadley was "impossibly short". [Edited slightly]

Comments

[topsecretk9]

Bradlee alluded to Armitage.

Hadley's denial was playful, but Armitage's is nonexistent. Seems like all Armitage has to do is answer the phone to deflect speculation.

[topsecretk9]

BTW

I don't think it was Jefress that got the same source ball rolling, I think that was Woodward.

[Dwilkers]

I'll tell you the only thing that scratches around in the back of my mind that provides any doubt (to me) that its Armitage.

I just don't see Armitage as someone that a judge would be so worried about having his reputation 'sullied'. I could imagine a judge saying that about Powell, but not Armitage. Armitage just isn't that high level, and doesn't have the sort of reputation (IE a national reputation) that could be subject to sullying. I doubt even 1% of the public have any idea who Armitage is. This is something that has been troubling me a bit for a week or so.

[cathyf]

The other theory is that when Libby remembers "Russert" telling him that "everybody knows it" he is remembering what the reporter said, but remembering the wrong reporter. This is especially plausible if Woodward's source said "everybody knows it," since Woodward has already described the Plame part of UGO's comments as minor and insignificant. If there wasn't much to it, the "everybody knows it" could basically be most of the Plame part, and then if Woodward were going to repeat the story to Libby then this was the logical thing to say.

And if Libby's memory of his feigned non-reacting reaction is reasonably accurate (basically the only detail he screwed up being that he was non-reacting with Woodward rather than Russert) then it is reasonable and plausible that Woodward didn't remember the whole thing. Woodward has already said that UGO didn't think it was important, and Woodward didn't think it was important, so it would only have been memorable if Libby had acted like it was important.

cathy :-)

[Patton]

I anxiously awiat being corrected by Jeff, so I won't comment yet.

[Carol Johnson]

Did Woodward tape CIA name leaker?

‘Scooter’ Libby’s defense team argues tape will help his defense

Does anyone else here think it's absolutely priceless/ironic that Woodward is getting exposed for "taping" his source and then claiming what to keep it out of the public? Executive privilege? I don't think so. Tripped up by "illegally?" "unethically?" taping a source? Juuuust too perfect!!!

Carol

[TM]

I don't think it was Jefress that got the same source ball rolling, I think that was Woodward.

Fair enough, but Libby's attorneys sure did re-ignite that notion.

[Patton]

Fitz is saying that Plame was the Elephant in the room.

Libby is saying, NO, the elephant was WMD, Wilson was a wart on the elephants ass and Plame was a flea on the wart.

[topsecretk9]

Fair enough, but Libby's attorneys sure did re-ignite that notion.

Which makes me think it isn't (Novak's source) such a big secret to anyone with a classified clearance and/or a press pass (or a telephone at the State Department)

[Other Tom]

If Fitzgerald has concluded that the disclosure of Plame's employment was not a crime, why would identifying the source sully his reputation?

[danking70]

"Armitage was a good martch, Hadley was close."

Maybe with the royalty advance TM can splurge for an editor?

(include TS and Clarice in the job description. Most of the work will probably come from those 2. lol!)

[maryrose]

Powell being a source and as of now being untouchable is happening because he is seen as one of the media good guys. Libby having been in the current administration is now seen as one of the bad guys. I agree that Jeff and other dems want desperately for it to be a WH source and even got ahead of the story stating that Rove was likely to be indicted. They had to settle for Libby but their disappointment that day was palpable. Had it been anyone at State or the CIA then they couldn't connect it to Cheney or Bush which was the underlying purpose in the first place.
TS comment on another thread illustrates how prone Fitz is to going off half-cocked on a criminal investigation. This is his third mistake in this area and meanwhile people's reputations are being ruined because of his inept carelessness.

[Other Tom]

"TS comment on another thread illustrates how prone Fitz is to going off half-cocked on a criminal investigation. This is his third mistake in this area and meanwhile people's reputations are being ruined because of his inept carelessness." I've been away, and evidently missed that thread. Can someone steer me to it? Thanks.

[maryrose]

Other Tom:
It is the Many are Called thread.

[cathyf]

Other Tom -- Tom has made it its own thread, under "Anyone Can Make A Mistake."

cathy :-)

[azredneck]

Love York's title!

[MJW]

In my opinion, when substituted for the redactions, "Armitage" is a good fit, "Hadley" is impossibly short. "Fleischer" is close.

[MJW]

Somthing in Libby's motion that hasn't attraced much comment, but which I find curious, is the discussion starting on page 21 concerning this statement in the indictment:

Not earlier than June 2003, but on or before July 8, 2003, the Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs learned from another government official that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA, and advised LIBBY of this information.

The surprising thing is that the motion claims the "government official" is Bill Harlow.

To me, this raises all kinds of questions. I don't believe it's been stated exactly when Novak spoke with Harlow, but Harlow said it was "at least three days" before the column was published, so it probably was after the July 8. Also, if Harlow talked to the Assistant to the VP after he'd talked with Novak, I very much doubt the date range wouldn't be tighter than June to July 8. So what does this mean? It at least impiles Harlow knew about Plame before he talked to Novak, which makes it rather odd that he'd have to check into Plame's classified status after the firt call. What eles does it maean? I dodn't know.

[MJW]

Please excuse all the typos in the previous post. I can't believe I managed to pack so many mistakes into so few sentences.

[topsecretk9]

MJW
Good catch...you are excused with me!

[clarice]

MJW--No one can beat my typo record. Don't even try.

Your catch is even more interesting to me, because if Harlow's report made it to the VP'f office, it would appear that the CIA leaked the info which it then demanded be investigated.

[cathyf]

Well, if the CIA official is really Harlow, it probably means that he didn't look up Valerie's status until after the second conversation. So he told the Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs that Plame was CIA, and Novak that Plame was CIA before he knew that the CIA had her listed as NOC. If Fitzgerald knows this, then both te Espionage Act and the IIPA have been completely out of play since day 1, and all of his questions were inappropriate. It would be no more illegal for Libby to lie about telling reporters that Plame's dress made her butt look fat than it would be if he had lied about telling reporters that Plame worked for the CIA.

cathy :-)

[Jeff]

MJW - Novak says he talked to Harlow on July 10. And that does seem to give Libby an argumentative opening. But here's the other weird thing: are Libby's people acknolwedging that Martin told Libby Harlow told her that Plame worked for the CIA? That would seem to be a problem, especially if it happened during the week of July 7-14, wouldn't it?

[clarice]

Beginning of the time period JUNE 2003--no later than July 8, 2003.

[clarice]

Maestro--a very loud chorus of "Bring on the clowns", please.Public affair person to public affair person--not a top super secret official whispering it on the qt to substantive OVP guys..

[TM]

It at least impiles Harlow knew about Plame before he talked to Novak, which makes it rather odd that he'd have to check into Plame's classified status after the firt call.

I will be darned.

Let's see - Novak had his rant in the street on July 8 with a mystery friend of Wilson's - the friend told Wilson, who played telephone tag with Novak until July 10; after they spoke, Wilson told Val, who alerted the CIA Press Office.

Now, this is from Wilson's book:

Novak had still been trolling for sources when we spoke on the telephone, so I assumed that he did not have the confirmations he would need from the CIA to publish the story. I told Valerie, who alerted the press liason at the CIA, and we were left with the reasonable expectation that any reference to her would be dropped, since he would have no way of confirming the information - unless, of course, he got confirmations from another part of the government, such as the White House.

So as of July 10, Wilson thought Novak lacked confirmation; Harlow did say "at least thre days before" to the WaPo, and Novak's story hit the wires on July 11, so it *may * all fit, *BUT* - Novak talked to Rove on July 8, and Rove is purported to be Novak's confirming source.

Bonus wrinkle - it was July 8 that both Andrea Mitchell and Reuters got what looks to be the same leak; Andrea said it was from the CIA, and she said this:

MITCHELL: Well, people at the CIA say that it's not going to be George Tenet; and, in fact, that high-level people at the CIA did not really know that it was false, never even looked at Joe Wilson's verbal report or notes from that report, didn't even know that it was he who had made this report, because he was sent over by some of the covert operatives in the CIA at a very low level, not, in fact, tasked by the vice president.

Well - the "at least three days" from Harlow may simply be emphasizing the point that they spoke before Novak's column hit the wire; maybe he meant "at least three days, and perhaps as much as a week". Does anyone think it absurd that Harlow can't pin down the date - how often does the Press Office blow the outing of a "covert" agent? Well, maybe he knows the date but won't tell the WaPo.

[Jeff]

So as of July 10, Wilson thought Novak lacked confirmation; Harlow did say "at least thre days before" to the WaPo, and Novak's story hit the wires on July 11, so it *may * all fit, *BUT* - Novak talked to Rove on July 8, and Rove is purported to be Novak's confirming source.

As i said, Novak says he talked to Harlow on July 10.

Wilson was wrong that Novak lacked confirmation, if Novak is telling the truth: Novak was not trolling for confirmation on July 10. Unless, say, Novak was not telling the truth and Rove was his first source. But then that's big trouble. Reason to think Novak's story works: Fitzgerald seems to credit it in his 2-16-06 affidavit, and refers to Novak's two sources, with Rove evidently the second one. I can't imagine Fitzgerald would do that if he still thought there was something fishy about Novak's and Rove's mostly consistent story.

I suspect Novak was just trying to get Wilson to spill himself about his wife. Likewise, Novak was probably lying, or shading the truth, when he told Wilson that a CIA source told him, in order to try to make Wilson think it was okay to talk about his wife. Remember, after the fact Wilson asked him about this, and Novak said he misspoke. We don't know whether Novak talked to Wilson before or after talking to Harlow -- or it could even be in between conversations with Harlow -- but it is possible that Novak was referring to Harlow as his CIA source and hiding his other sources, for the reason I mentioned.

[Jeff]

Beginning of the time period JUNE 2003--no later than July 8, 2003.

That's of course a misrepresentation, insofar as it understates the confidence the prosecutor has that it took place on July 8. But anyway, you're right that it could have happened back in June, but precisely to the extent that you extend the Harlow-Martin conversation back in time, you make it less and less telling that Harlow would check on her status again after talking to Novak. Duh.

[Patton]

We do know on thing. Wilson is prone to lie and cast things in a very self serving light.
He also has a complex where he blames everything on a cabal in the White House.

They call this complex....a Liberal.

[cathyf]

you make it less and less telling that Harlow would check on her status again after talking to Novak.

Again? Again?!? Where is the evidence that Harlow checked on her status before he told the Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs that Plame was CIA? How could he have possibly forgotten this when talking to Novak, if he had just been talking to the Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs about it a few days before??? If Harlow looked up her status, knew she was NOC, and then made the unauthorized disclosure of classified information to Novak, where are the charges?

Is it *gasp* possible that Plame's status wasn't very important to anyone, and that the reason people keep saying that they forgot it was that they really forgot it?

cathy :-)

[TM]

As i said, Novak says he talked to Harlow on July 10.

An hour ago, if you had asked me, that is what I would have said, too.

But why would I have said it? Where is the evidence?

Well, here in a Pincus WaPo article, for one. But is it elsewhere? I feel a brainlock ocurring.

[boris]

They call this complex....a Liberal.

Actually it's a "syndrome" and they call it ... wait for it Jeff ...

B D S

[maryrose]

cathyf:
Plame's status was not very important to anybody and I am sure more than one person forgot about it because she was a desk jockey at Brewster -jennings and evidently still had enough juice to get her husband the gig to Niger. Talk about nepotism!

[MayBee]

OK, why doesn't this work?
Harlow waves to Plame everyday in the parking lot, so thinks nothing of other people talking about her being CIA.
Novak talks to Harlow- just don't say her name, Novak talks to Wilson-looking for comment, Wilson sees the writing on the wall & tells Val they're about to be busted, better call CIA and see what she can do. After she calls the CIA in a husband-induced huff, Harlow decides to look her status up.

[topsecretk9]

brainlock ocurring.

TM, I can't help but think you are confusing "brain-lock" for your intuition...something not adding up with Mr. P. Are you thinking of Pincus' CJR article and his CIA sources?

[topsecretk9]

for, should be "with"

[Sue]

Is it *gasp* possible that Plame's status wasn't very important to anyone, and that the reason people keep saying that they forgot it was that they really forgot it?

There sure are a lot of memory lapses in Washington. ::grin::

[Other Tom]

And don't forget all the experienced CIA types cited in the Chicago Tribune articles, all to the effect that everyone knows that no one who drives to Langley every day is NOC. If that is an accurate assertion, it is likely that no one at CIA even considered that her employment status was classified, or covert (whatever may be the difference between the two). Fitz is more and more taking on the aura of a feverishly ambitious and rather reckless self-promoter, and he's got to be doing some squirming at this point.

[topsecretk9]

Can't put my finger on it, but there is something odd about those Pincus articles and Harlow.

Wednesday, July 27, 2005; A01
Lawyers have confirmed that Novak discussed Plame with White House senior adviser Karl Rove four or more days before the column identifying her ran. But the identity of another "administration" source cited in the column is still unknown. Rove's attorney has said Rove did not identify Plame to Novak.

Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.
Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

Thursday, August 11, 2005; A08

Novak had been told earlier in the week about Wilson's wife. He has written that he asked a senior administration official why Wilson, who had held a National Security Council staff position in the Clinton administration, had been given that assignment. The response, Novak wrote, was that "Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife." Novak then called another Bush official for confirmation and got the response "Oh, you know about it." Novak said he called the CIA on July 10, 2003, to get the agency's version. The then-CIA spokesman, Bill Harlow, told the columnist that the story he had gotten about Wilson's wife's role was not correct. Novak has written that Harlow said the CPD officials selected Wilson but that she "was delegated to request his help."
Harlow has said that he told Novak that if he wrote about the trip, he should not mention Wilson's wife's name. Novak, who published her maiden name -- Valerie Plame -- has written that Harlow's request was "meaningless" because "once it was determined that Wilson's wife suggested the mission, she could be identified as 'Valerie Plame' by reading her husband's entry in 'Who's Who in America.' "

...something about that Harlow "at least" and that CRJ...Pincus didn't believe his July 11th source because he had checked with his CIA source BEFORE July 11th, but Pincus had already written...something goofy.

[MayBee]

"Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. "

I'd guess after Mrs. Wilson's call he checked Plame's status.

[TM]

I'd guess after Mrs. Wilson's call he checked Plame's status.

Which takes us back to, wondering what he told Ms. Martin on or prior to July 8.

[clarice]

The timeframe --no earlier than June--is the timeframe the Prosecutor chose to put in the indictment. For all we know Harlow told Martin on June 1--well before Libby talked to Miller (June 23). And there is no indication that Harlow told Martin (another public spokesperson, not a policy person) that there was anything secret about that information. Were that the case, do you think for a moment Fitz wouldn't have said so in the indictment?

After his other half-truths and distortions, I think he meant for us to assume that this was told as a secret, but I no longer am willing to make that assumption.
I think it a deliberate Fitz fudge.

[boris]

It was Harlow who screwed up but he managed to stick Libby with the queen.

The Plame Game is Broken Hearts and Val is the queen of spooks.

[Jeff]

TM - That Pincus article is the only source I know of for the information that Novak's version is that he talked to Harlow on July 10.

topsecret - I would submit that what's odd about Pincus' article is that he's being very precise. And all the players involved here - Rove, Novak, Harlow - are either genuinely unsure of the exact dates involved or, more likely, unwilling to reveal those precise dates in public, probably because of their fellow players on the other side of the intra-government battles. Also, Pincus spoke with his source on July 12, and also Pincus had heard versions of the origins of Wilson's trip from numerous sources involved, including at the CIA, before speaking with his source, but there's no indication whatsoever that Pincus knew anything about Plame's purported role, and every indication otherwise. He only checked with his CIA sources after Novak's column was published.

[topsecretk9]

Jeff
and also Pincus had heard versions of the origins of Wilson's trip from numerous sources involved, including at the CIA,

And more likely, much more from STATE.

[Jeff]

topsecret - Pincus talked to people from all the agencies involved, and he in fact talked to people all over the government about Wilson's trip, including lots of people who were critical on various grounds about Wilson's trip, though none of them, apparently, until his White House source on July 12, on the grounds of spousal nepotism at the CIA. At that point, he knew enough about the trip that he was skeptical of the claim that Wilson's wife set up the trip, and then when he saw Novak's column, just two days later, he called the CIA to ask it is was true and was told it was not. He didn't tell anyone about his conversation with the White House official until he published about it, in the third person, in October 2003. Even then -- in fact, not for two years -- did he specify that his source was someone in the White House, preferring the broader identification of them as an administration official, I believe.

Pincus' reporting on Harlow-Novak last summer is, by the way, a perfect example of the way Pincus works. He doesn't believe that journalistic neutrality is a conceivable way to achieve objectivity, and he doesn't believe that journalists are not players in the game they are covering, above the fray. He doesn't believe in running he said-he said stories. So he runs a story with a set of angles (the July story with VandeHei), including essentially telling Harlow's side of the story. Novak is pissed, and a little while later, Pincus runs a story with Novak's version in reply. Meanwhile, he breaks a whole bunch of important news (which typically seems to have gone mostly unnoticed) with regard to those different versions of what happens, including some key dates, and everybody gets their story out. Pincus undoubtedly has his own views, which color what he writes, but he also has a commitment to getting the story right, and he does.

[Sue]

I take it Pincus is telling the story you want to hear? ::grin::

[Sue]

At that point, he knew enough about the trip that he was skeptical of the claim that Wilson's wife set up the trip

See, this is the part that has me scratching my head. How did he know enough about the trip to be skeptical? And wasn't the trip itself still classified?

[topsecretk9]

Sue
Yip. Sounds good, makes no senso.

Unless he knew so much about the trip /story upside down and backwards WAY, WAY before. He wasn't "moved" by his source (and SENIOR Admin official, to boot) because -- The detail of Wilson's "wife" was inconsequential--the crux, the important part "the names were wrong, the dates were wrong" and that's all that mattered.

And Jeff, I know you are a huge Pincus fan, but how do you know every detail of his day to day operations? Unless you are Pincus or work with Pincus or channel him.

[Jeff]

I take it Pincus is telling the story you want to hear? ::grin::

i know you're just teasing, but actually not particularly.

How did he know enough about the trip to be skeptical?

Given that Pincus was talking to all the agencies involved, and lots of people involved, don't you think there's a good chance he talked to some of the principals, including perhaps, say, the person who actually authorized Wilson for the trip, or the person who actually suggested Wilson for the trip? Or, since I'm sure that last one is going to drive some people here bonkers, the person who represented themselves as suggesting Wilson for the trip?

[MayBee]

but there's no indication whatsoever that Pincus knew anything about Plame's purported role, and every indication otherwise.

back to my old bugaboo: He thought he knew enough to NOT BELIEVE her purported role. That is different than not knowing anything about it.

[MayBee]

oops, cross posting.

Seriously, Jeff. Are you Pincus or do you know him?

[maryrose]

Boris:
The Plame Game is Old Maid and Libby got stuck with her when the music stopped.

[Sue]

i know you're just teasing

Yeah.

say, the person who actually authorized Wilson for the trip

Wouldn't that person have set him straight on Wilson not seeing the documents? Not having that classified information? Wouldn't that have made Pincus go hmmmm...if he didn't see them, how did he know the dates were wrong, the names were wrong. Who told him? Wouldn't the comment from a SAO that his wife was involved make him go hmmmm...again? Maybe his wife passed the classified information to him? All sorts of questions would run through my mind, if I were the journalist who had actually talked to the person who authorized Wilson's trip. Because that person would have known one of 2 things. 1) Wilson was lying about knowing about the forgeries or 2) Wilson's wife was revealing classified information to Wilson. But for some reason, the person that authorized Wilson's trip didn't want to set Pincus straight. Or Pincus is withholding something.

[clarice]

Please..He waited 2 1/2 years after his initial report--and well after the SSCI report and some time after Wilson told Pincus he'd misquote4d him, for Pincus to correct his June 2003 story.

[maryrose]

I agree Sue Pincus has not told all he knows or given a correct, believable time line. Pincus under oath will reveal much about the overall situation.
Harlow's motivations are more obscure. Did he get caught saying too much and was he then trying to backtrack?
We know that to be Andrea Mitchell's problem.

[MayBee]

Jeff- so you are basically saying Pincus is a stenographer for one side, and then another...not necessarily challenging the claims one side may make *cough*Wilson forgeries*cough. That is, until another source may come along with the questions Pincus could have himself asked?

Neat.

[Jeff]

MayBee - Nope, I've just read the things Pincus has written and said in interviews about his reporting practices and his beliefs about the press pretty carefully.

Sue - Wilson didn't see the documents, but he certainly heard about them on February 19, and talked about the names that should be on such things. I do think that someone at the February 19 meeting, or else his wife, also told Wilson where the info was coming from and that was info that person knew should not have been shared with him, and did not 'fess up to the SSCI. But as for talking about the forgeries themselves, that doesn't seem to have been a problem. Anyway, were they classified in June-July 2003, having been given to the IAEA and revealed definitively to be forgeries?

[Rick Ballard]

MayBee,

It's tough making it to the top at the WaPo, you have to be part chimera, part chameleon, part baselisk, part newt, part snake, part alligator, part gargoyle and maintain a calm facade and a blind eye to the glaringly obvious at all times. It takes a very special kinf of.., well I don't know the word for it. But it's not journalist or reporter.

[Sue]

Jeff,

Wilson had 2 stories that caused him to be different from anyone else. The VP sent him and ignored his findings. And forged documents. Now either the journalists who misquoted him were perfectly happy allowing us to believe Wilson had debunked the document as a forgery in relation to his trip (remember when he was debriefed at his house and it was later determined that no one mentioned the forgeries? Kind of caused a stinky problem for Wilson at the SSIC). Pincus was either in on the let's just attribute this to Wilson game or he was used and bought it. I don't care which one you decide, but something wasn't right in Denmark. And Pincus was incurious enough about it that what he was told by a SAO did nothing more than cause him to ask someone a question. And buy their story, again.

[danking70]

Jeff, was Pincus privy to the Armitage/Powell gossip?

[Jeff]

so you are basically saying Pincus is a stenographer for one side, and then another

Precisely wrong, MayBee. Journalists always have their own angle on a story, and should have a commitment to getting the story right. In my judgment, Pincus is pretty good at it. Yes, he'll include someone's version (e.g. Harlow's), but that's not to say he's acting as his stenographer. He's got his own angle on the story. Also, when people criticize a particular reporter for being a stenographer - e.g. when people say Susan Schmidt should be known as Steno Sue for acting as the stenographer for, in effect, the Republicans (or some branch of them) - I've always understood that to mean that a story is being presented as objective truth but in reality the reporter is just taking down and repeating a particular side's version of that story. So there's misrepresentation going on. When Pincus presents Harlow's version, it's clear that it's Harlow's version.

[Sue]

But if Pincus misquoted Wilson about the forgeries, how do we know he isn't misquoting Harlow? Or Novak? Can't trust a journalist who will misquote his source.

[danking70]

Sue, Pincus doesn't misquote his sources.

He uses a little literary flair. That's all.

[clarice]

Can anyone think of a good reason for Harlow to have told Martin Plame was with the CIA if she was covert?

[Sue]

Seriously, the story was the forged documents. It had to be Niger. Even Joe made that claim. If it was Africa, then Joe doesn't have a story. It is Niger and forged documents. Now, if Pincus wanted a story about the forged documents, which were presented to the public by the IAEA person, why not go to that person? Why Joe? What made Joe special? Forged documents and the VP ignoring him. And that story was the story they stuck with until the SSIC hearings. When suddenly, Joe either misspoke or they attributed a quote to him that wasn't his. And that alone makes me go...hmmm....

[Sue]

Actually, to be precise, the story was Bush/Cheney taking us to war on forged documents. Which was what Joe was peddling.

[owl]

OT trivia I picked up on Snapple comment over at AJ's.....I didn't realize that Harlow is now a news analyst over at MSNBC. Thought it was interesting that the 'birds of a feather' sure seem to have flocked together....Russert/Andrea/Matthews who all loved ole Joe....and now Harlow.

[owl]

or maybe I knew it but forgot it?

[Jeff]

I don't mean to suggest, by the way, that each of Pincus' stories always only tells one side of a story. That's obviously wrong. Part of what is interesting to me about the 6-12-03 story is that part of the story is the dispute between the CIA and other parts of the executive branch; also Pincus at least floats a rather critical picture of the CIA.

One thing, though: The claim about Wilson that

The VP sent him and ignored his findings

is nowhere to be found in Pincus' article. What you get is, first, this:

Armed with information purportedly showing that Iraqi officials had been seeking to buy uranium in Niger one or two years earlier, the CIA in early February 2002 dispatched a retired U.S. ambassador to the country to investigate the claims, according to the senior U.S. officials and the former government official, who is familiar with the event.

And then this:

The CIA's decision to send an emissary to Niger was triggered by questions raised by an aide to Vice President Cheney during an agency briefing on intelligence circulating about the purported Iraqi efforts to acquire the uranium, according to the senior officials. Cheney's staff was not told at the time that its concerns had been the impetus for a CIA mission and did not learn it occurred or its specific results.

Which seems to be not only exactly accurate with regard to the origins of Wilson's trip, but also, if anything, a little too credulous of the OVP's version of what happened with the results of Wilson's trip.

As for the forgery claim, Wilson did in fact hear about the documents on February 19, and talked about the names that should be on it. Also, to be fair to Wilson, he says he was ambushed in the SSCI questioning, which is not shocking. Also, it's just wrong to say that that's all there was to Wilson, unless you mean that his report, as Pincus and Milbank put it in the piece that clarive loves to cite but misrepresents,

had little impact because it supported other, earlier refutations of the Niger intelligence.

As they also make clear, that specific claim was not central to the central claim that he reported that there was nothing to the intelligence reports. Wilson made a splash because he was a splashy guy saying it was known within the government that there was nothing to one of the main items of evidence for one of the main public justifications of the war with Iraq.

[MayBee]

When Pincus presents Harlow's version, it's clear that it's Harlow's version.

OK, and when he presented Wilson's version...?
Or when he chose not to present the WH source's version?

Objectivity isn't just about how a story is presented, it is also about who a journalist trusts, and who's story they choose to present. Who they choose to question and the questions they choose to ask.
Sue covered the things that could have been done before the story was presented at all, and clarice points out it took 2 1/2 years for the opposing story to find itself worthy of being 'presented' by Pincus.

[Sue]

Jeff,

LOL. Wilson is blindsided? Only because they allowed him to change his story before they charged him with perjury. ::grin::

[MayBee]

if anything, a little too credulous of the OVP's version of what happened with the results of Wilson's trip.

On what basis do you say this?

[MayBee]

Wilson made a splash because he was a Rorschach splash, allowing anti-Bush people to see in his tales whatever lie they wanted to see.

[clarice]

On Oct 25, 2005 this is what Pincus said was wrong about his original article:
'For example, Wilson told The Washington Post anonymouslyin June 2003 that he had concluded that the intelligence about the Niger uranium was based on forged documents because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." The Senate intelligence committee, which examined pre-Iraq war intelligence, reported that Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports." Wilson had to admit he had misspoken.

Joseph Wilson, husband of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame, has not been camera-shy since Plame's identity was leaked. (By David Paul Morris -- Getty Images)

Understanding the Plame Affair
Key Players in the CIA Leak Case Analysis and short biographies of the main individuals involved in the investigation of the leak of Valerie Plame's identity to the press.
Explaining the Charges
Q&A: The Leak Case Facts
Timeline: Libby's Role
Full Text of Indictment: US v. Libby
Special Counsel's Press Release Detailing Libby Indictment
Transcript: Fitzgerald's 10/28 Press Conf.
Pres. Bush's Remarks

Background on the Plame Investigation
Find stories, video, discussion transcripts and associated features related to the investigation of the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity to the press.

Special Report: Plame Investigation

Photos

Career Highlights of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, is at the center of an investigation into the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity.

From FindLaw
Plame Investigation Leaks Links to court rulings, briefs, and government documents pertaining to the leak investigation (and the First Amendment battle).
The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982

Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
Thunder in the House
Thunder in the House
Thunder in the House

Full List of Blogs (134 links) »

Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web

That inaccuracy was not central to Wilson's claims about Niger, but his critics have used it to cast doubt on his veracity about more important questions, such as whether his wife recommended him for the 2002 trip, as administration officials charged in the conversations with reporters that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald is now probing. Wilson has maintained that Plame was merely "a conduit," telling CNN last year that "her supervisors asked her to contact me."

But the Senate committee found that "interviews and documents provided to the committee indicate that his wife . . . suggested his name for the trip." The committee also noted a memorandum from Plame saying Wilson "has good relations" with Niger officials who "could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." In addition, notes on a State Department document surmised that Plame "had the idea to dispatch him" to Niger.

The CIA has always said, however, that Plame's superiors chose Wilson for the Niger trip and she only relayed their decision.

Wilson also mistakenly assumed that his report would get more widespread notice in the administration than it apparently did. He wrote that he believed "a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president" had probably taken place, perhaps orally.

But this apparently never occurred. Former CIA director George J. Tenet has said that "we did not brief it to the president, vice president or other senior administration officials." Instead his report, without identifying Wilson as the source, was sent in a routine intelligence paper that had wide circulation in the White House and the rest of the intelligence community but had little impact because it supported other, earlier refutations of the Niger intelligence.

Wilson also had charged that his report on Niger clearly debunked the claim about Iraqi uranium purchases. He told NBC in 2004: "This government knew that there was nothing to these allegations." But the Senate committee said his findings were ambiguous. Tenet said Wilson's report "did not resolve" the matter.

On another item of dispute -- whether Vice President Cheney's office inspired the Wilson trip to Niger -- Wilson had said the CIA told him he was being sent to Niger so they could "provide a response to the vice president's office," which wanted more information on the report that Iraq was seeking uranium there. Tenet said the CIA's counterproliferation experts sent Wilson "on their own initiative."

Wilson said in a recent interview: "I never said the vice president sent me or ordered me sent."

_____________

The following day the WaPo also corrected this tidbit from Pincus' June 2003 article:The mainstream media seems to have an extremely difficult time telling the truth about Plamegate. Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank’s correction on October 25 of Pincus’ almost 2 1/2 year old story in which he credited Joseph Wilson IV’s claims and gave them wide distribution has itself been corrected. Here is the latest version with this notation:

An Oct. 25 article incorrectly said President Bush asserted during his January 2003 State of the Union message that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Niger. The president said that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa.________________

Aside from those things....

[Gary Maxwell]

Wilson made a splash because he was a splashy guy

Oh fer cryin out loud...

[Sue]

Now seriously, Jeff, unless you are just trying to spin me, why would you totally ignore this from Pincus' June 12, 2003 article?

During his trip, the CIA's envoy spoke with the president of Niger and other Niger officials mentioned as being involved in the Iraqi effort, some of whose signatures purportedly appeared on the documents.

After returning to the United States, the envoy reported to the CIA that the uranium-purchase story was false, the sources said. Among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong," the former U.S. government official said.

Now, explain again why Pincus wasn't just royally pissed that the CIA's envoy's conclusions were based on a lie?

[Sue]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A46957-2003Jun11>Pincus' June 12th article

Thirteen months later, on March 8, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, informed the U.N. Security Council that after careful scrutiny of the Niger documents, his agency had reached the same conclusion as the CIA's envoy. ElBaradei deemed the documents "not authentic," an assessment that U.S. officials did not dispute.

[clarice]

Yes,Sue.

[Sue]

The only plausible explanation I can come up with is the quote was attributed to Wilson because Pincus didn't want to name Wilson's wife. Either that or Wilson wasn't the envoy who went to Niger in the 1st place. Or Wilson lied and Pincus didn't care because it fit the story angle Pincus was pimping. Or someone else can figure it out. My brain is tired.

Nighty, night.

[Jeff]

Sue - I did not mean to ignore that. That's the one item in the piece clarice loves to cite where Pincus clearly is pissed and thinks Wilson went off the rails - Pincus is reaffirming that Wilson said what he quoted him saying, and that it was inaccurate. I will say this, though - I think Pincus got carried away, since that passage that he cites from the SSCI is, characteristically, misleading. It's true that Wilson hadn't seen the reports. But he certainly heard all about them at the February 19 meeting. And he talked about the names that should have been on the documents. Also

explain again why Pincus wasn't just royally pissed that the CIA's envoy's conclusions were based on a lie?

Because he didn't believe that:

That inaccuracy was not central to Wilson's claims about Niger.

Wilson's claim was that there was no deal and no seeking, that the intelligence on Iraqi efforts to get uranium from Niger were wrong. (I know that last one is going to drive people nuts, but I'm just talking about what Pincus is saying.) Pincus is saying Wilson's claims did not depend on the claim about the forgeries.

In my opinion, Pincus was pissed that Wilson had suggested at some point that he might have been misquoted.

[topsecretk9]

Wilson made a splash because he was a splashy guy

Oh fer cryin out loud...

LOL

[clarice]

Jeff. Wilson's final story on the forgeries to the SSCI --after they pointed out his story was nonsense and impossible--was that maybe he was confused..maybe he saw the IAEA version and that he got the nam4es and dates wrong because when Andrea Mitchell showed it to him he didn't have his glasses.

[topsecretk9]

no seeking

Where?

[Jeff]

clarice - Are you disputing that at the February 19 meeting the reports of the (ultimately determined to be forged) documents were discussed?

[clarice]

I'm saying he told four reporters he'd seen the forgeries on this Mission and tried to warn everyone they were forgeries and no one listened; I'm saying he never saw them unless someoneshowed them to him after his Mission and that if that is true, he was shown classified docs he wasn't entitled to see; I'm saying, in any event, his story re the forgeries was a crock from start to finish because the things he said were the apparent signs of forgery were not on the forgeries we rece3ived--forgeries the IAEA provided to the SSCI.

[topsecretk9]

Wilson even gets a pass for going from misattributed/Literary Flair to misquoted with Paula Zahn.

[Jeff]

topsecret - That's exactly what I'm saying Pincus is not giving Wilson a pass on, fundamentally. And that's what he's pissed about, if you ask me.

clarice - He didn't actually tell the reporters that he had seen the forgeries, again. Reports on the documents were discussed February 19. And Pincus himself says that the business about the forgeries was not central to Wilson's claims. It's also too funny that you talk about the forgeries we received from the IAEA. Pray tell, where did the IAEA get them?

[clarice]

Pincus said that, but I beg to differ..they sexed up his story enormously. As did his story that he went at the VP's "behest" and that he was tasked to see if NIGER had SOLD uranium to Iraq and that he told everyone the SOTU address was in error.
In fact his wife sent him on a boondoggle, he found evidence consistent with that-- Iraq had sent a trade delegation to Niger whose only significant trade is in uranium; that in any event the SOTU address dealt with Africa and was based on a UK report that the Butler commission said was not a made up report.

[clarice]

Pincus wasn't pissed at Wilson. I've no doubt that the WaPo editors forced him to write that Oct 2005 piece, and they even ripped more out of his original story the next day when Pincus had failed or refused to do so.

[danking70]

If Pincus is pissed at Wilson, he has a funny way of showing it.

What's the usual journalist rule when you get screwed by your source?

[Jeff]

So clarice signs on to the all-powerful Joseph Wilson theory: he managed to dictate not only what each reporter would say in their story, but also that the most "sexed up" bits from each story -- not included in any other story and certainly not in his own, which was of course the one that most people paid attention to -- would be focused on by the majority of the populace, or at least by the dread all-powerful MSM, regardless of the fact that those discrete bits could not be found in the other accounts, and certainly not in his own account, of his trip and its significance.

Talk about revisionist history.

And even your casuistic, legalistic, Clintonian read of the SOTU looks more and more evidently wrong by the day. To say nothing of how Bush's claims have looked in the ordinary world of ordinary language for quite some time, as was acknowledged by the White House on July 7 and George Tenet on July 11 - 2003.

[Jeff]

If Pincus is pissed at Wilson, he has a funny way of showing it.

Right - Pincus was pissed that Wilson had suggested he'd misquoted him; that is all, and it's pretty limited. Otherwise, Pincus sees and subtly suggests that the SSCI was a piece of work by critics of Wilson, not truth-seekers laying out the truth. And Pincus continues to buy Wilson's claims. And notes that the CIA, the very agency that sent Wilson, contradicts the SSCI on who sent him. And Wilson's report simply confirmed the other discrediting of the intelligence on Iraq-Niger.

Hence clarice's reading where Pincus' piece is extorted from Pincus.

[clarice]

Well, Jeff, it's late and I'm heading to bed.
I never said Wilson "dictated" what Kristof and Pincus and Corn, for example, wrote, but unless they are all complete liars, it seems clear that Wilson, the admitted source for their reports, fed them a cock and bull story which they were happy to report. And they stock with that story long after the SSCI said it was a cock and bull story and long after Wilson charged them with distorting what he'd said.

Let me suggest they were...um...credulous if not delighted to find such a source who was useful in attacking a Preisdent they loathed.

[MayBee]

certainly not in his own account, of his trip and its significance.

Obviously the exciting part wasn't in Wilson's own account, because that was fact-checkable by someone other than the (sympathetic) reporter to whom he's telling his tale. The first stories about him were anonymous for a reason.

Otherwise, Pincus sees and subtly suggests that the SSCI was a piece of work by critics of Wilson, not truth-seekers laying out the truth. And Pincus continues to buy Wilson's claims.
There's that magical, methodical letting the source tell the story you were referring to. How very different from other reporters!

Of course Pincus would say the discredited part wasn't central to Wilson's claim. He's got to make it look like there was good reason Pincus put stock in him in the first place. Besides, as you pointed out above, Pincus then takes the opportunity to implicity undermine the credibility of the SSCI.
What Wilson said was important, but not for the reasons people thought, but because of something something Bush was wrong. And the SSCI won't tell you the truth.
A twofer.

[topsecretk9]

Talk about revisionist history.

The comment describing the revisionist history made no sense.

How this, the same story at oddly matches exactly what Wilson said he never said was reported by 4 seperate news outlets.

[topsecretk9]

which he also aditted he was the source for before he outed himsel.

[danking70]

Can't wait to hear it from the horse's mouth when Pincus takes the stand as he describes the timeline.

[danking70]

Certainly want to see the 4 reporter's notes about the Niger literary flair. Did all 4 make that up off the tops of their heads?

Now that is an amazing co-inky-dink.

[Sue]

Jeff,

Then I don't know what to say. Either Pincus is not the first class reporter you think he is or he was perfectly willing to be used. http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/03/byron_york_on_t_1.html#comment-15224497>Read the bold. Wilson told Pincus (or Pincus lied) that he had concluded the documents were forgeries and 13 months later, the IAEA concurred with him. Did Pincus print that on Wilson's word alone?