Powered by TypePad

« Deconstructing Duke And The Times | Main | Economic Populism At The Times »

August 30, 2006



this was in the memo which, in Times world, was devoted to exploring Ms. Wilson's role in the Niger trip. Whatever

Another case of behesting. Libby behested the a memo about Valerie Plame. A memo that only mentioned her in passing.

Put the blame put the blame put the blame. Frame every detail as yet another component of a conspiracy. BS, the detail came out as a barely significant part of the story, Joe going public with his factually challanged attack on the administration based on a "secret" mission set up by his wife.


Geez TM, Did you leave anything standing in the NY Times article? I think they got "joe" and "wilson" right.

And of course they never, ever heard of the possibility Armitage was the source - this is all new.

Hope you don't mind, but wanted to let your readers know I did an assessment of the Fitz submission to the Appeals Court:


I keep thinking Fitz is in deep trouble here with his shading of the situation in these briefs.


So when are we going to see the picture of the 2-headed pig-boy, the story about the faith healer who does dental work, and pictures of George Bush and Ross Perot shaking hands with the green space alien (who is simultaneously the same height as both of them) on the front page of the NYT? If they are going to effectively compete with the MUM (Made-Up Media) powerhouses like The Star, The Weekly World News, and The National Enquirer, then they need to understand that there are standards in that business and they need to keep up with the competition!


There may be a JeffLogic basis for the Libby behestation.

Assume Libby asked for a memo ...

Said memo mentions Joe's Wife ..

Therefore Libby askid for a memo about Joe's wife. Ipso Facto!

Other Tom

I think the focus has to be on "what to do next," and Clarice has a brilliant column on the subject today on American Thinker. Although I can't see Bush doing it, she thinks that, among other things, he should dismiss Fitzgerald and instruct Gonzales to drop the charges against Libby. I have seen some initial reservations along the lines of "this would look like the Friday Night Massacre," but I think Bush ought to welcome the comparison. If he acts courageously and aggressively, this thing would get the public airing and heated debate it deserves. I think this is one he can't lose: it's a textbook case of media bias, political hypocrisy and prosecutorial misconduct, and Bush should be willing to take it on forthrightly and let the chips fall where they may. Unfortunately, given the man's track record, I have very little hope that he will do this. And I think Armitage and Powell have behaved absolutely shamefully, and no one should hestitate to say so.


Why does Typepad keep forgetting my name? Is this payback for my repeated reference to Jeff as a "lunatic retard"?

This conspiracy-minded mind wants to know.


TM, do you have an opinion about Rove's telling Cooper on July 11 2003 that Plame/Wilson's occupation would be "declassified soon," before Novak's column was published?

I've heard people here say that Cooper's story shouldn't be assumed to be true but I'd guess it is his testimony, not sure what Rove's explanation is.

Does Rove/Luskin explain this comment as referring to Novak's soon to be published article or to another ongoing process in the WH?

I guess Tenet was putting together a statement, but would he declassify Plame just to respond to Wilson's article? At what point prior to this was it decided that Plame was an important issue re:Wilson?


Thanks, OT. Maybe he will. There are other times when I've sat on the edge of my seat wondering if the President would finally act and just at that point he does. He has so much to gain now and nothing to lose, by acting and saying exactly why. I do not think his enemies would have much to stand on at this point.
Cathyf--Great post..I'd send it to the editors. (Not that they'd publish it, but just for the pure enjoyment of knowing they have to read it..better yet to their ombudsman or whatever they call it there.)


TM, do you have an opinion about Rove's telling Cooper on July 11 2003 that Plame/Wilson's occupation would be "declassified soon," before Novak's column was published?

You keep saying that and I keep asking where did you read/hear that Rove told Cooper Plame's occupation would be declassified?


Oh yeah... and if Rove is talking about declassifying Plame on July 11 2003 doesn't it seem sensible that Libby would know about this?


Yep, kudos to Clarice for her eminently sensible recommendations. Bush should do everything she suggested and after its a done deal let Tony Snow announce it after the fact.


Sorry Sue, I thought you were generally saying that Cooper couldn't be believed. It's what Cooper said about his conversation with Rove.

Here's his Time article about the grand jury (it's free on Truthout, but not on the Time website):


TM, do you have an opinion about Rove's telling Cooper on July 11 2003 that Plame/Wilson's occupation would be "declassified soon," before Novak's column was published?
Rove doesn't remember the conversation, and I simply don't believe Cooper. The contemporaneous notes are consistent with maybe Rove saying that Tenet was going to be declassifying information about Joe Wilson's trip to Niger "soon". Since Tenet did exactly that (declassified information about Joe Wilson's trip to Niger) that very afternoon, I don't find that particularly implausible.

In order to see every Administration statement about "Wilson" as a statement about Valerie Wilson, you have to assume your conclusion that the Administration was interested in her.


Armitage has admitted to being the leaker to Novak about Plame.

At what point prior to this was it decided that Plame was an important issue re:Wilson?
There is no evidence (outside the fevered minds of the left) that Plame was an important issue re:Wilson until David Corn outed her on July 15, 2003 at Joe Wilson's behest.
Other Tom

If indeed Rove said something along those lines to Cooper, could he have had in mind the partial declassification of the National Intelligence Estimate? Not exactly a perfect fit, but very little is when you're talking about two people's recollections of a long-ago conversation.


I think the focus has to be on "what to do next

I've been trying to take the pulse of those around me to figure out what would actually have some impact.

My business partner suffers through my tales of Plame, although it is completely out of politeness and her eyes glaze over when I go there. This morning she declared: "They won, you lost. The public doesn't care. It's over."

OTOH Mr. Right, who gets all his news from the NY Times, still thinks Libby is "fair game because "the WH went after his wife" based on the memo the Times cited this morning" (see above for the debunking). (I know, I know) but he wanted to know Armitage's motive, and then harkens back to "Fitzgerald is just doing what Starr did so payback is a bitch".

I'd like to see Bush deliver a detailed speech on the disloyalists in the WH, the scam and attempt to defraud the US public, take energy away from important matters and undermine our interests in Iraq. And I'd like to see him fire Fitzgerald and pardon Libby. But I doubt he could pull it off.


Able Danger reveals what Peter Lance knew about Fitz all along and it gets worse.

Peter Lance

Sounds so good to be a conspiracy but it could be true!!


I just looked at the Cooper article again, spurred by fear of a vigorous JOM pushback (!) and, yes, it seems he wasn't referring to Plame specifically but to material damaging to Wilson's case. Sorry, interesting if he was referring to Plame though. ;-)


The declassification Rove may have referred to was NIE.



You mean this?

Rove told me material was going to be declassified in the coming days that would cast doubt on Wilson's mission and his findings.

What was declassified? The NIE? Which did cast doubt on Wilson's mission and findings.


Along with the WSJ awards to the Powell and Comey cabals, and TM's fisking of the NY Times, a little garland deserves to be handed to ABC for parading Wilson/Plame at the Washington correspondent's dinner -- quality journalists don't wrap their arms around those about whom they report.


Also interesting that the times puts the most important legal fact, that Armitage was the "first leaker" at the end of the story and completely rewrites what happened to make him look like a stand up guy who confessed on his own. They fail to mention that he waited until after Libby had been indicted to set the record right or that Woodward had to force him into going forward by telling him he was going to the prosecutor himself to correct the record about who was the "first leaker."


From lurker's link to Able Danger--
"My most astonishing, findings involved Patrick Fitzgerald, the former head of OrganizedCrime and Terrorism in the SDNY, who had allowed Ali to remain free as early as 1994 eventhough he named him as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Day of Terror. Another of my key findings was that Fitzgerald buried probative evidence of an al Qaeda New York cell in 1996.

Beginning in January 1996 Fitzgerald effectively ran Squad I-49, but I learned that despitewiretaps on the key cell members and hard evidence in 1997 that Ali Mohamed (an FBIinformant) was a major player in the Embassy bombing plot – he allowed him to remain free.

Most shocking were two face to face meetings Fitzgerald had with Mohamed in 1997. After the first meeting in April “Fitzie,” as Cloonan called him, declared Ali “the most dangerousman” he’d “ever met” and announced that “we cannot let this man out on the street.”

But Fitzgerald did, even though in October of 1997 Ali told him that he loved bin Laden and didn’t need a fatwa to declare war against the U.S. where he’d become a naturalized citizen. Fitzgerald had convicted blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others for seditious conspiracy two years earlier, yet he permitted Mohamed to operate in the open and didn’tarrest him until after the simultaneous truck bombings in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7th, 1998 which followed Ali Mohamed’s 1993 surveillance with surgical precision.

Fitzgerald and Cloonan then took more than 18 months to get a plea bargain out ofMohamed, who never truly betrayed al Qaeda. They kept him in Manhattan Federal jail for 9 months on a John Doe warrant for fear the media would get wind of their negligence and actually prevented him from testifying in the Embassy bombing trial in 2001 because of the embarrassment that cross-examination of Mohamed would cause the Bureau and the Justice Department who had allowed bin Laden’s top spy to work as an FBI informant.

Worse, while they had Ali in custody for three years, Fitzgerald and Cloonan failed to extract the 9/11 plot from him, even though they knew that the plot had commenced in 1994 in Manila, almost four years before Ali’s capture and as the man who had lived with bin Laden and personally trained his security detail, Mohamed knew every twist and turn of it.

Within days of 9/11 Cloonan rushed backed from Yemen and interviewed Ali, whom the Feds had allowed to slip into witness protection, and demanded to know the details of the plot. At that point Ali wrote it all out – including details of how he’d counseled would-be hijackers on how to smuggle box cutters on board aircraft and where to sit, to effect the airline seizures.

In effect, my telling of the Ali Mohamed story holds Cloonan, Fitzgerald and a host of other key Feds responsible for not stopping the 1998 Embassy bombings or the 9/11 plot."

I have no idea if this is true, but it is interesting. Maybe after Bush fired Fitz we can look into this.


Yeah, and he just had a 'conversation' with Novak. Unlike those evil persons in the WH whose conversations included dark, scary music playing in the background and Rove/Libby standing behind a pillar in an underground garage with a hat pulled low over their fact to obscure their identity...

...nevermind. I'm confusing conspiracies...


over their fact

Should read over their face...

Patrick R. Sullivan

Dave Corn today:

'A bunch of emails arrived today from people asking for (or, demanding) a response to Christopher Hitchens' attack in Slate on me and my coauthor Michael isikoff. I'm going to refrain from taking the bait, as we prepare for next week's release of our book.'

Right. Tooooo busy.


"scary music playing in the background and Rove/Libby standing behind a pillar in an underground garage with a hat pulled low over their fact"

No. They don't hide their warts like normal
folks, they festoon their carcasses with with baubles and old Xmas decorations. They like to flaunt it, not cover it. ::giggle::


Looks like jerry is even more retarded than Jeff. Tied in the lunacy department.


An obvious form of flattery.


Thanks Leo!


The guy who approved the NY Sun thing is MR. Finger?

Millions of people are classified as 'secret.' Even Peace Corps Volunteers are 'secret.'

According to the information provided she is an informant with a 'secret' clearance.

Oraganized Crime? Fitz does'nt know what this is if it's a federal 'union' employee, he likes politicians..............

Thomas Morrissey
In the accounts by the lawyer and associates, Mr. Armitage disclosed casually to Mr. Novak that Ms. Wilson worked for the C.I.A.

I thought Sir Richard of Craven-upon-Foggy Bottom did not have a lawyer,and was relying instead on purity of heart and thought to shield him?

Dick Cheney - he'd rather be lucky than good.

To quote Barry Melrose,"you have to be good to be lucky,and lucky to be good."

Dale in Atlanta

Wow, Wow, Wow...

I only just discovered all this blog stuff, TM's and the Able Danger one's, over the past 48hrs!

I've been familiar with AJ Strata's for a couple of months, and posted some small commments there before.

But wow, you guys are blowing my head with all this stuff.

By my very nature, and my past experiences in the Intel Community, I DON'T believe in Oliver Stone Conspiracy Theories; they just don't work!

But this stuff, Wow, I'm starting to get freaked out, that most of this MIGHT be true, and it's scaring the crap out of me!

IF even 50% of it's true, it basically means the Clinton Administration has pulled off one of the greatest turnarounds in History!

If any of you are Military History buffs; you'll know that right after the Civil War, a cabal of defeated Confederate Officers, got together and decided that they needed to "protect" the reputation of Gen Robert E. Lee, from the "Northerners" and bad publicity, so that began a concerted campaign to sort of "rewrite" history, on the part of the Confederates, in the sense, that they went out of their way, to make Lee look like a Military "God", and to portray the whole Northern victory as kind of an "accident" of history, Grant was just "lucky", etc.

Fact is, Lee, though a great Tactician, was a very poor Strategist, and not very competent at the Operational level as well; whereas Grant, though a failure as a businessman, and ultimately even President, was a Brilliant Strategist, and the outcome of the Civil War was a result of that, as well Sherman also being a brilliant strategist.

Anyway, it now appears, that there has been a concerted effort, by Clintonistas, to copy this successful Lee-revisionist history thing, and to basically obfruscate the Clinton Administrations total incompetence, and it also appears, from Strata and Lance, it was more than innocuous incompetence and may have crossed over into deliberate policy, and to rewrite history, and in effect, shift all the blame forward to the Bush Administration!

This is just mind-boggling; look at the list of possible Clinton enablers/"revisionists:

Fitzpatrick; Armitage; Wilson, Bremer, Zinni, Clarke, Schuerer, Pillar, Tenet, the absolutely disgusting Larry Johnson etc., etc.; you can add to the list as your knowledge dictates!

Wow; you know, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield, heck even Rove, I think are just plain un-equipped to deal with this type of Machiavellian campaign and deceit; I don't think they know what even hit them!

It's literally been a campaign, since the day Bush took office; hell, Bremer, was lecturing people on the fact that the Bush Administration was ignoring the Al Qaeda threat, within 2 months of Bush taking office! Now why would he do that? Unless he was covering his ass!

And Bush, with the same weaknesses as his father, vis a vis loyalty, and trying to show he was non-partisan; fell into the trap, by keeping on such completely dishonest backstabbers as Tenet, and appointing Bremer to head up the Provisional Authority in Iraq....!


...and, yes, it seems he wasn't referring to Plame specifically but to material damaging to Wilson's case. Sorry, interesting if he was referring to Plame though.
Sure, it would have been interesting if it referred to Plame. It would have also been interesting if it referred to the space aliens who regularly come a-calling at Area 51. There is exactly as much evidence (i.e. none) that Rove was talking about Area 51 or space aliens as that he was talking about Plame. That you think "Plame" rather than "space aliens" or "Area 51" when thinking about a conversation that occurred on July 11, 2003, is purely because David Corn, at the behest of Joe Wilson, framed the issue that way in your mind. In a column which he wrote on July 15, 2003. Given the time-travel implications here, perhaps you should be thinking more of space aliens and Area 51...
Cecil Turner

TM, do you have an opinion about Rove's telling Cooper on July 11 2003 that Plame/Wilson's occupation would be "declassified soon," before Novak's column was published?

You appear to be conflating a couple issues. First, Cooper doesn't claim anything about declassifying Plame's occupation. Here's the pertinent statement:

The notes, and my subsequent e-mails, go on to indicate that Rove told me material was going to be declassified in the coming days that would cast doubt on Wilson's mission and his findings.
Later that same day, DCIA Tenet released a statement contradicting Wilson's claim to've debunked the documents, pointing out it was never briefed to senior administration officials, and was sent by "CIA's counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative," not at the behest of VP Cheney. It also summarizes the pertinent NIE findings.

In any event, Rove's reference (assuming Cooper accurately portrayed it) was almost certainly to the upcoming NIE declassification, which had been promised a month earlier:

The chairman of the Senate intelligence panel, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), said that Tenet had agreed to provide "full documentation" of the intelligence material "in regards to Secretary Powell's comments, the president's comments and anybody else's comments." [June 9th, 2003]


As to what to do, I would suggest the following:

1) The President gives and nationally televised prime time speech in which he takes the press to task for this whole fiasco. He should specifically address the absurdity of the press "seeking the leak conspiracy" while members of the press were themselves fully aware of who the first leaker was and that he was not in the OVP or the White House. He should also specifically read various press accounts and statements by prominent democrats to point out how they have now been proven completely false.

2) Fitz shouldn't be fired, but the President should direct the AG to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the entire leak investigation for potential misconduct. That includes Fitz's appointment, the CIA referral letter, and how both the FBI and Fitz managed to miss the fact that they had the 'first leaker' all along, they just didn't know it. Turn the table on everybody who got this ball rolling and kept pushing it along. My guess is that if Fitz realizes he will be under serious scrutiny the entire investigation gets wrapped up or we see people indicted for obstruction for putting Fitz on the wrong trail.

3) This is a perfect opportunity for the entire administration to advance their case against the press. This should be put forward as demanding the press 'just do its job' and 'get the story right.' People say don't wage war with people who buy ink by the barrel, but the press has been at war with this administration since 2000, it's time the administration really started fighting back.


Dale, House Intel Chairman Hoekstra recently opined that the Wilson Gambit was likely the work of a rump group within the CIA to bring down the President and I assume he has more information that I an old lady, relying almost entirely on published material can obtain.


TM, do you have an opinion about Rove's telling Cooper on July 11 2003 that Plame/Wilson's occupation would be "declassified soon," before Novak's column was published?

I do - without having checked, my recollection is that Rove's statement was something like "this will be coming out soon", and probably referred to the overall Tenet statement about Wilson's trip, *not* the specific fact of Ms. Plame's CIA employment.

Maybe Rove got confused about just what Tenet would say, or maybe (as he noted), he'd "said too much". But for folks who think Rove's basic message to Cooper amount to, Don't believe everything Wilson tells you, Tenet has a lot coming out soon, Rove's intent was pretty innocent.

Charlie (Colorado)

Wouldn't this be an appropriate moment for the Times offer a bit of space to an opposing view?

The Times doesn't think there is an opposing view.

Cecil Turner

Crap. Sorry, jerry, it took me so long to type that post that you had already corrected it. (And I should have spotted it on preview, but missed it.)

Thomas Morrissey

Dale in Atlanta

This is just mind-boggling; look at the list of possible Clinton enablers/"revisionists:.......Fitzpatrick; Armitage; Wilson, Bremer, Zinni, Clarke, Schuerer, Pillar, Tenet, the absolutely disgusting Larry Johnson etc., etc.; you can add to the list as your knowledge dictates!

Add to that the Media,and most of the Academic types who write about The Pimp, ther is an entire industry devoted to created a legacy for that amoral piece of filth.

Other Tom

I see Cleo has begun Happy Hour even earlier than usual today.


Dale in Atlanta

I think you hit a lot of stuff on the head. There is a beuracracy full of entrenched Liberals in Washington, hired during previous Administrations and firmly entrenched.

On question that has been bugging the heck out of me is how has this hampered the Presidents policies vis a vis Iraq, Iran , N Korea, etc, etc, etc. There has to be a lot of, "well, this is the official line but here's what we're going to actually do" crap coming from State. The mixed signals can't be doing the U.S. any good, regardless of the effect on the Administration. In short, the Executive branch hasn't been able to trust it's own appendages to conduct it's policies. Remember the whole, "Bush and Cheney hijacked foreign policy" statements?

I've seen Bush criticized plenty for failure of leadership. I think the problem is more one of followership. How do you discipline these droves?


Bremer ran Iraq. When Bush was unhappy, he appointed his 2nd wife, Rice from the mansion days, to run Iraq.

Time travel implications? It's alien technology and aliens are creations of Satan, so maybe it's not for everybody.

Plame go back to Vanity Fair, England?

'Time' and 'first leaker' too funny!

Dale in Atlanta

This from the NYT article today, where Armitage's lawyer "admits" that Armitage had a role as the leaker in Plamegate:

"He was also the source for another journalist about Ms. Wilson, a reporter who did not write about her."

Isn't this just PROOF, that Armitage's lawyer is admitting that Armitage was Judith Miller's source as well as Novak's?

Have you all seen this?

What does this do for the case against Libby now?



I think the article is referring to Woodward, not Miller.



Perhaps the reporter who didn't write about Plame that Lawyerless Army's lawyer is referring to is Woodward.


The whole meme relied on the idea that there was a WH cabal out to shut Joe Wilson up at any cost. It was pushed by Corn in the Lefies preferred media as well as by Big Media folks as well.

That the NYT won't/can't acknowledge that Armitage's position vis-a-vis the Bush policies demolishes the cabal fantasy is proof positive that they won't acknowledge much less deal with their own foolishness on the subject.

Dale in Atlanta

Damn, last time I try to do analysis...



No, that section refers to Woodward.

But, it is an interesting quesiton: Who else did Armitage leak to?

I seriously doubt that Woodward and Novak were the only two, and Miller's refusal to testify long after Libby had given her waiver could very well mean that another of her souces was refusing to let her speak (and that is certainly Armitage's MO based on Woodward's story).

The next step then is to see if people can identify other reporters Armitage leaked to and has yet to confess about.

My bets are on Judy Miller and Andrea Mitchell for starters.


***********That the NYT won't/can't acknowledge that Armitage's position vis-a-vis the Bush policies demolishes the cabal fantasy is proof positive that they won't acknowledge much less deal with their own foolishness on the subject********

Perhaps it merely indicates that the leadership of the NYT is not as bright as the average Jom reader, the Wall Street Journal editorial board, and a few million others. After all, these are the people who think Nifong is on solid ground.

"He was also the source for another journalist about Ms. Wilson, a reporter who did not write about her."

Isn't this just PROOF, that Armitage's lawyer is admitting that Armitage was Judith Miller's source as well as Novak's?

Well, no. If Novak is journalist #1, then "another journalist" would be Bob Woodward. Now there is still all the other journalists who Army blabbed to and isn't admitting yet. And sure, Judy Miller could be one of those.

Or Miller heard it from Woodward. Or she heard it from Pincus who heard it from Woodward. Or she heard it from somebody who heard it from somebody who ... heard it from somebody who heard it from Woodward. Or she knew who Plame was because Plame and/or Plame's immediate colleagues were obviously Miller's sources, and Miller deduced logically that the "low-level CIA operatives" (who Rice said publicly on June 8 had sent Wilson) would have included Mrs. Wilson.

That's the way it is with gossip. It's impossible to trace.


I like how you think. Your views have been right on target. Let the fun begin. I hope this all gets some coverage on Fox. I'm certain the MSM is going to be silent. Matthews is on vacation so we won't be hearing any mea culpas from that sector.
Is anyone else as tired of the Katrina coverage as I am? Why would you have an anniversary celebration about this?


Is Rice the source of the term "operative" with regard to Plame?


Have the Wilson's amended their complaint yet?

JM Hanes


I think the Times' last paragraph is worth inclusion as an update for sheer factual inaccuracy:

Mr. Woodward was a late player in the legal drama when he disclosed last November that he had the received the information and testified to a grand jury about it after learning that his source had disclosed the conversation to prosecutors.

I also think Sue's succinct summary in the WaPo thread deserves highlighting:

You are working towards a conspiracy within the OVP and you keep having all these extra players pop up. Rove for instance. Not in OVP. Card. Not in OVP. McClellan. Not in OVP. Armitage. Not in OVP. Grossman. Not in OVP. Harlow. Not in OVP. Greiner. Not in OVP.

And what about the people actually in OVP? None, including Libby, are known to have told the only reporter who actually wrote a story about what they were conspiring to get written.

Other Tom

Ranger: If I recall correctly, when Miller finally agreed to testify it was on condition that the questions be limited solely to her dealings with Libby, which (if true) would certainly fit nicely with an effort to protect Armitage.

AJ Strata points out today that at one point Fitz submitted detailed evidence to the court of appeal concerning the fruits of his investigation to that point. If he omitted what he had learned about Armitage, he has a lot of explaining to do.

Tom Maguire

where Armitage's lawyer "admits" that Armitage had a role...

That's Woodward, but Dale raises another point, to wit, the headline is pretty confusing - Armitage does not even *have* a lawyer for this, he claims (and the first paragraph clears that up for folks who already know that):

WASHINGTON, Aug. 29 — Richard L. Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state, has acknowledged that he was the person whose conversation with a columnist in 2003 prompted a long, politically laden criminal investigation in what became known as the C.I.A. leak case, a lawyer involved in the case said on Tuesday.

Mr. Armitage did not return calls for comment. But the lawyer and other associates of Mr. Armitage have said...

A casual reader might well infer that the Times talked to Armitage's lawyer.


OK, here's a new theory. It could be totally wrong, but lets just lay it out there and test it.

Armitage is very, very concerned about not having the prosecutor find out which reporter(s) he talked to besides Novak.

Both Novak and Woodward state that the information about "Wilson's Wife" came out at the end of conversations about other things, and that it appeard to be gossip. Hense, Armitage claims that the leak was 'inadvertant.'

But, if this pattern was repeated with, say 6 reporters over the space of 3 or 4 weeks it starts looking less inadvertant. It starts to look like Armitage was pushing the story by making sure he told every reporter he talked to before they got out of the room.

So, maybe 1 x 2 x 6 was really 1 x 6 with the two thrown in to get people looking at the White House rather than trak the leak back to State and Armitage.


So did he lawyer up after the Charlie Rose show?

Dale in Atlanta

Check out CNN.com's nice santized version! I like how they all insert "politicized"; as if the WH/Bush/Cheney/Rove/Republicans, were Equally guilty of "politicizing" this issue!

Sources: State Department official source of Plame leak
POSTED: 11:49 a.m. EDT, August 30, 2006
Adjust font size:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the source who revealed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame to syndicated columnist Robert Novak in 2003, touching off a federal investigation, two sources familiar with Armitage's role tell CNN.

The sources said Armitage revealed Plame's role at the CIA almost inadvertently in a casual conversation with Novak, and it is not clear if he knew her identity was classified at the time.

Armitage was not indicted by the federal grand jury that investigated the disclosure of Plame's name to Novak and other journalists. Deliberately revealing the identify of a CIA operative can be a crime.

The revelation that Armitage was the source of Novak's column is somewhat anticlimactic for Bush administration critics who had used the story as a weapon in Washington's partisan battles.

In a July 14, 2003, column, Novak noted that Plame was a CIA operative, citing two senior administration officials. The column was primarily about Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, a former career diplomat and critic of the intelligence underlying the invasion of Iraq.

Wilson and some Democrats contend Plame's identity was released by the White House to retaliate against her husband for writing a July 2003 column in The New York Times that questioned the administration's use of prewar intelligence on Iraq. (Full story)

Last month, Plame and Wilson filed a civil lawsuit alleging a conspiracy that "was motivated by an invidiously discriminatory animus towards those who had publicly criticized the administration's stated justifications for going to war with Iraq" and culminated with the disclosure that Plame worked at the CIA. This revelation destroyed Plame's career with the agency, according to the suit.

However, the scenario described by the sources appears to contradict those arguments.

Novak has never revealed the original source of the information about Plame. However, he has confirmed that President Bush's chief political strategist, Karl Rove, confirmed the information and was the second source cited in the column.

Novak has said he would not reveal the identity of the original source unless the source came forward. However, he said the special counsel in the CIA leak investigation, Patrick Fitzgerald, learned who the source was independently.

Fitzgerald has said he does not plan to bring any charges against Novak's original source.

Calls to Armitage for comment were not returned Tuesday.

The Armitage connection to the Novak column is also outlined in a new book titled "Hubris" by Michael Isikoff and David Korn.

In the book, Armitage is quoted as telling former Assistant Secretary of State Carl Ford that "I'm afraid I may be the guy that caused this whole thing."

Calls to Ford for comment also were not returned Tuesday.

In September 2003, Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago, Illinois, was appointed as a special counsel to investigate whether any laws were broken with the disclosure of Plame's identity.

No one has been indicted for leaking Plame's identity, but I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, has been charged with perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators for allegedly giving false information about his discussions with journalists about Plame.

Libby has denied any wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty.

As part of his investigation, Fitzgerald subpoenaed then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller and then-Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper. In 2005, Miller spent nearly 12 weeks in jail after she refused to testify to identify her source to Fitzgerald. (View a timeline of the CIA leak case)

Miller was released after her source, Libby, called her and personally waived their confidentially agreement.

Armitage, 65, was No. 2 at the State Department under former Secretary of State Colin Powell from 2001 to 2005.

He left his post after Powell resigned at the beginning of President Bush's second term.

CNN's John King and Brian Todd contributed to this report.


"Or Miller heard it from Woodward. Or she heard it from Pincus who heard it from Woodward. Or she heard it from somebody who heard it from somebody who ... heard it from somebody who heard it from Woodward."

Sounds a lot like "everybody knew".


"I assume he has more information that I an old lady, relying almost entirely on published material can obtain."

Which is a bit like calling Golda Meir a "little old lady".


Strange that Fitz has not approached the public of late regarding this piece of news.

Wonder what he's thinking about? Is he laughing at us or what?


Well, PUk, we did both grow up in Miilwaukee. My great uncles recalled that she was always making political speeches in the park to the chagrin of her mother who considered it unladylike and my grandmother regularly gave her packages to take to what is now Israel.


I think right about now Fitz is having a case of spastic bowel syndrome now that all he has been trying to conceal under the seal of the gj is coming out in the open. Think back to the presser;he looked uncomfortable then because he knew he had conducted a half-assed investigation. Enter Woodward and he now looks like the village idiot. With the official Armitage disclosure-more egg on his face. No wonder that great silence you hear is Fitz hoping no more crap is going to hit the fan.


Pofarmer, the fact that Fitz sat on Armitage's revelations and never explored them certainly made Libby's claim to have heard that from reporters less credible when we now know that blabbermouth made it more credible.


IMO, Armitage makes a much better frog then Rove. It must be his barrel-chest!

http://www.kelloggs.com/brand/characters/digem.html>See what I mean


It appears that what Fitz has done is undermined his own investigation and jeopardised Libby's right to a fair hearing and his abilty to defend himself because an accurate set of facts was not in the purview of the prosecutor.The case has to be dismissed because the testimony of Armitage has a direct bearing on accusations that Libby was first.


Anyone recall a time when sources claimed it was Armitage who requested the memo for Powell?


This makes a lot more sense to me than Libby - who would go directly to the CIA for information on a CIA boondoggle.




Deflection is an art form here in DC. That is why a source of a story can appear as a name in the story as well. And their must be SOME truth to the disinformation (e.g., NSA spies on terrorists, but the FBI must takes any leads to FISA - not the NSA! Therefore NSA cannot "bypass" FISA). I would wager you are right about Armitage talking to more than one reporter and one should be Miller (Aspen anyone?). My guess is it was a 1x2x6, where the one was Grossman and the 2 were Grossman and Armitage. See how the deflection works? Then all you need is Wilson screaming the 2 is Rove and Cheney and you have your classice DC, untraceable leak. Grew up here, know the place all too well I am afraid.


JM Hanes


"So, maybe 1 x 2 x 6 was really 1 x 6 with the two thrown in to get people looking at the White House rather than trak the leak back to State and Armitage."

Armitage is "still not comfortable with the public acknowledgment of his role." No joke, eh? It's the questions, not the shame.

The idea that bullets-whizzing-by-his-head Armitage is "no partisan gunslinger," and, in particular, that he suddenly recognized himself in that Novak characterization, seem laughably implausible. He just happens to be Powell's gunslinger, which makes him sui generis in Washington. He may not have thought his revelation was a blockbuster, but there's no reason to take his (or rather, his designated minions') claim of inadvertancy for granted, or, as you point out, to assume that he didn't make the same "mistake" repeatedly.

I think Armitage knew he was the secret sharer from day one, and we have yet to learn the real dimensions of his generosity. When it became clear that pols, press & prosecutor were going after the leaker -- Novak was cooperating! -- he knew needed some way to frame an "Oh My!" moment. If there's a perjury here, the coverup-not-the-crime strikes again. The best he can hope for now is to stay out of the limelight, avoid a public challenge, and hope that the media continue to treat this story as the end of a saga, not the beginning. They do seem inclined to cooperate.

Has the AP published the actual calendar material they obtained per their FOIA request? Of course, that wouldn't include casual conversation by the phone that Powell's office was so inordinately fond of using. Apparently, AP has at least one enterprising reporter who might be kind enough to FOIA State's phone logs next.

Dale in Atlanta

JM: I think you are dead on!

Dale in Atlanta

PS: I just cannot; cannot force myself to go over to the Slime Pit at "Truthout.org", to wade thru all the crap!

How is the absolutely disgusting JL and his crowd of nutbags handling this whole sudden disappearance of their entire raison d'etre/Merry Fitzmas fantasy?

Dale in Atlanta

PPS: and what about the lunatic Larry Johnson?

He had a lot invested in this as well?

Any comments from that Buffoon?

JM Hanes


Aside from CNN's vastly understated "anticlimactic," this paragraph interests me in relation to Armitage's ungunslung defense:

Novak has said he would not reveal the identity of the original source unless the source came forward. However, he said the special counsel in the CIA leak investigation, Patrick Fitzgerald, learned who the source was independently.

In addition to confirming the state of Fitz's cognizance, this morsel seems to indicate that Armitage had fessed up before Novak testified, which makes me wonder about what, if any, conferring Armitage & Novak might have done in advance.

Per Woodward's account, he (Wdwd) called Armitage before talking to Fitzgerald. It would be reasonable to assume that Novak might have done likewise -- esp. with a familiar source who happened to share his disdain for the neocons -- or to ask if not, why not?

I'd find it pretty hard to believe Novak wouldn't have given Armitage a heads up, either to ask permission to reveal him or to inform him that he intended to do so -- especially in light of some ambiguous assurances he is said to have offered Rove. I also recall a bevy of Rove critics once claiming that confession of error in anticipation of exposure doesn't net you any points, legally or ethically. But I digress!

OTOH, since I'm already digressing, I keep finding myself wondering about the need for a judicial order compelling the Fitz folk to quit sneaking their grand jury witnesses into the Court House and make them use the front door like everybody else.


Dale you want to see how the moonbats are reacting... here's my post from the other thread

The moonbats won't let go!

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff08302006.html>The Armitage Confession & the Niger Problem I Am a Curious Yellowcake

Having a lowly former ambassador undermine a statement by the president might anger a White House, but the attack that ensued, which appears to have been orchestrated by the White House and the Vice President, was so virulent, involving the criminal outing of Plame and the jeopardizing of all her contacts and her critical work on nuclear proliferation, including in countries like Iran, that clearly more was involved than just administration pique.

JM Hanes

Too bad that ruling didn't pre-date the Armitage appearance, eh?

Sara (Squiggler)

Dale in Atlanta -- in response to your upthread "Wow!" post, I want you to know you aren't alone. I felt the same way when I first saw some of the charts diagramming the CIA cabal regarding Mary O. McCarthy, known around these parts as MOM. Take a look at the following two messages I posted at the time that have charts diagramming the intricacies. This subject seems to have been forgotten, but I have been convinced (without any other support from others) that there is a connection between this investigation and the MOM affair, if only because the CIA is involved, lies are involved, coverups are involved and the MSM is culpable in all of it. You might call it Sara's own little conspiracy head trip.

The Real Crime

http://www.squiggler.com/2006/04/another_web_of_.html'>A nother web of connections This one includes your "friend' Larry.

JM Hanes

Bob: Make that I Am Armitage Yellow.



Your second link did not work.


JH... got that right!

Sara (Squiggler)

The Jawa Report pretty much sums it all up:

Plamegate Wrap-up: Short 'n Sweet

So what have we learned from this escapade?

Fitzgerald's got nuttin'. Richard Armitage is a coward. Joe Wilson is a liar and a hack. Valerie Plame is a super-secret media whore. Rove is a non-factor. Novak was doing his job. Russert is silent. Mitchell is silent. Bush is vindicated. Cheney is off the non-hook. Keith Olbermann is a jackass. Chris Matthews is in catatonic depression. Mark Ash and Jason Leopold are on suicide watch. Larry Johnson is incredulous. Ray McGovern is speechless. Bill Keller is mute. The Democrats are in denial. David Corn is slinking away from his original zeal. Scooter Libby is paying for dishonesty over a crime that wasn’t committed. Judith Miller spent time in jail for nothing. The MSM are pretending they had nothing to do with it. The US taxpayer is furious. The left is hysterical. The right is chuckling. The average American doesn’t really care.

Feel free to add if I missed anything.


Sara (Squiggler)

Another web of connections

Sorry had an apostrophe in there that didn't belong.


Sara, twice now I have hit your links only to get to your site where I see nothing but ads and hyperlinks to other sites. Are you sure you posted this there?

Sara (Squiggler)

What? The link takes you to an old post in the CIA leaks category. You should see the header of the site with my site name, and then right under it is the old post. I don't understand what you mean by ads. I have a couple of strip ads in the right and left sidebars, but no ads in the big white center section.

What do you see when you go to the site straight at http://www.squiggler.com?

You should see the header and then a sticky post on with the hurricane map and then daily posts under it, sandwiched between two red sidebars.

If there is something messed up, I'm not seeing it, but I sure want to fix whatever it is.


I never get a big white center. The leading article is something about 9/11.

Sara (Squiggler)

Yikes! Clarice, I just looked at the site with Internet Explorer and see what you mean. I use Firefox so it displays properly. I don't know what happend as it was fine in I/E before. I will start checking on the problem, although I'm not really sure where to start. Perhaps 6Apart/Typepad tech will know and can help. Thanks for the heads up.


OT: The Aftermath: Hezbollah's Looming Loss

Let's hope the aftermath continues to show Nasrallah's really lost the war.

Sara, no wonder your link came up fine on mine cuz I use FireFox because IE is still susceptible to viruses, worms, spyware, and all.


This is unreal.

NYT blocks British from viewing stories

JM Hanes

NYT -- depressing ain't it, lurker?


Britian has strict laws about what can be published regarding trials and legal proceedings. This is an international internet problem.
The NYTs doesn't really have a choice, and I certainly believe that British laws need to be followed in Britain.
What is distressing is that we have such a free press they are free to publish all the criticism they want about how Bush hates the press, or tries to silence them. While they publish national secrets here but not in countries that don't allow it.
While people threaten to move to Europe because Bush is such a fascist. Funny.

JM Hanes


In this case, however, internet users in the U.S. couldn't access the material either.

JM Hanes

I agree about the irony in re europhiles though!


Check it out, David Corn vs. Byron York:


What a scared little rabbit David Corn has become! He won't take the "bait" from C. Hitchens, and he won't discuss with Byron.


The stuff about the publisist just doesn't hold water. He's hoping for a few amazon.com pre-sales because he knows when America finds out what a bunch of self-serving hooey he's written, sales will drop through the basement floor. Clear the remainder tables! Get ready for a big stack of HUBRIS! Not that I'd even stoop to buy his pseudo-journalistic poop for $2.98 on the half price table.

Spin away David.It doesn't matter. We've been waiting for years now, what's one week to declare once and for all that you are a drooling partisan liar who orchestrated this whole cabal with Wilson, IPS, The Nation Institute, Greenwald, the VIPERS and all of the rest of the nutters.

I only wish that York would write the real story. Let's start Plame's status (note--notice how that 2.5 mil deal fell through when the publishers found out that there was no there there?) Then let's find out who exactly sent Joe without his confidentiality agreement or a security clearance. Three years, and we still don't know. But one day, rest assured, we will.


In this case, however, internet users in the U.S. couldn't access the material either

Oh, I thought it said it was blocking it from readers in the UK. Can I not read?

The comments to this entry are closed.