The 'Hubris' Of Richard Armitage

Newsweek sneak previews an upcoming Isikoff/Corn book confirming the non-news that then-deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was Bob Novak's primary source for the Plame leak.  We certainly believe Armitgae was Novak's primary source for the Plame leak; the rest of his story we are taking with multiple grains of salt:

In the early morning of Oct. 1, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell received an urgent phone call from his No. 2 at the State Department. Richard Armitage was clearly agitated. As recounted in a new book, "Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War" Armitage had been at home reading the newspaper and had come across a column by journalist Robert Novak. Months earlier, Novak had caused a huge stir when he revealed that Valerie Plame, wife of Iraq-war critic Joseph Wilson, was a CIA officer. Ever since, Washington had been trying to find out who leaked the information to Novak. The columnist himself had kept quiet. But now, in a second column, Novak provided a tantalizing clue: his primary source, he wrote, was a "senior administration official" who was "not a partisan gunslinger." Armitage was shaken. After reading the column, he knew immediately who the leaker was. On the phone with Powell that morning, Armitage was "in deep distress," says a source directly familiar with the conversation who asked not to be identified because of legal sensitivities. "I'm sure he's talking about me."

David Corn has more at his blog:

One mystery solved.

It was Richard Armitage, when he was deputy secretary of state in July 2003, who first disclosed to conservative columnist Robert Novak that the wife of former ambassador Joseph Wilson was a CIA employee.

A Newsweek article--based on the new book I cowrote with Newsweek correspondent Michael Isikoff, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal and the Selling of the Iraq War--discloses that Armitage passed this classified information to Novak during a July 8, 2003 interview. Though Armitage's role as Novak's primary source has been a subject of speculation, the case is now closed. Our sources for this are three government officials who spoke to us confidentially and who had direct knowledge of Armitage's conversation with Novak. Carl Ford Jr., who was head of the State Department's intelligence branch at the time, told us--on the record--that after Armitage testified before the grand jury investigating the leak case, he told Ford, "I'm afraid I may be the guy that caused the whole thing."

Well - one mystery solved, other mysteries unresolved.

First, let's note that the outline of Armitage's story (he had no idea he was Novak's source until he read an Oct 1 Novak column, after which he huddled with Colin Powell and the State Department counsel and then called the FBI to apprise them of his role) merits a bit of skepticism.

Keep in mind - Armitage "forgot" to tell Special Counsel Fitzgerald about his leak to Bob Woodward until after the Libby indictment in Oct 2005, even though Woodward asked him for permission to move with a story during 2004.

Can anyone think of a motive for that?  Well, by waiting until after the indictment, Armitage got a pretty good idea of the evidence gathered by Fitzgerald and the testimony provided by other reporters.  And why might he care?  *MAYBE* there were other reporters also protecting Armitage. 

Just for example, Judy Miller spent months in jail resisting her subpoena from Fitzgerald until she had assurance that Fitzgerald would only grill her about her interactions with I. Lewis Libby.  Having received that assurance, Ms. Miller then produced notebooks strongly suggesting she had discussed "Valerie Flame" with other; alas, her memory failed as to who that might have been.

However, Ms. Miller has plenty of by-lined stories with State Department sources, and both she and Mr. Armitage were members of the Aspen Institute (he is still with the Aspen Strategy Group).  Is it possible that Mr. Armitage has *still* forgotten to mention to Special Counsel Fitzgerald that he leaked to Ms. Miller?

Or from another tack - per the Newsweek story, Armitage learned about Ms. Plame from the famous INR memo, which did not mention her undercover background and named her as Valerie Wilson.

But Armitages's biography strongly suggest an intel background, so it seems fair to guess he had contacts in the intel community.

And by uncanny coincidence, Robert Grenier, a top CIA official who was heading the Iraq Issue group at the time, had a chat with Lewis Libby.  This is from the indictment:

7. On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA [later revealed to be Grenier] to ask about the origin and circumstances of Wilson's trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.

I don't think that Grenier was relying on the INR memo for the news that "Wilson's wife... was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip".  But I do think that Grenier, as a top CIA guy, was a bureaucratically appropriate contact for a chap like Armitage.  As a bonus, since he had been with the CIA forever I bet that Grenier met Ms. Plame back when she *was* Ms. Plame, and remembered her by that name rather than her more recent married name.

Just speculation, of course.  But I bet that the Armitage story on display here is only the first fallback - at no other point in this story has he been candid or forthcoming about his role and I doubt he was in October 2003 (did he mention his Woodward chat to Powell, and did Powell urge a cover-up of that?  I doubt it.)

Last bit of speculation - if (I say *IF*) the "Plame" name came to Novak via Armitage and Grenier, where did "Operative" come from in Novak's famous column?

Good question, and let me ask another - where did Andrea Mitchell get "operative" in her July 8, 2003 report?  She attributes it to CIA sources in a story about who might get blamed for allowing the "16 Words" into the State of the union address:

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.

That jibes with Tenet's official statement a few days later:

In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, CIA's counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn.

Emphasis added, or, in other words, don't blame us top guys for that Wilson trip - we had no idea what the underlings were up to.

So where did "operative" come from?  Andrea Mitchell cites CIA sources, and her report certainly reads like high level CYA from the CIA.  Reuters had something similar the same day:

A U.S. intelligence official said [Joseph] Wilson was sent to investigate the Niger reports by mid-level CIA officers, not by top-level Bush administration officials. There is no record of his report being flagged to top level officials, the intelligence official said.

Was Reuter's "intelligence official" with the CIA, as per Andrea Mitchell, or did Reuters have a different source?  Did Novak share a source with Andrea Mitchell, or catch her on the news, or via Lexis?  My impression is that reporters are not avid users of footnotes.

Well.  Bob Novak has not convinced us yet, although his latest story was that he got the "Plame" name from Who's Who.  Maybe Armitage will have some answers.

MORE:  Links to follow, sorry.  And I want to rattle on about the One x Two x Six link eventually.

BUTTER WOULDN'T MELT IN HIS MOUTH: I love this from David Corn:

When Armitage testified before the Iran-contra grand jury many years earlier, he had described himself as "a terrible gossip." Iran-contra independent counsel Lawrence Walsh subsequently accused him of providing "false testimony" to investigators but said that he could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Armitage's misstatements had been "deliberate."

I believe Armitage leaked to Novak, all right; I just don't believe a whole lot else about his story.

I NEED SOME HELP HERE:  David Corn tries to rationalize the notion that the Armitage leak reflects White House machinations.  OK, it is a stretch, but I think he also advances his case by making stuff up:

The Armitage leak was not directly a part of the White House's fierce anti-Wilson crusade. But as Hubris notes, it was, in a way, linked to the White House effort, for Amitage had been sent a key memo about Wilson's trip that referred to his wife and her CIA connection, and this memo had been written, according to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, at the request of I. Lewis Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff. Libby had asked for the memo because he was looking to protect his boss from the mounting criticism that Bush and Cheney had misrepresented the WMD intelligence to garner public support for the invasion of Iraq.

The memo included information on Valerie Wilson's role in a meeting at the CIA that led to her husband's trip. This critical memo was--as Hubris discloses--based on notes that were not accurate. (You're going to have to read the book for more on this.) But because of Libby's request, a memo did circulate among State Department officials, including Armitage, that briefly mentioned Wilson's wife.

Is Corn trying to tell us that there are *two* memos, the one requested by Libby and the famous INR memo (.pdf) that circulated within State?

And what does Corn mean by "this memo had been written, according to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, at the request of I. Lewis Scooter Libby"?  What is the source for that?  Per the indictment, Libby was advised orally about the memo, but apparently did not get a copy:

6. On or about June 11 or 12, 2003, the Under Secretary of State orally advised LIBBY in the White House that, in sum and substance, Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and that State Department personnel were saying that Wilson's wife was involved in the planning of his trip.

And although that was in the indictment, Libby disputed (p. 5 of 29) that the conversation occurred:

During his grand jury appearances, Mr. Libby testified that he did not recall any conversations with Mr. Grossman about Mr. Wilson’s wife. The defense is absolutely entitled to investigate whether the conversation alleged by Mr. Grossman actually occurred and to test Mr. Grossman’s memory and credibility about what he did or did not say to Mr. Libby at trial. Like every fact alleged in the indictment, the facts surrounding Mr. Grossman’s alleged conversation with Mr. Libby have not yet been established – they are in dispute.

Surely if the prosecution had a memo addressed to Libby on this topic, the defense would not be going down this road.  What am I missing here, or what is Corn going on about?  [TS9 opines that Corn is telling us that Marc Grossman of State asked for a memo because he needed answers for Libby; that is 'almost' like Libby asking for a memo, then, right?  Uh huh.

Let's summarize - Libby asked a lot of questions, thereby triggering a leak from Armitage.  Hmm, why not blame the inquiring press, or Joe Wilson himself for chatting with Pincus and Kristof?  Seems like there were lots of folks other than Libby that set Armitage in motion.]

KEEP HOPE ALIVE!  Corn is pretty funny here:

The outing of Armitage does change the contours of the leak case. The initial leaker was not plotting vengeance. He and Powell had not been gung-ho supporters of the war. Yet Bush backers cannot claim the leak was merely an innocent slip. Rove confirmed the classified information to Novak and then leaked it himself as part of an effort to undermine a White House critic.

"Rove confirmed the classified information to Novak"!  Well, yes, but did he know it was classified?  If so, how did he learn that?  C'mon, it's over - if Corn or Fitzgerald had any evidence that Rove knew of Ms. Plame's classified status, we would have heard it by now.

LET'S ASK AGAIN: Can Armitage keep his seat on McCain's Straight Talk Express?  Clarice Feldman notes that Sir Richard Armitage kept quiet and protected his own sorry situation while the Special Counsel probed hither and yon for two years.  Armitage could have let a lot of air out of the political balloon a long time ago.

Bob Novak was right on "Meet The Press" today when he said that "I believe that the time has way passed for my source to identify himself".

WHAT DID COLIN POWELL KNOW and when did he know it?  One of the requests by the Libby defense team (p. 19 of 39) was for

Any notes from the September 2003 meeting in the Situation Room at which Colin Powell is reported to have said that (a) everyone knows that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that (b) it was Mr. Wilson’s wife who suggested that the CIA send her husband on a mission to Niger.

September still precedes October, yes?  And Colin Powell was asking about the Plame question in the Situation Room, if this is accurate.  But he never asked Armitage about her before October 1?

Or if Powell did discuss the Plame leak with Armitage, what did Armitage tell him, back in September before his memory was jogged?

Let me hat tip TS9 for a very good question.  Now, IIRC, the prosecution had no notes that were responsive to this request, but I welcome clarification and a memory jog of my own.

BYRON YORK WONDERS WHAT AN "AGGRESSIVE" INVESTIGATION LOOKS LIKE:

And Fitzgerald "aggressively investigated" Armitage?  Did he have the Armitage calendars from June 2003, recently obtained via the Freedom of Information Act by the Associated Press, showing that Armitage had met with Bob Woodward during that time?  If so, why was the aggressive investigator surprised when Woodward came forward to reveal that he, too, had been told about Plame?

Comments

[Clarice]

Actually, after a number of ACLU cases in recent decades I think mopery is rarely used any more. It's been replaced by obstruction and conspiracy charges..the vaguer and the more in the indictment, the better. I believe in the WTC bombing case Fitz began with 126 of these until the Court forved him down to 26.(Try and defend on that crap.)

[clarice]

Even the NRO'ers are giving it to Andy--not quite hard enough, but still.
Here's JP:
"Re; Friends in High Places [John Podhoretz]

Andy, the "I know Pat Fitzgerald" line doesn't hold. I mean, I know Scooter Libby well and think very highly of him, but I don't really think that is pertinent. I am familiar with the indictment and I know that he was charged solely with offenses relating to misleading federal investigators. And I still say the indictment is weak. Maybe that's because of things I know about myself. I mean, if you find it implausible that a man who spends 16 hours a day on 200 different issues did not have a crystal-clear recollection of the order of events and the nature of conversations he had months earlier, then I would like to introduce you to my brain. I know zillions of factoids that I can summon up at a moment's notice. But my wife informs me on a regular basis that we had conversations about which I have no memory whatsoever. She's right, I'm wrong and that is the way the mind can and does work.

Libby will have his day in court, and as I said, for all I know, Fitzgerald has stuff we haven't seen that will blow him out of the water. But Andy, though you suggest it's somehow Libby's backers who are giving a false picture of the Fitzgerald indictment, your beef lies with your friend Pat. It was Fitzgerald's choice to frame the indictment not in terms of what public officials should do when they are interviewed by the FBI, but rather in terms of the intelligence crime for which Fitzgerald could not summon an indictment.

"In July 2003," Fitzgerald said, "the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life. The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security."

That was how Fitzgerald began his press conference. He is the person who used the terminology of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 as the reason for the indictment of Scooter Libby. To say now that he was just trying to make it clear nobody should lie to a federal investigator just doesn't get it right. "

[flenser]

A question I have not seen raised yet;

Did Comey know about Armitage at the time he appointed Fitzgerald? If so, why make the appointment?

If not, was the information being kept from the people with the need to know?

Perhaps some crack journalists can ask a few questions.

[clarice]

As I understand it, Comey directed the investigation and certainly received all the reports on it before he appointed Fitzgerald.

[Laddy]

What galls me about McCarthy is that he posts and you can't even email him to comment about his posting. I've emailed JPod and a bunch of the others and have actually received replies. That's just one of the reasons The Corner is weak imo. I guess he has his head in the sand with respect to all the things unearthed about his friend and his manner of prosecution. That erroneous Cowles indictment was simply mindboggling and incompetent it would seem.

[clarice]

Blind folded and with a DC Bar page listing top criminal lawyers in this town in front of him, Comey could have picked a prosecutor who knew this town, how it works, and would have found someone with more judgement than the man he picked.
The day he was appointed he knew (a) there was no crime in revealing Plame's identity and (b) Armitage was the leaker and had no evil intent.
All it took was a modicum of courage to confront the media gaggle and say that they had bought a Corn-Kristof-Pincus-Wilson peddled lie.

[al ramey]

I believe the media is not only utterly reckless and self indulgent but by sparing no effort to figure in minute details who said what to whom the bigger picture is lost. The sin of revealing the identity of Ms. Plame is the incredible damage to the entity from which she was working-undercover. The costs of creating such an entity, developing a history and credibility with contacts and paper trail is enormously valuable asset for the defense of not only the U.S, but the entire world. This stupidity only shows what a bunch of clowns end up working at the State Department. Additionally, if we all agreed that there was something odd or even unethical about her suggesting that he opionated husband take that mission, this matter should have been handled discretely so that the entity would not be exposed. The rest is inside the beltway bunk.

[clarice]

She was working under cover? Really? Any cite? (Don['t bother looking up the indictment. Even the prosecutor with years of investigative work behind him made no such charge.)
The crime of the media was megaphoning Wilson's phony charges without investigation in order to damage an Administration they wanted to lose the net election.

[clarice]

**neXt election*******

[Jeff]

Tom

Regarding 1x2x6, did you catch the fact that back in July 2005, an article in the Post coauthored by Mike Allen - the only reporter to get a byline on both of the original Post stories quoting 1x2x6, the original September 28 story with Priest and then the October 12 story with Pincus - changed the identification of 1x2x6 from the earlier "administration official" or "senior administration official" to the perfectly consistent but much more precise "senior White House official"? The Post is generally pretty careful not to identify someone as being in the White House who is not; Allen presumably knows what he's talking about; no correction has been run on this point, though the story has received a different correction (on the photo caption) and despite the fact that abc's The Note picked up on this change big time if somewhat obscurely; other Plame stories have been corrected when they make an error of attribution (though, ironically, the example I am thinking of was a story by Leonnig that identified Pincus' source as being in the White House, then ran a correction to the effect that Pincus at that point had said that his source was an administration official, not a White House official, even though Pincus has now subsequently identified his source more specifically as a White House official).

The point is the very Post reporter who initially was involved in breaking the 1x2x6 story (and most likely the reporter who got it, since he's the one that both of the 2003 stories have in common) subsequently coauthored a report that identified 1x2x6 as a senior White House official. The only way i can imagine this is incorrect is if the Post was deliberately trying to misdirect attention away from the real source. But if so, why wouldn't they just leave the existing, vague attribution standing?

[boris]

All it took was a modicum of courage to confront the media gaggle and say that they had bought a Corn-Kristof-Pincus-Wilson peddled lie.

Fitz, like so many others bought it too. It still isn't a lie to them ... re jerry, jeff and many other seemingly rational ... well ...

[ordi]

Sir Richard the Faint-hearted Lion (or should it be LYING)

[larwyn]

Rick,
I like a combination of your
suggestions for our knight:

Sir Dick the Cravenheart

This excuse for a man deserves all the ridicule we can create. Bytes and bytes of it.

[JJ]

Directed at above, above, above, etc...

And if the Libby case is not dropped, won't it be fun listening to the Exhibits being expounded upon by Fitz?

[JJ]

...now

[Other Tom]

Is "mopery" perhaps being confused with the common-law crime of "lopery," defined as "lying in wait with the intent to commit buggery?" It would seem to be a nice way to tie a ribbon around this entire fiasco.

[MayBee]

Clarice: Even then she wouldn't talk until he limitd her testimony to Armitage. (Cutting her losses while protecting her big source, I think.)

Right. What I'm wondering is how he could justify it to us or to himself or to the investigation, knowing that Armitage had talked to at least one reporter? And knowing that Miller had spoken to other sources. Shouldn't he have been interested in other sources, even if he limited it to others he *knew* had discussed Plame publicly?

It seems like malfeasance to me.

[MayBee]

Jeff-
Ha! I love it that you found in The Note a hint about reporters in the WaPo adding what they've learned into stories and now it has become The Note hinting at *this* change.

And once again, you skip over all of the other changes in the 1x2x6 story (none of which received a correction either). Corrections in this story have been rare. Like everytime Plame is called a covert agent. That deserves a correction, but doesn't get it.

You know reporters are sloppier than that.
Besides, the 1x2x6 story itself requires a big correction.
There weren't 2.
There weren't 6.
And I have no idea who the 1 might be.

[sam]

08/27/06 Reuters: Bodies of two electricity workers found in Hafriya

08/27/06 MCT: Iraqis swapping houses in Baghdad to avoid sectarian violence

08/27/06 AP: 2 US soldiers killed in Iraq, US military says

08/27/06 Reuters: Car bombs and shootings kill 55 in Iraq

08/27/06 AP: Gunmen Kill 12, Wound 25 in Iraqi Market

08/27/06 WaPo: Protector of Iraq's antiquities resigns in face of massive looting

08/27/06 Centcom: MND-B SOLDIER KILLED BY ROADSIDE BOMB

08/27/06 AFP: Iraq rebels kill 28 in bloody response to peace plan

08/27/06 Reuters: Iraq government plans reshuffle

08/27/06 AP: Marine from Milford killed in Iraq

08/27/06 Reuters: Gunmen kill former Sunni Deputy Prime Minister in Baghdad

08/27/06 AFP: Four Kurdish policemen killed in Kirkuk

08/27/06 Reuters: 20 bodies found in various districts of Baghdad

08/27/06 Reuters: Gunmen kill Iraqi lieutenant colonel in Muqdadiya

08/27/06 Reuters: Gunmen kill two brothers in Abara

08/27/06 Reuters: Reuters seeks Pentagon probe on journalist's death

08/27/06 Xinhua: Three coalition soldiers wounded in accident in Iraq

08/27/06 Xinhua: Car bomb kills two in Baghdad

08/27/06 VOI: Car bombing in south Kirkuk kills 1, injures 3 in Kirkuk

08/27/06 Reuters: Bomb planted in Baghdad bus kills 5

[clarice]

MayBee, Fitz said a long time ago that he didn't ask other reporters about their knowledge and sources--only those he had reason to believe talked to Rove or Libby, just in case you needed more evidence that this was a fercocked investigation where the method determined the outcome.

[MayBee]

fercocked investigation where the method determined the outcome

Love "fercocked".
I would love Andy McCarthy to try his hand aaddressing this, especially after this line:
" I don't know, but I am betting that was done because Fitzgerald concluded the evidence that Libby, a public official, was intentionally lying was overwhelming. "

Well, the evidence became overwhelming after he threw Miller in jail and let her out if she promised to talk about Libby and nobody else. And part of the "evidence" he gleaned from that was Libby was the first person to discuss the case, which is what made Fitzgerald think Libby was lying and obstructing justice.

I think the obstruction charges at least need to be dropped.

[topsecretk9]

--And part of the "evidence" he gleaned from that was Libby was the first person to discuss the case, which is what made Fitzgerald think Libby was lying and obstructing justice.--

And this turned out to be a big BUMMER for Fitz, because he missed where Judy had Wilson's contact info before she talked to Libby.

[MayBee]

So is Corn going to tell us in his new book who his sources were? Will he tell us what Valerie's job was?

[Chants]

Boris stated:

"[Y]your argument boils down to 'those nasty people did a nasty thing'

Only the thing was done by somebody else.

It wasn't actually nasty, just the inevitable result of her own participation.

So you're left only with 'those nasty people ...'"

That about sums up how Bush critics are so locked in to thier position regarding the Plame Affair. To them, it is very hard to see the discrediting of Wilson as a legitimate endeavor. Instead, they reflexively conflate it with an endeavor to "punish" Wilson. Well done, Boris. If I may modify it just a bit:

1. Rove and Libby are nasty people.
2. Nasty people do nasty mean things.
3. Punishing is mean and nasty.
Therefore,
4. Libby and Rove wanted to punish Wilson. We know this to be true because they are mean and nasty.

As you said, Boris, when all is said and done, all you're left with is one article of faith: those nasty people.

How else is it possible that Corn is able to construct the ridiculous scenario which ties Armitage to Libby and Rove through, of all things, the INR memo. That's not logic on Corn's part. That's faith.

[Chants]

Jeff Said:

"The Post is generally pretty careful not to identify someone as being in the White House who is not... ."

MayBee already noted that unknowns get repeated as fact by reputable newspapers all the time, such as Plame's alleged covert status. The WashPost is no exception.

Take the train wreck of Dafna Linzer's April 9, 2006 article. http://tinyurl.com/zvy2o. Although Ms. Howell later addressed some fo the issues contained in this article, others, such as Mr. Linzer's misreading of Fitz "prove a negative" portion of his pleadings, remain uncorrected, (i.e., the " it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to "punish" Wilson" line).

So no, the Post is not all that careful.

[Bob]

This mornings http://www.nysun.com/article/38616?page_no=3>New York Sun

"The new reports do not undermine evidence that Mr. Libby and Mr. Bush's top political aide, Karl Rove, discussed Ms. Plame's then-classified CIA connection with reporters. But, in a concession striking for a liberal journalist who helped launch the furor over Ms. Plame's outing, Mr. Corn acknowledged that the story line touted by the left had flaws.

"The Armitage news does not fit neatly into that framework," Mr. Corn wrote on his Web site yesterday."

But do you think that will stop the moonbats? I guess Corn will be thrown under the bus, by the nutroots, for ruining Fitzmas!

[Cecil Turner]

"Mopery" that's a good one, never heard of that before.

Heh. I believe the reference is to G. Gordon Liddy's Will, wherein (IIRC) as an FBI agent, G. Gordon detains some teenaged partygoers at Timothy Leary's house and informs them he has them on "two counts of mopery with intent to creep . . . and that's in the first degree!" The kid responds that his dad is gonna kill him and is let loose. Vastly amusing like much of the book, which I can heartily recommend, if only to appreciate some truly warped thought processes (G. Gordon's).

So no, the Post is not all that careful.

Yeah, I was underwhelmed by it, too. Especially since the attribution in question is sourced to another Post article, and, as MayBee pointed out, contains other factual errors:

But in late September, a senior White House official was quoted as telling The Post at least six reporters had been told of Plame before Novak's column, "purely and simply out of revenge."

I still think the odds-on favorite is Grossman, which would make Leopold's article remarkable in an "even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while" kind of way.

[Patton]

""The new reports do not undermine evidence that Mr. Libby and Mr. Bush's top political aide, Karl Rove, discussed Ms. Plame's then-classified CIA connection with reporters.""

NO, THE FACTS ALREADY UNDERMINE THAT BS.

The reporters provided information they already knew and Rove simply said he had heard that too. Rove provided no information
to the reporters they didn't already have.

[HA]

Armitage is a coward. He has stood by for 3 years and let this country and Scooter Libby twist in the wind. Same goes for Colin Powell.

[Patton]

If Rove had said:

Gee, I can't comment on that, or

Gee, you may want to talk to Tennent before going with that, or

That's a damnable lie, Plames a secretary at the DNC Anti-Semitism wing.

Just what would have been the result? DUH!

The information still would have been published, simply because it was Wilson that opened his big mouth and the biggest qyestion Wilsons actions raised were - WHY WAS HE SENT TO AFRICA.

Simply answer - his wife worked in the office that sent him.

If you can't comprehend that simple fact, you are deranged.

[Patton]

Jeff: ""The Post is generally pretty careful not to identify someone as being in the White House who is not""

Jeff, if you actually read what you posted, your claim above makes no sense. You admit in your own post that they have misattrributed things to the White House in the past.

[paladin2]

re: limiting Millers's testimony to Armitage as malfeasance---even worst is agreeing with NBC to only ask Russert if he mentioned "Plame" to Libby and if Libby leaked to Russert and then indicting Libby because he gave a different version of the "conversation"--a "conversation" that was never investigated.

[noah]

And maybe, you pathetic conspiracy minded cretins, the WH "knowing" there was no "there there" decided to just let it play out at DOJ and avoid the minefield that would have accompanied any attempt to rein in the investigation or even short circuit it with the "truth". And remember there was a criminal investigation underway which necessarily inhibited the players from comparing notes. Bush probably said to himself "I have more important things to do than even bother myself with this bullshit".

Ever heard of Ockham's razor? He was a 18th century spoilsport who warned against multyplying entities (or causes) which has been the bane of conspiracists and fabulists ever since.

[Slartibartfast]

fercocked investigation

I probably would have written that verkocht or something similarly German in spelling.

[Bob]

OT but worth posting...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/622bqwjn.asp>What did you do in the war, UNIFIL?

"UNIFIL--the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, a nearly 2,000-man blue-helmet contingent that has been present on the Lebanon-Israel border since 1978--is officially neutral. Yet, throughout the recent war, it posted on its website for all to see precise information about the movements of Israeli Defense Forces soldiers and the nature of their weaponry and materiel, even specifying the placement of IDF safety structures within hours of their construction. New information was sometimes only 30 minutes old when it was posted, and never more than 24 hours old.

Meanwhile, UNIFIL posted not a single item of specific intelligence regarding Hezbollah forces. Statements on the order of Hezbollah "fired rockets in large numbers from various locations" and Hezbollah's rockets "were fired in significantly larger numbers from various locations" are as precise as its coverage of the other side ever got."

Ahhh the UN the peace keepers of moonbats!

[Jane]

And maybe, you pathetic conspiracy minded cretins, the WH "knowing" there was no "there there" decided to just let it play out at DOJ and avoid the minefield that would have accompanied any attempt to rein in the investigation or even short circuit it with the "truth".

That's what I think too. It wasn't going to harm national security, save the heavy hand for when we need it.

OT: I'm all behind Tom Lantos on this one. Anyone else: http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2006_08_27.PHP#006317

[Patton]

Some are all so eager to believe a newsmedia
that:

Refuses to publish pictures of deaths on 9/11.

Refused to publish cartoons out of respect for Islam.

Relished the opportunity to publish Hezbo staged photos in Lebanon in order to rally the Islamic world against the Jews.

[PeterUK]

Bravely Robin ran away, (No!)
Bravely ran away, away. (I didn't!)

When danger reared its ugly head,
he bravely turned his tail and fled. (No!)
Yes, brave Sir Richard turned about (I didn't)
And gallantly, he chickened out.

Bravely taking to his feet, (I never did!)
He beat a very brave retreat, (Oh, lie!)
Bravest of the brave, Sir Richard. (I never!)

Shakespeare,has done this one "A Midsummer Nights Dream".

You will be relieved to know that,as a mere knight,Armitage is still a commoner

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
First degree mopery,like Sam?

[Gary Maxwell]

How else is it possible that Corn is able to construct the ridiculous scenario which ties Armitage to Libby and Rove through, of all things, the INR memo. That's not logic on Corn's part

You do know that Corn works for the Nation Mag? You know where they call Katrina van der Kerfufel an editor?

And have you ever heard Corn on a talk show? This is a guy who when the subject gets at all intense makes Eleanor Clift sound like a PhD in logic.

[Jeff]

Jeff, if you actually read what you posted, your claim above makes no sense. You admit in your own post that they have misattrributed things to the White House in the past.

On the contrary, the fact that they went back and corrected it is evidence that they are, in general, careful about their attributions: when they make a mistake on that count, they correct it. Of course being careful doesn't mean never making a mistake. I also was speaking specifically about such attributions. But I will add that 1)I want to hear more from the Post about the status of the original 1x2x6 claim; and 2)we don't know enough yet to say whether and how it was mistaken - for instance, I suspect the source may have confused some of the contacts with the press post-Novak with pre-Novak contacts, and also may not have been precise enough with the Post on who called whom.

[Patton]

""On the contrary, the fact that they went back and corrected it is evidence that they are, in general, careful about their attributions.""

Yeah, and after my brother shot my Uncle on a hunting trip, he went back and corrected pointing a loaded weapon at people without the safety on....he is a very safe hunter...he corrects himself after every dead body.

(No actual people were harmed during this posting)

[Lurker]

Jane, the problem with Lantos' bill is that Lebanon is still getting money from other countries, especially Arab countries, to offset the charitable feelings toward Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran. Those Arab countries do not want Iran to take over the ME because Iran is Persia; not Arab.

By the same token, Lebanon will cave in to Islam and Sharia law.

I think one of the reasons that Bush is trying to offset the possible conversion to Sharia law.

BTW, Nasrallah claims he does not want round two war; yet, Iran and Syria continue to re-arm him.

There's something afoot to create a new party in Israel (not Likud) and one of the things that this new party does not want - financial aid from USA.

Personally, if Lebanon does not change within the next six months to stiffen its spine against Hezbollah, round two war is the only option. I suppose this is another reason Bush pushed for this ceasefire.

I wonder if UN is now addressing Iran's test-fire of its missile yesterday.

[Bob]

OT it's great to watch the dems self destruct... and they blame Rove for everything wrong with the dems!

"How else do you explain the fact that so many of them are seriously considering nominating Hillary Clinton for president in 2008? Earlier this month I revealed here that even 45 percent of Democrats, in “purple” New Hampshire, tell focus groups they hate her. Hate.

Among their comments:
“B-tch . . . political wh-re . . . evil . . . diabolical.”
It doesn’t matter why. It doesn’t matter if it’s unfair. These people will not vote for her in a general election.
So you’d think the party would be throwing itself, right now, into a relentless quest for a more viable alternative. Someone who could carry the party’s colors to victory in 2008."

Good Read! http://news.bostonherald.com/editorial/view.bg?articleid=154732&format=&page=1>Dems better take Hillary off board

[Tom Maguire]

Tom

Regarding 1x2x6, did you catch the fact that back in July 2005, an article in the Post coauthored by Mike Allen - the only reporter to get a byline on both of the original Post stories quoting 1x2x6, the original September 28 story with Priest and then the October 12 story with Pincus - changed the identification of 1x2x6 from the earlier "administration official" or "senior administration official" to the perfectly consistent but much more precise "senior White House official"?

I'll be darned. Checking my archives, I see that that WaPo story came out on the same Sunday that Matt Cooper appeared on Meet The Press, so my attention was elsewhere.

Still, I should have picked up on that.

As to believing it, it is eerily reminiscent of the way Walter Pincus' source one day morphed from "Administration" to "White House" official - hard to believe they made that mistake twice, or even once.

Interesting - that would scuttle "Grossman as a misdirection play", and take down Jason Leopold as well.

Well, my very first guess back in the day was that the 1x2x6 leak was a guardian angel leak from someone in the White House whose goal was to make sure that an OVP exercise didn't expand into something that might involve Bush - I picked Andrew Card. That never squared with the source's claim that it was "meant for revenge", which was later withdrawn anyway, as I recall.

Troubling.

[lurker]

Interesting!

In Wake of Triple Hotel Bombings, Jordan Passes Tough Anti-Terror Law

Will Jordan now push for a definition of terrorism within UN? Who knows.

But the law is quite interesting and I'm sure our lefties will hate it.

Interesting that Jordan will use its military courts to try terrorists.

Another OT:

Nasrallah: No Remorse, Just Deflection of Increasing Lebanese Criticism

Was Bush right in telling the world to give Lebanon some time in order to see that Nasrallah actually lost this war?

"The dialogue in Lebanon is scaring Hezbollah and this was meant to deflect criticism onto 'Israeli aggression'. For all their handouts - courtesy of Iran - the people are holding Hezbollah responsible for the death and destruction of 34 days of war. Hezbollah suffered 600 deaths, the destruction of their terror infrastructure and a severe degredation of military capabilities. Now, Hezbollah faces an ongoing internal debate in Lebanon as people are returning to their homes - some not finding homes to return to. These people are openly questioning if Hezbollah is truly the great protector of Lebanon."

There was a story posted at YARGB about a man leaving his village after the war with two fingers sticking up in the air. Someone saw him and asked him if that was meant to be a "V" for "Victory". The man's reply was, "No, it has nothing to do with victory, it meant that two houses in his village remain standing".

"MEMRI released a report on Friday that supports this analysis. Sayyed Ali Al-Amin, the mufti of Tyre and of the Jabal 'Aamel district, said "[Neither] Lebanon nor the Lebanese people have any connection to this war. The war was forced upon the country and people, who did not want it... Had the previous agreements been implemented, we would not have reached this situation."

HHHmmm...I'll check TruthLaidBear and read Memri.

[lurker]

And hasn't Matt Cooper already left Nations to work for Conde Nast?

[Cecil Turner]

I suspect the source may have confused some of the contacts with the press post-Novak with pre-Novak contacts, and also may not have been precise enough with the Post on who called whom.

I suspect the source was a politically-motivated liar, and probably friends with the other famous liar in this charade: Joseph C. Wilson IV. That was certainly the effect of the Post article, so unless we're supposed to believe it was unintentional . . .

If that's so, the obvious suspect is Grossman, who remains my favorite.

[Tom Maguire]

Still on the WaPo change of source:

Jeff, if you actually read what you posted, your claim above makes no sense. You admit in your own post that they have misattrributed things to the White House in the past.

Well, this would be more of a clarification - "Administration official" is accurate but vague, and is sometimes all the source will agree to. Assuming the Wapo has editors, they would have reflected on whether a lower degree of anonymity was apporopriate, checked with the source, and printed a cleared attribution.

Or they may have screwed up, but I don't love that theory.

As to my Andrew Card idea, IIRC he and Rove were rivals, since Rove had the President's ear. So maybe he knew enough to know that the "2" were Libby and Rove, but was confused on the timing of their calls.

[Jeff]

As to believing it, it is eerily reminiscent of the way Walter Pincus' source one day morphed from "Administration" to "White House" official - hard to believe they made that mistake twice, or even once.

Right, it's almost certain that neither one was a mistake. Rather, I think the options are they were deliberately identifying their sources with greater precision and locating them in the White House, or it was a deliberate effort to mislead people who were paying very very close attention. I'm going with the first one, certainly with regard to Pincus and his source; and I see no reason to think Allen was deliberately misleading back in July 2005.

And frankly, you may turn out to have been right at the outset: Card has to be at the top of anyone's White House list of candidates for 1x2x6. I don't believe the revenge claim was withdrawn by the source. Also note that the tenor and point of 1x2x6's claim - not that it was wrong in a moral or legal sense, but just that it was wrong in a strategic or tactical sense - fits well with the idea that 1x2x6 was in the White House. The other leading White House candidate has to be McClellan; though I think there's an off chance it might be someone like Matalin.

[maryrose]

Jeff:
You are clinging to something that Grossmann made up out of wholecloth to protect himself and Armitage because both are too cowardly to tell the truth. Fitz is complicit in this endeavor and as a consequence should be brought up on charges. I really don't see this Libby case making it to trial as it has now reached the realms of surreal absurdity.
After 3 years of Corn and the Nation writing lies; now they are saying that all the facts may not align-give me a break.

[Jeff]

As to my Andrew Card idea, IIRC he and Rove were rivals, since Rove had the President's ear. So maybe he knew enough to know that the "2" were Libby and Rove, but was confused on the timing of their calls.

A very plausible scenario.

It's funny, by the way, that on this question I'm going with the reporter who, when he was at the White House, was so very White House-friendly (as he remains, now at Time), while y'all (Tom possibly excepted, we'll see) are going with Leopold.

[Dwilkers]

Hello, my name is Forest, Forest Gump. I'm your new special prosecutor.

[lurker]

Interesting about Hillary, Bob. Think we'll see increasing polarization in all kinds of flavor until the 08 election?

If your assumption about Card is right, then did Card do anything malicious to out Plame? Did Fitz interview Card and if so, Card hasn't been indicted to date.

And same goes for Ari Fleischer.

Interesting that Powell, Armitage, Card, and Fleischer all left.

Good thing McClellan's exit hasn't been connected to this story...just yet!

[lurker]

Jeff,

Jeff Gannon?

Tony Snow?

[Lurker]

OT:

Lebanon said bolstering troops on Syrian border

Looks like Syria's losing on this one, including Shabaa Farms.

[maryrose]

Jeff:
Matalin is not involved at all. Stop spreading that falsehood. She wouldn't let Libby twist in the wind.

[lurker]

Maryrose, Matalin has been helping raising funds to help Libby pay for his legal fees. Since the odds are very, very high that Libby will be acquitted or that his case will be dismissed, then there's no way Matalin could be the 1X2X6 source.

[clarice]

James Lewis is tougher on Armitage than even I was:
"Patrick Fitzgerald, who seems to be a creature of the media only, must now take these new media revelations and prosecute the guilty parties—- not the innocent. And none of the conspirators must be left out: Not Armitage, who betrayed his country for the sake of revenge, nor Spikey and Dave, who both knew what was going on all along and connived to promote a blatant miscarriage of justice. And possibly not even Colin Powell, who was probably kept in the loop by his good buddy Dick. "

http://americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=5956

[PeterUK]

"On the contrary, the fact that they went back and corrected it is evidence that they are, in general, careful about their attributions: when they make a mistake on that count"

Very mich like shoplifters who think they have been seen.

[clarice]

Put me in the camp of those who believe 1x2x6 was Grossman.

[Patton]

So here is our big White House conspiracy plan:

Karl Rove is about to go on vacation, so he sits at his desk and waits and waits for a phone call from a reporter, just knowing someone is bound to call and ask him if he knew Valerie Plame worked at the CIA and sent her husband to Africa.

Then Karl is going to slyly say...'I heard that too'...then head off on vacation just knowing that reporters going to print a huge article slamming Plame and ruining her chances of every making a dime.

And to top it all of let's pick a big liberal un-sympathic reporter who's wife is a Hilliary Clinton staffer.

Why doesn't the big conspiracy just change to include Armitage???? No one would suspect him, that Bush is so clever!!

Just like he used Powell on WMD, he suckered Armitage into outing Plame. Those fools! Bush is diabolical!

[clarice]

lurker, Matt left Time to go to Conde Nast.

[Jeff]

Karl Rove is about to go on vacation, so he sits at his desk and waits and waits for a phone call from a reporter, just knowing someone is bound to call and ask him if he knew Valerie Plame worked at the CIA and sent her husband to Africa.

Then Karl is going to slyly say...'I heard that too'...then head off on vacation just knowing that reporters going to print a huge article slamming Plame and ruining her chances of every making a dime.

Alas, you're confused. Rove confirmed the Plame information for Novak on July 9, while he shared the Plame information unsolicited with Cooper on July 11 right before he went on vacation.

And i agree that it's more likely Rove was just seizing an opportunity that presented itself with Cooper than following out a premeditated plan. Interesting question whether Rove alerted Libby that he'd told Cooper.

[maryrose]

Patton:
This case goes from the ridiculous to the sublime. Why would highly paid persons employed by the White House engage in this nonsense. It sounds like a gossipy Washington rumor story gone bad and now everyone is playing the CYA card and heading for the exits.
McClelland involvement-naw- he'd be too afraid the press would eat him for breakfast- oh yea they kinda did...

[cathyf]

Ya' know, I'm still mystified by the question of why Fitzgerald has chosen to bend over and grab his ankles for Richard Armitage?!?!? I could see, maybe, doing that for Powell, but Armitage? Fitzgerald has invested a lot in protecting UGO's identity, and I'm scratching my head wondering just what the heck is in it for Fitz?

cathy :-)

[clarice]

What's in it for Fitz? A chance to have his friend Andy make an enormous fool of himself?

I continue to think he had a definite bias going into this and maintained it throughout, and because of the way he conducted the investigation he never got evidence that he war wrong.

[clarice]

**waS wrong****

[John Loki]

Do we have any lawyers here?? This to me would put into doubt whether Libby's testimony was materal. Am I wrong?

[maryrose]

Is it just me or does Cooper seem to be changing jobs a lot lately?

[Ranger]

Some assorted and collected thoughts.

Why does this Armitage revelation matter?

Judy Miller went to jail and Libby got indicted because, even though Armitage had admitted to telling Novak, that admission did not resolve who “first” leaked, because it was clear that reporters knew about VP before Novak found out from Armitage. By not admitting he had told Woodward weeks before he told Novak, Armitage clearly obstructed the investigation by sending the FBI and Fitz on a wild goose chase to try and prove that Libby told Judy about VP before anyone else in the DC press corps heard about “Wilson’s Wife.” The fact that Woodward knew before anyone else in the DC press corps and told Pincus and may have told Libby (in the form of a question specifically written out for and interview with Libby) fundamentally changes the character of the investigation and puts it in a totally different direction.

Now, questions that need to be resolved.

Did the FBI ask Armitage who besides Novak he told about “Wilson’s Wife”? If they did, then the only reason that Fitz didn’t know about Woodward is because either the FBI failed to forward that information from the newly appointed SP or Armitage lied to the FBI.

More importantly, did the FBI even ask Armitage about other reporters he talked to besides Novak? If not, why not? To me, that would be gross negligence on the part of the investigators. DoJ rules tell investigators to avoid trying to get information from reporters unless it is the last resort. In this case, if you have an individual who has admitted passing information along to one reporter, it would be incumbent on the part of the investigators to as that person who else they shared that information with.

Even if the FBI didn’t ask Armitage who else he talked to, Fitz should have gone back and asked that question himself when he took over the investigation. I think the reason that Fitz doesn’t wasn’t to prosecute Armitage for obstruction is because attempting to do so would fail based on the ineptitude of the investigation. Armitage’s defense would simply be ‘They never asked me who else I talked to and my lawyer said don’t volunteer any information you aren’t specifically asked for.’

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Speaking of hubris, our old friend pgl has stepped in it again.

[Wilson's a liar]

Looks like Dick Armitage is a typical Washington blabbermouth, enamored with his own position and famous for gossiping to show how well-connected and informed he is. This stuff happens all the time in Washington.

I detest Armitage for hiding while Libby and Rove twisted in the wind, but I thank him for leaking the information to Novak. It should be clear by now that many, many reporters knew who and what the Wilsons were, but none of them had any intention of informing us as long as Wilson was being a pain in the President's ass. Only Novak had the guts to do it.

[topsecretk9]

I'm still mystified by the question of why Fitzgerald has chosen to bend over and grab his ankles for Richard Armitage?!?!?

Naked photos of Fitz.

[Jeff]

Judy Miller went to jail and Libby got indicted because, even though Armitage had admitted to telling Novak, that admission did not resolve who “first” leaked, because it was clear that reporters knew about VP before Novak found out from Armitage.

Incorrect. When Miller went to jail, as far as Fitzgerald knew or suspected, the first leaks to reporters were both on July 8 - Armitage to Novak and Libby to Miller. The latter was strongly suspected, not yet known, but the first-ness of it was not the issue. And in fact, there is no reason to think Libby's indictment depended on being first. As a thought experiment, I think it is clear that if MIller had testified that July 8 was the first time she'd heard about Plame from Libby or anyone (which was her testimony in her first gj appearance), Libby still would have been indicted - and the fact that Libby may have told Miller a few hours before Armitage told Novak on July 8 is not the pivotal factor. Obviously, the chronological order matters, but I don't think Fitzgerald was interested in just going after the first leaker.

So you're operating with a false premise.

[clarice]

Ranger, good post.I have always thought the obstruction charge was preposterous, particularly because of the way the investigation was conducted:The prosecution obstructed its own investigation because of the way it was conducted.Certainly this revelation establishes that Armitage obstructed itby not coming forth re Woodward (and possible others as TM notes) AND by refusing to give Woodward a waiver to go before Fitz and establish that he's received the first leak, and his source wasn't Libby or Rove.

John L have never thought the exchange cited in the indictment was material.

[Ranger]

Fitz is protecting UGO because it is essential to protecting the reputation of the FBI and himself personally. If UGO's identity is confirmed legally, then people will ask UGO if he was ever asked what other reporters he talked to besides Novak. My guess is that he was never asked that question, thus showing that the initial investigation was conducted in a grossly negligent manner and that Fitz never took steps to correct the errors of the initial investigation before he proceeded to persecute Libby.

[topsecretk9]

Even if the FBI didn’t ask Armitage who else he talked to, Fitz should have gone back and asked that question himself when he took over the investigation. I think the reason that Fitz doesn’t wasn’t to prosecute Armitage for obstruction is because attempting to do so would fail based on the ineptitude of the investigation. Armitage’s defense would simply be ‘They never asked me who else I talked to and my lawyer said don’t volunteer any information you aren’t specifically asked for.’

IIRC Armitage said recently on Charlie Rose that he did not (at least to that point) have representation (i.e. no lawyer)

I believe the FBI did not ask Armitage if he might have talked to any other reporters than Novak during the relevant time because Armitage came forward about Novak.

I do think the initial FBI investigators botched the entire thing and Fitz half realized he was in a pickle when Woodward came forward. It was after he learned Marc Grossman and Wilson were buddies and Cooper had a "draft" problem that got the "Houston we have a problem" memo.

[AST]

Frankly, this whole story no longer interests me, except as more evidence of the hypocrisy and bias in the media.

It's the same old loop: rumors, special prosecutor, indictment, millions of dollars wasted to discover what turns out to be less than advertised, book deals all around. Fitzgerald's fifteen minutes of fame are blowing back. After putting Judy Miller in jail, he now looks like the media's lap dog for letting her testify only about Scooter Libby. Apparently the reporters knew that Armitage was the source, but since he is a critic of the White House, he gets a pass.

Hey, it's hurricane season! Shouldn't these journalists be busy cooking up another FEMA failure scandal?

The hubris here belongs to the press.

[topsecretk9]

but I don't think Fitzgerald was interested in just going after the first leaker.

Yes he was. He belived the only reason Libby said he heard from reporters was because he, Libby, leaked it to them so it would come back to him.

It's in the presser.

[John Loki]

Under the Title 18, Section 1623, Which I believe two counts are involved, one's testimony has to be material.

[JM Hanes]

Jeff:

"...while y'all (Tom possibly excepted, we'll see) are going with Leopold."

Not so. You must have missed my last comment on your White House 1-2-6 theory in the old Armitage thread. For reasons outlined there, I think both you and Tom are looking too high up the food chain. In any case, however, I don't see either Card or Matalin essentially outing the White House for any reason, benign or otherwise, and I don't think McClellan ever knew enough about anything to do it.

[Jeff]

It's in the presser.

No it's not. The major significance of Libby's allegedly false testimony that he heard about it first from reporters was that the source of his knowledge mattered, since it would be quite different if he learned about Plame from classified information rather than from reportial gossip.

[topsecretk9]

Fitz

Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.

But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told.

In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.

Now, something needs to be borne in mind about a criminal investigation...

...FITZGERALD: That's the way this investigation was conducted. It was known that a CIA officer's identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it.

And given that national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts...

...That's why it's essential when a witness comes forward and gives their account of how they came across classified information and what they did with it that it be accurate.

That brings us to the fall of 2003. When it was clear that Valerie Wilson's cover had been blown, investigation began. And in October 2003, the FBI interviewed Mr. Libby...

...At the end of the day what appears is that Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true.

It was false. He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly.

[Les Nessman]

As the wheels come off, the goalposts will move (or whatever metaphor you like):

"
I dont know why they hate me either. I think Fitzgerald is out of control!

But when an out of control dog is loose in the park I blame the owner.

Posted by: Don | August 27, 2006 at 01:24 PM"

See, they've gotten years of publicity from the 'Bush outed a secret agent for revenge!!'
Now that it is blowing up, they are changing the tune to 'Fitz is outta control and it's Bush's fault!!'

[Jeff]

JMHanes - You could be right about a White House source for 1x2x6 being lower down, though it seems to hang on Vandehei and Allen being inaccurate in their 7-17-05 article, and I am simply going to dispute your contention that major reporters don't get put in the honorable mention category. That's simply not so at the Post, and it certainly has not been the case in the reporting on the CIA leak case, where major reporters like Pincus, Milbank, Priest have gotten that bottom-of-the-article credit.

Yeah, topsecret, that passage doesn't bolster your case.

[topsecretk9]

OH, OK Jeff.

[Ranger]

Jeff,

It is indeed in the http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html>presser:

"In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson."

"That's the way this investigation was conducted. It was known that a CIA officer's identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it."

" He [Libby] was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly."

So, clearly, before Woodward came forward, Fitz's entire theory of the case was that Libby could not have heard about it from reporters because he [Libby] was the first person in the goverment to tell a reporter. Woodward's story blows that completely out of the water because

1) Woodward learned about it from Armitage two weeks before Libby mentioned it to Miller.

2) Woodward told Pincus, which means that it is concievable that members of the press were talking about "Wilson's Wife."

3) Woodward has written evidence that he may have told Libby about "Wilson's Wife" in the form of a question some time shortly after he learned about it from Armitage.

[topsecretk9]

Ranger

Exactly...Fitz even qualifies that Novak was not the first reporter to learn about V.Wilson and fingers the 1st reporter as Judy Miller...(who incidentally DID NOT, like Woodward, write a word)

But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told.

In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.

Which might have been resolved if Fitz's team had actually investigated and taken a look at Armitage's calendar like the AP did.

[Ranger]

This part of the presser is particularly significant in light of the issue with UGO:

"That's the way this investigation was conducted. It was known that a CIA officer's identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it."

Because if Fitz had done this, he would have discovered that Armitage told Woodward about "Wilson's Wife" weeks before Libby ever mentioned it to a reporter, and therefore there would have been no reason to haul Libby in front of the GJ even once. Even if Libby's story didn't compleetly add up, it was not relivent to who leaked first and if it was a crime.

Libby's story may still not sit right given these facts, but there is a lot of plausability to it, even if the details are jumbled.

[Jane]

This to me would put into doubt whether Libby's testimony was materal. Am I wrong?

Material to what?

[topsecretk9]

Ranger. Exactly.

Which makes me wonder why Fitz was so interested in Judy Miller, given that she didn't write anything and she only popped up because she was on Libby's calendar - if Libby offered up Miller than he was more forthcoming than Armitage - Army concealed Woodward.

My hunch is someone told the investigators that Libby was talking to Judy Miller, and my hunch is that person is Joe Wilson.

[windansea]

Jeff and emptywheel are spinning furiously

it was Rove....no, it was Cheney....Armitage was part of it....Fitz didn't really mean what he said in the presser....BushChimpyMcHitler!!!!

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Fitzmas makes a lot more sense when you examine the investigation from the start.

The White House, not just the current occupants, have been pressing for increased powers to obtain a judicial ruling that explicitly obligates "journalists" to reveal their sources when those sources have engaged in criminal activity. The White House cannot execute national security policy if there is a select group of individuals that are "above the law" when it comes to revealing information.

Ashcroft didn't need to recuse himself. He did it for political reasons. Comey didn't have to appoint Fitzgerald. He did it for political reasons.

Again, you have to examine the press, their sources, and multiple attempts from multiple administrations to obtain waivers from the courts to compel journalists to reveal their sources when the journalists may be directly involved in providing legal cover for criminal activity. The DoJ has required a special case and the Plame leak is just that case.

Fitzgerald was appointed because he's the best prosecutor on the active DoJ roster. The man rented an apartment for three years in NYC and never had the natural gas activated. It's not clear if he even sleeps.

[Sue]

interested in just going after the first leaker.

Obviously, since he totally ignored Armitage. However, we wouldn't know that he wasn't interested in the first leaker from his press conference, would we?

[maryrose]

Ranger:
Top-notch analysis today.
TS: Hang in there with Jeff; you represent many of us in your quest to keep him honest and set him straight.

[boris]

Jeff, your quibbling is pathetic.

TSK9 is correct and Ranger tells why. Libby being first is the false premise underlying the claim that Libby's testimony was a lie. Libby couldn't hear it first from reporters because reporters didn't know about it until Libby told them. First. Quibbling that Fitz isn't claiming being first is a crime is just lame. Fitz IS claiming than being first PROVES LIBBY LIED!

[Sue]

and never had the natural gas activated

Huh? I'm sure I'm missing something but what does natural gas and best prosecutor have to do with each other? He also was a pig. Leaving boxes of pizza in his oven for months.

[Sue]

Yeah, topsecret, that passage doesn't bolster your case.

Sure it did. It brought forth the 1st person to leak to the press. Without that passage, we would all still be under the impression that Libby told Miller 1st. Instead of speculating that Miller already knew from Armitage.

[boris]

Byron York expresses the take closest to mine:

but we do know that fevered imaginings about the awful acts of the neocon cabal were not the exclusive province of left-wing blogs; they were also present inside the State Department and CIA. Fitzgerald may have chosen the course that he did — appearing to premise his investigation on what might be called the firedoglake theory of the case — because he was pointed in that direction by the White House's enemies inside and outside the administration.

That certainly does raise questions about Fitzgerald's judgment.