"A Complete Straight Shooter"

The defenders of the true faith are braced for a long weekend.  No, we aren't talking about the Da Vinci code - we are talking about Joe Wilson's defenders and the pushback on Steve Clemons' story that former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage is "in the crosshairs" of the Fitzgerald investigation into the Plame leak.

Let's go to the latest Clemons column, with multiple pushbacks from Armitage supporters:

(1)  Bobby Ray Inman's claims are "BS", claimed one very prominent Washington insider;

(2) Another well-placed insider who has interacted directly with many of the key personalities involved in the investigation wrote this to me:

I'm sure Inman is wrong on Armitage...

(3) Another person whom I can't identify but has direct knowledge of the direction of Fitzgerald's investigation as it pertains to Armitage and Rove stated that what Inman claims "is not the case". This source offered further that one "would be on 100 percent solid ground" with the claim that Armitage would NOT be indicted.

Let's score those as denials.  But now, on to the hagiography:

Two sources have reported that Richard Armitage has testified three times before the grand jury and has completely cooperated and has been, as one source reported, "a complete straight-shooter" and "honest about his role and mistakes".

Oh, stop - Armitage did not even mention to Special Counsel Fitzgerald his leak to Woodward until after Libby's indictment was handed down.  How honest was that?

And there does not seem to be any question of his having forgotten - per Woodward's account to Viveca Novak, Woodward had approached his source "twice before, once in 2004 and once earlier this year, to persuade the source to remove the confidentiality restriction, but with no success."

Or per the timeline offered by the Armitage supporters, "as soon as Armitage realized mistakes he had made, he marched into Colin Powell and laid out "everything" in full detail.".

Well, Condi Rice became Secretary of State in January 2005; unless Armitage was overcome by a desire to rehash old times and errors with his former boss, he must have spoken to Powell long before Libby was indicted in October 2005.

Steve Clemons also tells us "I have learned from several other sources that Richard Armitage was neck deep in the Valerie Plame story."

But what is missing from all this pushback is any attempt to claim that Stephen Hadley was the source for the Woodward and Novak leaks.  That is a position held by Raw Story, TruthOut's Jason Leopold, and maybe not many others.  So perhaps we can take it as settled that Armitage leaked to Woodward and Novak.

But why do Joe Wilson's fans care that Armitage be kept out of this story if possible?  Because the original framing of this leak as told by Joe Wilson and the media on the talk show circuit was that it was a vicious smear campaign organized by the White House to punish a noble whistleblower who had dared to expose Bush's lies about the war. (And notice how Katie Couric plays along - Joe Wilson correctly attributes the leak to "administration" official, which was what Novak cited, but she locks in on "White House" officials, and never lets go.)

Since Richard Armitage was in the State Department and not known as a vigorous war advocate, he does not fit well into the story line about a brutal Cheney-led conspiracy.  Awkward.  Well, my guess is that in order to preserve a bit of the Armitage street-cred, his supporters have told Steve Clemons this:

...the information provided by Richard Armitage is -- more than any other information -- what has put Karl Rove at major risk of indictment.

There you go - Richard Armitage leaked about Plame to Woodward, leaked about her to Novak, forgot to disclose the Woodward chat to Fitzgerald, and... he is a hero of the investigation because he nailed Rove.  Uh huh.

Interestingly, this Armitage spin is being greeted with skepticism by some left-leaning observers and commenters.  Troubling - with Armitage in the story the relevant attack theme can be expanded from the Evil Neocons to the Incompetent Republicans.  But can the anti-war left switch gears, expand their target zone and sideline Joe Wilson on this story?  Doubtful.

And I am still contemplating my talking points.  De facto confirmation that Armitage leaked to Woodward and Novak is delightful, since it puts a torpedo in the vicious White House conspiracy theory.  However, if Armitage actually were indicted for having a bad memory, that would make it harder to squawk about Libby and Rove being victims of a selective prosecution.  And it seems that Armitage is under no threat of a indictment for actually outing a covert agent, which lends weight to the "no-underlying crime" theme.

Right now, it's all good. 

And if anyone hears about a Rove indictment, do let us know.  Last fall, Drudge put up a flash the night before, but maybe it will go down at 7 PM today.  Maybe.  Keep hope alive!

MORE:  As the sun sets on my good mood - setting aside the denials above, some of which are implausible anyway, why can't Fitzgerald indict both Rove and Armitage for obstruction/perjury/bad memory/bad attitude?  And in the country at large, won't headlines blaring "Two Senior Admin Officials Indicted" be ghastly?  Will the focus be on lying Republicans, or forgetful ones?

I understand that some folks think Fitzgerald will only indict the architects of the war, but if he focuses instead on the people who disrupted his investigation, Rove and Armitage would be plausible targets.

Comments

[Davebo]

Perhaps you should read Clemons' post again.

He specifically states that Armitage is not in any danger of being indicted. And despite your use of quotes, he never claims that Armitage is "in the crosshairs".

Are you bucking for a byline at the Times or what?

[jerry]

Mark Corallo has a sense of humor, see TalkLeft's latest.

[Davebo]

Perhaps you should read Clemons' post again.

He specifically states that Armitage is not in any danger of being indicted. And despite your use of quotes, he never claims that Armitage is "in the crosshairs".

Are you bucking for a byline at the Times or what?

[Jeff]

As I cannot be accused of wanting to keep Armitage out of the story, I think I can push back credibly against this:

Since Richard Armitage was in the State Department and not known as a vigorous war advocate, he does not fit well into the story line about a brutal Cheney-led conspiracy.

He may not fit well into the story line as part of the brutal Cheney-led conspiracy, but he fits perfectly alongside it. There was a lot going on in spring-summer 2003: a brutal Cheney-led conspiracy, a complex State Department move to agree with Wilson on the substance while distancing themselves from his attacks on the White House, and so on. State Department efforts and OVP-White House efforts intersected in the unfortunate person of Robert Novak. There's a longer version, but that's the idea.

Brutal Cheney-led conspiracy saved.

[Tom Maguire]

Perhaps you should read Clemons' post again.

He specifically states that Armitage is not in any danger of being indicted.

Perhaps you should read my post, or even follow the links - yesterday, Clemons reported that Inman said Armitage was in legal peril. Today, Clemons has rebuttals. Too quick a pace for you? Little words like "pushback" were meant to provide a hint.

And despite your use of quotes, he never claims that Armitage is "in the crosshairs".

Excellent point - he said 'bul's eye", *yesterday*:

What Inman shared with some of us -- and this was a repeated assertion from comments that I have confirmed that he made in Austin -- is that the person in Patrick Fitzgerald's bull's eye is Richard Armitage.

Well, I have made the appropriate changes.

Are you bucking for a byline at the Times or what?

Don't you have a diary at Kos you should be updating?

[Sue]

Before the Libby indictment, Powerline gave us a head's up that indictments were coming. NYTs had a story the night before. National Review had rumors. In intelligence lingo...the lights were flashing red that an indictment was about to be announced.

No indictment announced today, but I'm sure it could be the indictment was handed down today.

[Kate]

No indictment was handed down today. No Fitz sightings, people are not even sure the GJ met.

[Jim E.]

TalkLeft, relying on a personal e-mail sent by Rove's spokesperson, says that the GJ didn't meet today.

Sue,
The Libby indictment was a totally different dynamic. That Friday was the very last day of the GJ, so everyone and their grandmother knew that Fitz was going to indict someone or no one. Plus, by evening, Rove's team was already leaking that he was in the clear because we now know Luskin was able to give Fitz "pause" on indicting Rove. That's why Drudge and the NY Times already had stories the night before. No one knew that Libby would be the only one, but there were indications that someone would be indicted. But there's no deadline on this GJ, just rumors. Hence, the (false) predictions almost every dang Wed and Fri.

[paul]

Does this mean this weekend is a 'Fitzmas' redux?

[JM Hanes]

Sue

If the indictment isn't dated May 12, Leopold should be royally screwed. I say "should be" advisedly. As Jeff has so ably demonstrated above, you can spin absolutely anything to make it look like the White House crowd are the bad guys, when you've got a pet theory you want to hang onto.

[Kate]

Also, this GJ is a regular GJ and it meets on many different cases, not just the leak. So many times they could be meeting and not discussing the leak case at all.

However, I do believe there would be signals, like Fitz sightings for several sessions, stories in the Times that Fitz has made a decision. Some activity with this GJ that is Plame case related, like another witness.

[JM Hanes]

paul

Building on the "Fitzfizzle" offered up by Rick in the previous thread, I'd go for:

Fitzzle!

[Epphan]

...everyone and their grandmother knew that Fitz was going to indict someone or no one.

Jim:
I'm wagering $5 that today, Fitz will either indict someone or no one.

[Jane]

A journalism professor, posted the following at a site I frequent.

Next time you wonder why our journalists are so horrid, think of this:

Karl Rove Indicted?

Jason Leopold and Truthout take on Rove and the White House

May 19 2006
Counterbias.com
by Josha Frank

Jason Leopold should be used to it. He*s been the target of media
assaults for years now, really ever since he began breaking stories
about Enron*s fiascos and the California energy crisis as a writer for
Dow Jones Newswire. If you don*t know who I am talking about, well
then you*ve probably been hiding under a rock for the last week.

Leopold wrote a story last weekend for Truthout.org, which stated that
Karl Rove was served an indictment on Friday, May 12. And since his
uncorroborated revelation (which he says was backed by five inside
sources, and now more) he*s taken a fair share of beatings in the press.

Jason, who I consider a friend, has had a self-confessed *checkered*
past -- one his enemies and skeptics aren*t afraid to drag through the
mud to discredit his reports. He hasn*t only had tough bouts with his
journalism career, but with his life in general. In fact, he recently
wrote a fantastic memoir about it called News Junkie, which goes into
brutal detail about his intoxicated past and the harrowing defeats
that followed. He lied his way into a job with the LA Times, and
ripped off a major New York record company tens of thousands of
dollars to support a coke habit, and was caught (but never did time,
even though the Washington Post wrote as much). His critics call him a
fake, and his readers say he*s the real deal. Ultimately, time will
tell who's right and who's wrong.

Had Jason broke his latest story for the Wall Street Journal or New
York Times, it*s unlikely he*d be subject to the same ridicule. But
when an independent writer gets a major scoop before anybody in the
mainstream major media does, animosity is sure to follow. And that*s
why the outcome of this saga will either legitimize independent media,
or devastate it.

As of this writing, no media outlet has publicly corroborated what
Jason says went down late last Friday. As he wrote on Saturday, May
13, *Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day
Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl
Rove * served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff
Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House
official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role
in the CIA leak case**

Both Rove*s spokesperson and his lawyer deny that any such meeting
took place. Fitzgerald won*t comment.

Most who have already passed judgment on Jason*s lonely story think
he*s a) lying, b) gullible, or c) absolutely correct. Truthout, for
their part, is standing behind his story, saying they*ve even been
*contacted by at least three reporters from mainstream media - network
level organizations - who shared with us off-the-record confirmation
and moral support.*

Willy-nilly publications would most likely have yanked the story by
now, but William Rivers Pitt and the rest of the Truthout gang, to
their credit, believe in their boy. They are willing to take the heat
if it ends up being false. But, you don*t publish something you aren*t
willing to get behind, especially if it*s as weighty as what Jason
wrote about Rove going down. And Jason, like Truthout, isn*t backing down.

*I am amazed that the blogosphere would lend credence to the
statements of people who have consistently lied about Rove*s role in
this case. This is a White House that denied Rove*s involvement in the
leak. This is a White House that has lied and lied and lied,* Leopold
says.

*And yet the first question that people ask is *why would Rove*s
spokesman lie?* Because they can, because they do, and because they
have. This is an administration that has attacked and discredited
their detractors. I am amazed that not a single reporter would
actually do any real investigative work and get to the bottom of this
story. Surely, there must be another intrepid reporter out there that
has sources beyond a spokesman.*

Jason is right, Rove*s spokesperson Mark Corallo has indeed lied before.

*There has been no talk of resignation. The Republican Conference is
solidly behind the Louisiana Republican (Bob Livingstone)." That*s
Mark Corallo on December 17, 1998.

Two days later on December 19, 1998...

Bob Livingston bows out of the speakership making an announcement on
House floor. Corallo knew well in advance.

When push comes to shove, it is Jason*s and Truthout*s word against
the lying sacks of shit hiding out on Pennsylvania Ave. We*ll find out
soon enough if Truthout will have to change its name and Leopold his
career. In the meantime, let*s hope Karl Rove is the one that will
have to go looking for a new job.

[Barney Frank]

".....a brutal Cheney led conspiracy."

JL is now reporting that several annoying and clearly intoxicated anonymous sources have confirmed that Cheney has already been indicted for hiring the Pirahna Brothers to nail Joe Wilson's head to the floor.

[paul]

Along the lines of bogus journalists-

The USA Today story about phone companies turning over records to the Feds...might not be true.

This has the potential to be the Rathergate of USA Today.

[clarice]

If the author of that, Jane, is a journalism professor, it explains a great deal about public contempt for the press and the ski slope revenue charts of the MSM.

[Specter]

Don't know if you missed it, but tonight I am playing "Who Am I?" at TO. Even though Marc Ash banned me, and apparently anyone trying to set up an account with a yahoo email address, I did not play nice an pulled a "hiltzik" on him. I suspect I will be banned again soon. But Friday night fun....(note that I don't write as well as soylent so this is my contribution to the fun.)

[noah]

Jeff, you have admirers here for your command of the facts if not your conclusions.

Your conclusion that the Plame affair represents a "brutal Cheney-led conspiracy" is not supported by the "facts". Hence my characterization of you as a lunatic retard is justified altho perhaps a bit off the mark...how about "BDS deranged lunatic"? Redundant perhaps but what the heck?

[Major John]

Jane, are you saying that the claim that Rove was indicted a week ago is true? A week ago and nothing has happened?
Granted, I was only an Assistant State's Attorney, not a District Attorney - but even our slow system got things moving along faster than that...I wonder

[Jane]

Clarice,

Not the author, the person who posted the piece -which she posted because she subscibes to the notion. Her apparent lack of understanding of journalistic ethics (which btw she *says* she teaches) are only matched by her sense of smug superiority.

[Sue]

JM,

They have already begun spinning. Jason was had. Set up. Lied to. Not Jason's fault. Never Jason's fault.

[clarice]

I think there is no need for personal attacks on Jeff or anyone who posts sincerely and not to be nasty or disruptive. Flinging crap like that destroys a board faster than anything as it escalates and drives out more civil posters.

[Specter]

Too late....banned already. Do you think the name "Truthnotout" had something to do with it? LOL

[Cecil Turner]

Oh, stop - Armitage did not even mention to Special Counsel Fitzgerald his leak to Woodward until after Libby's indictment was handed down. How honest was that?

That assumes:
1. Fitz asked; and
2. Armitage dissembled (as opposed to an honest, but possibly incorrect, answer).

Since these events appear to be independent, the probability of both happening is the product of their individual probabilities. I'm not willing to speculate that either probabilitiy is above .5, and certainly not the product. I'd go easy on calling him a liar based on that evidence.

BTW, you can share some of the blame for the miquote with Clemons, since "in Patrick Fitzgerald's bull's eye" is inapt.

[Barney Frank]

noah,

Jeff was only using TM's "brutal Cheney-led conspiracy' phrase.

[Jane]

Major John said: Jane, are you saying that the claim that Rove was indicted a week ago is true?

Not unless I'm suddenly in an alternate universe. I posted what the moonbats are spouting now that it is 4:30 DC time.

I can't wait to see good ol' Jason's sources!

[PeterUK]

PHUtzzz.
A journalism professor who cannot write.

[JM Hanes]

Jane

ROTFLMAO! I love the part about dragging Leopold's checkered past through the mud to discredit him! When I got to "the outcome of this saga will either legitimize independent media, or devastate it," the word sockpocket, among others, suddenly came to mind. "We*ll find out soon enough if Truthout will have to change its name and Leopold his career." We found out! Unfortunately, Leopold has already tried the name changing routine, on multiple occasions, and it hasn't worked out so well. Ditto on the career moving front. Looks like he's reduced to mud all over again.

[clarice]

It's clear to me *sound of black helicopter blades overhead* that this was a Rovian plot to try to destroy the credibility of a talented truth seeker and his truthiness band. (Where's Soylent?)

[PeterUK]

There does seem to be an emanation of the old witchfinders from the left.If she sinks and drowns she is innocent,if she floats she is a witch.What was that ordure about progressives?

[Kate]

The real mystery, did Leopold just make it up or did his sources just get desperate and go to far.

[Tom Maguire]

I'm not willing to speculate that either probabilitiy is above .5, and certainly not the product. I'd go easy on calling him a liar based on that evidence.

Well, I am not sure I am calling him a liar. I questioned his honesty, in the sense of being forthcoming with the truth. Just because Fitzgerald did not ask, it does not follow that a complete straight shooter would keep quiet.

Jeff - I agree the revised conspiracy version has a Cheney led piggy-backing off of Armitage's innocent ramblings.

Which may be what happened, but it is a harder story to tell - somehow, folks are supposed to understand that when Armitage says, "I didn't know the leak was a big deal", that is plausible but when Rove or Libby say the same thing, we know they are lying.

This story can be sliced several ways:

(1) A Grand Conspiracy prior to Novak, led by Cheney, to punish Wilson by outing his wife.

(2) The small Conspiracy to cover up an apparent screw-up, cobbled together after the fact.

(3) Nothing at all.

(4) Various CIA / State conspiracies to get the WH.

(2) might be in play; (1) seems out of reach, to me anyway.

[JM Hanes]

Friday Night Field Trip, anyone? Surely someone will want to take up the flag that Specter has advanced so bravely on his own recognizance! Unfortunately, I am compelled to serve my time out in the garden till the sun falls below the yardarm, which would be my arm in this instance, alas.

[sad]

TM
Cheney is the dark master, the evil overlord!!! A conspiracy led by him would have been so successful that we wouldn't even know the name "joe wilson." In fact, if the legends are more than just myth, Joe Wilson would already have disappeared without a trace into adult ****.

[Cecil Turner]

Just because Fitzgerald did not ask, it does not follow that a complete straight shooter would keep quiet.

I'm not sure I'd volunteer information to a gj, especially this one. And I'm guessing Fitz's sights were set on the leak to Novak. The subject may never have come up (or he may have simply forgotten). The later transcripts suggest [admittedly not very definitively] Fitz isn't exercised about it, which you'd expect if he'd misled him.

I'm not saying it's terribly improbable, but I am suggesting it's a long way from proven.

[PeterUK]

"(1) A Grand Conspiracy prior to Novak, led by Cheney, to punish Wilson by outing his wife."

..and how exactly was this a punishment? Again one of the immutable "givens" of this case which makes absolutely no sense.
A "brutal Cheney led pushback" would have had her skulking around Natanz and Arak in a burqa.

[sad]

Wow!! I was told if I revealed any of "the Legend" my computer would self-destruct in 5 minutes.

[Tom Maguire]

A conspiracy led by him would have been so successful that we wouldn't even know the name "joe wilson."

Just ask Jimmy Hoffa.

[sad]

TM

What's going to happen to your computer???????????????? Avert your eyes, it will be too awful to watch!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dwilkers]

Its 5pm eastern on the Friday after the Leopold story.

Where's is the indictment?

Or where's the story spilling the beans about the sources?

[Cecil Turner]

Jeff - I agree the revised conspiracy version has a Cheney led piggy-backing off of Armitage's innocent ramblings.

I'd suggest the VP's marginal notes make this one hard to swallow. If he was in fact asking questions on or after July 6th about her involvement in the trip, whilst the NIE declassification was nearly complete, it certainly suggests she was at best an afterthought to any evil pushback scheme. And since she was the only evil part of the pushback . . . well, the whole thing doesn't make a lot of sense.

[Chants]

Jeff,

You may be onto something, but your argument to save the Cheney conspiracy appears to look like you're begging the guestion.

Your first premise assumes the truth of the Cheney conspiracy.

Your second premise states that State was involved in a "complex move" to agree with Wilson while distancing themselves from his White House attacks.

Conclusion: Cheney Conspiracy saved!

This may better explain the intersection of interests more clearly:

Joe Wilson made State look incompetent for either not telling the WH about Joe Wilson's so called "findings" or, given the symetry between his and State's position on the yellow-cake issue, made it look like it was in on the negative press. The first place the WH looked for answers, therefore, was State.

State, feeling not a little bit of heat, had to make it look like Joe's niger investigation was a joke, a redundancy, an incompetent make-work project devised by his wife which no one took seriously, and therefore was not widely circulated.

State comes back with the answer: Yeah, Joe went on this trip and what a hoot it was. And here is the punchline! Bottom line, though, is that he did not discover anything we didn't already share with you in spades. His claim that you ignored his yellow-cake findings is therefore BS. He made no real findings as far as we can tell. Seems like he may be trying to triangulate us by criticizing you with our intelligence. But we're loyal, Boss.

Thus, both State and the WH had a motive to punish Wilson and the wife angle was just too juicy to pass up.

Is that more or less the intersection of interests you're trying to explain, Jeff?

[Gary Maxwell]

Well well well. No great pumpkin again. Not even bothering to move the broken and in great disrepair goal posts again. How can you out sources when your sources are totally inside your own head?

[sad]

Cecil

You are forgetting that Cheney knows all and sees all. He used to work for Halliburton you know. Furthermore, Karl Rove keeps a file on every person in the US and listens to all of their phone calls, although I've heard that sometimes Cheney pitches in to help. At any rate, that takes care of the theory that Cheney coudn't know.

[clarice]

You know how I know no one deliberately outed a covert agent? Given the fact that nothing gets published faster than classified information, if anyone in the WH had said Plame was a covert agent, the NYT would've publicly blown her cover in minutes after receiving that tidbit.

[sad]

Bingo, Clarice!

[PeterUK]

Loophole was just flying a kite,if there had been and indictment within his timeframe he would have been a hero,if it doesn't come off he could rely on the paranoid victimology of his supporters.Par for the course in this circus of the demented.

[Beto Ochoa]

How can someone wind up in the crosshairs of a Brutal Cheney-led conspiracy?
It certainly seems to pay well.

[Jeff]

Tom - I actually think there was a tightly focused version of (1), with Cheney and Libby as the key actors, and Miller as the target. What did Libby know that his prime target was on double super secret probation at the Times. So it didn't work. Doesn't mean Armitage wasn't also speaking out of turn and - if you ask me - expressing animosity toward Wilson by talking smack about him and his wife. (2) I think really happened. And (4) has an element of truth, at least if 1 in 1x2x6 is one of the top State guys - State effectively deflected attention away from Armitage and toward the White House with 1x2x6 in the fall of 2003.

[noah]

Cheney reads Wilson's Op-Ed and decides the WH needs to push back and proceeds to do so thru the efforts of Rove and Libby with the approval of Bush (presumably). This is brutal? No. This a conspiracy? No. Then Armitage and Rove leak to Novak about the relevant fact that Wilson's trip was arranged by his wife. Brutal? No. Conspiracy? Rove and Armitage were conspiring to tell the truth? LOL!

[Beto Ochoa]

Fitz just released a statement saying his dog ate the Rove indictment.

[noah]

Its too bad that Tony Snow wasn't on the job back then...he would have laughed Joe Wilson off the stage!

[Rick Ballard]

Beto,

They better rush the dog over to Without Truth so that they get first shot at more straight poop. They're real wizards with that sort of information.

[Seixon]

I will shamelessly drop off my conspiracy involving Cheney again. Let's hope Leopold gets up off his floor some time soon and tells us all what we want to hear.

[clarice]

It's too bad that (a) the WH communications office didn't pay attention sooner to the Wilson gambit,(b) that Cheney sat around waiting for Tenet to give him relevant information and declassify the 2002 NIE,(c) that the president agreed to the appointment of a Special Counsel,(d) that Comey picked Fitz and went around the statutory provisions for a SC and (e) that Ashcroft didn't revoke Comey's unorthodox and I think unconstitutional appointment and tell him to pick again.

[PeterUK]

Beto,
"Fitz just released a statement saying his dog ate the Rove indictment."

This is more of a tragedy than you think,the indictment was in the cat.

[Chants]

and (f) agreed to retract the 16 words.

[sad]

Rick

I recently read that it was within the law to give a laxative to a perp who swallowed drugs in order to retrieve the plunder. Wonder if that applies to dogs as well? This is not a spoof it is the straight poop, so to speak.

[Sue]

Holey Moley!!! Wouldn't it suck if you were the person who had to search through the results of the laxative for the plunder!!!

[PeterUK]

Plunder the Wonder Dog.

[sad]

Sue

Sounds like a job for an illegal immigrant- you know, those who do the jobs Americans won't do!!

[Sue]

Okay, seriously folks, I would not do that job. ::grin::

[Lurker]

"The real mystery, did Leopold just make it up or did his sources just get desperate and go to far."

My guess would be that his sources tried another one of those VIPS tactics (e.g., with the strong intent of getting Rove, Bush, and Cheney out of the office before their terms were up).

If Fitz wanted to open up his mind, then this Leopold story might have helped up understand this conspiracy theory a bit better.

Who knows!

[noah]

Maybe it was eaten by that hybrid wished for by Homer Simpson: "As clean as a dog and as loyal as a cat!"

[topescretk9]

Still no confirmation on Joe Wilson's week old story?

[clarice]

Chants--Yes, that is an important addition.

[topescretk9]

make that "weak"old story

[Lurker]

No wonder Colin Powell decided to get (or pushed) out.

[Lurker]

BTW, Seixon, verner made some excellent posts at your site.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

I was doing a quick run through of my Bloglines RSS feed blogs and made a stop at Protein Wisdom, one of my favorites. You all must get your good laugh for the day and go see what Jeff Goldstein has to say on the pending Rove indictment predicted for today at:

Breaking: Latest word on Karl Rove indictment

[SteveMG]

Great line by Jack Shafer describing Howell Raines' self-serving description of the NY Time prior to his (Raine's arrival):

"I haven't observed this kind of self-service up close since the last time I pumped my own gas."

Raines was on the local radio yesterday (down here in Alabama) promoting his autobiography and the man certainly has quite an ego.

Gaseous indeed. Hook up a pipe to him and the price of gas would easily drop a buck overnight.

SMG

[Barney Frank]

Jeff,
Is it plausible that Cheney and Libby are so stupid that they would engage in a conspiracy to punish Wilson by outing his wife and do so by Libby personlly informing reporters, some of whom were none too friendly toward the administration? If they were engaged in TM's number 1 above would they not just anonymously point reporters to this super secret tid bit rather than personally relating the tid bit? Do people engage in conspiracies with name tags that read "Hi I'm Scooter, I know the names of secret agents. Go ahead ask me some."

[clarice]

Invite them into the office..Leave the file --Mark it in big red letters "Joe Wilson")on your desk, get a confederate to call you out of the meeting for a few minutes.
That's how the devious do it..(Don't ask how I know)

[Patton]

Absolutley Barney..

It would have been very easy to send anonymous e-mails or faxes to all the networks/reporters telling them...Wilsons a liar, his wife, the CIA employee sent him on a junket.

They of course would follow up and it would be untraceable.

The reporters could have been taping him as well.

[verner]

Thanks Lurker,

And I will just add, if you want to know why the usual suspects are so very upset that Armitage at State might have a role in all this, just read this transcript of Mel Goodman's interview with Amy Goodman at Democracynow in October 2005 before Libby's indictment.

Having Armitage involved completely debunks their little disinformation campaign that it was in reality a supra government cabal, involving half a dozen players, anc centered around Cheney:

http://www.democracynow.org/print.pl?sid=05/10/25/1412248

I must say, when ole Mel talks about Soviet type tricks, I have to chuckle. This coming from a Soviet expert at the CIA who had not a clue that the evil empire was on the brink of collapse.

[clarice]

verner, You are soooo good! But, of course, we rather knew that didn't we? Novak said his source was "not partisan gunslinger", that it wasn't Libby or Rove, and yet the Cheney conspiracy theory rolled on..

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Fox is reporting that Senator Reid called those who voted for the English as the Official language bill racist and that Senator Eliz. Dole wrote him a letter demanding an apology for calling 2/3 of the Senate racist. Seems about right. HA HA ... Reid responds to the Liddy Dole letter with: "it is all a plot by Karl Rove." (rolling eyes, shaking head)

[Rick Ballard]

In the best of all possible worlds, Wilson's OpEd would not have been printed because someone with a brain larger than a gnats would have taken a hint from Miller that Wilson was not what he seemed to be. That presupposes that the NYT is other than a Dem Party propaganda organ and I can furnish no proof to that assertion. The June 23 meeting may have been a quiet attempt at just such a heads up.

The July 6 trifecta clarified the fact that the MSM was going to run with Joe's lies regardless of the background so a stronger response was indicated. I'm curious as to when Armitage first spouted and even more curious as to whom. I doubt that it was just reporters because Armitage is enough of a pro to give the information to people who would feed reporters rather than just grab a Rolodex and start dialing the press pimps.

[PeterUK]

Exactly Barney,
Big organisations have people who do this,a casual word dropped over lunch or drinks.The usual way is to hint that x is unstable,not a team player,has personal problems,psychological shortcomings whatever.It is obvious that Cheney,Rove and Libby are too "old a dog(s)" to touch this themselves.
These things can be done by underling on their own initiative,there is a story of Lenin putting ticks next to a list of names,his minions did not know what that signified and were to frightened to ask...so they had them all shot.

[Lurker]

"Invite them into the office..Leave the file --Mark it in big red letters "Joe Wilson")on your desk, get a confederate to call you out of the meeting for a few minutes.
That's how the devious do it..(Don't ask how I know)"

Ha! You're watching one too many thriller movies!

[clarice]

Same thing about Reid's claim that the wall was a right wing ploy. http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008402#wing> giant right wing

[PeterUK]

“ This is nothing more than the continuation of politics by other means.”to paraphrase Karl von Clausewitz

[clarice]

Only a moron would believe an investigation like this one could find the source(s) of a true tale of such a well-known couple. As to date..Woodward says mid-June which is a problem, of course, for "the first to leak" theme--(The only reason the JM "bafflegab conversation with Libby which she has already undercut twice in after testimony reports) IMO was to find a pre-Novak UGO conversation.

[Lurker]

Is there a relationship between Amy Goodman and Melvin Goodman?

[Lurker]

And how many "Bush League Diplomacy: How the Neoconservatives Are Putting the World at Risk." books have sold to date?

[Lurker]

"It's about that more than it is leaks and sources and even Valerie Plame's identity. It's about how we went to war."

Guess Melvin Goodman had a far better understanding than Judge Walton....

[RHSwan]

Regarding those who said Rove would be indicted on May 19, did they say what year?

[Dwilkers]

On reflection it is amazing.

That so much time, money and energy could be spent on a conspiracy that wasn't, to out a covert agent that wasn't, to defend lies that weren't, against a whistleblower that was a liar.

All over a few lines in an opinion column by a gadfly like Bob Novak.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'They have already begun spinning. Jason was had. Set up. Lied to. Not Jason's fault. Never Jason's fault.'

That's always been Jason's story. Remember the time the Ruthless Right-wing Republican Attack Mag, Salon (RRRAMS), set him up over Thomas White? Here's his version:

------quote-----
[NY Times media columnist] Ballinger claimed she had spoken to several news organizations I had written stories for during the past six months and that none of them would work with me again.

What did I do? How could this be? ... I truly thought I was being set up. Why? I don't know...

...This clearly became an issue for the Times to pursue a salacious story about me rather than pursue the story itself, which is Thomas White....

The story the Times wrote about me was nothing more than a way to ensure I never work again as a journalist... [Carr] was going to do a hatchet job on me no matter what....

... Worst of all, Carr, whose story on me was about my so-called track record with printing corrections got my title wrong. He said I was a Los Angeles correspondent for Dow Jones. I was, in fact, the Los Angeles bureau chief. I managed three reporters. Carr, not suprisingly, won't print a correction
--------endquote--------

And: 'Lastly, all I can say about Salon is that they are LIARS. Plain and simple. Everything they said in that letter contains lies.'

[PeterUK]

Perhaps Loophole,should have kept this quiet,after all,if even the NYT notices....

[Lurker]

"It's about that more than it is leaks and sources and even Valerie Plame's identity. It's about how we went to war."

Guess Melvin Goodman had a far better understanding than Judge Walton....

[Patton]

Bush: OK, here's the plan...we are going to break the law and out a covert CIA agent to punish this Wilson guy...so let's get our two tops aides that we would hate to lose tell the classified information face to face with reporters.

And here's the thing..we will leaker it to one report from the NYT whose company published the Wilson op-ed and therefore had good reason to defend him and we will leak to a left wing journalist who's married to a Hilliary Clinton aide.

No, we don't want some low level guy to do this that we can fire if anyone finds out, but our top people, I want them jailed if it blows up in our faces.

Everyone: Great Plan Mr. President, great idea.

And Fitz bought it lock stock and barrel.

[Other Tom]

Cecil: The probability that Armitage was asked a question that would have required his disclosing his conversation with Woodward is no greater than 0.5? I would place it at around 0.99, unless this prosecution team is inept beyond my imagination. In an investigation purportedly into the question of a leak of information, do you really think any member of the executive branch, upon being examined under oath, would not be asked, "Did you ever discuss Ms. Plame's status with anyone who was not authorized to receive that information?" I think every associate in every litigation department in America would have that question somewhere on page 1 of the interrogation outline.

[ghostcat]

"It's just a mess for everyone involved."

- Andrea Mitchell 12/02/05

[clarice]

Pastton, very good.
Other T , I'm with Cecil on those odds..because looking at all the publicly available info about the investigation I think it began with a fixed idea from which there never was a departure. And I can think of only 2 reasons for Armitage to have refused Woodward's request to release him to speak to Fitz(1) he was never asked and didn't want to be enmeshed in this or (2) he was asked and lied.
If (2), I'd be interested to know why he hasn't been indicted.

[Specter]

Just in from TO:

That is why I'm so pissed. I sourced the Friday 12th article in a discussion because I figured there was no way TO would put it out if it wasn't solid. I was wrong. All this backpedalling and spinning makes me sick. TO made a mistake. Stop the denial because it makes us all look like idiots. Own up to your mistake and move on. The longer this is strung out the more damage it does.

by a non mouse on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 03:42:00 PM EDT

From one of their own.

[clarice]

Specter, I take it non mouse will soon join you in the Village of the Banned.

[ghostcat]

Clarice -

1(a)He was just the only one standing between Fitz and Powell, and wasn't about to fold.

[Lurker]

What was Armitage's position regarding the war against Iraq? I see that he is (was?) a member of that project for the new century organization.

So why would Armitage "leak" Plame's identity to these newsreporters? To quelch the efforts by the VIPSer in getting the indictments, impeachments, etc., that they want?