Powered by TypePad

« Losers For Lamont | Main | After The 'Spinal Cord-ectomy' »

September 14, 2006


Jim Hu

I'd highlight a different part of the excerpt


ok...so it's detailed inadvertent gossip

what a weasel!!


John Hu, Does that mean Armitage was clueless that this was a lie (certainly not, I think) or that he's now spinning for Wilson (my vote).


**JIM, not John*** I am sorry.

Other Tom

By far the most damning thing about Armitage's behavior, in my opinion, is his sitting on his ass from no later than October 1 (the date he says he realizes he was a source) and late December, when Fitzgerald was appointed. His excuse that he didn't come forward because Fitz asked him not to is transparently crap, and no one has pressed him on it. On September 30 Bush asked that the leaker identify himself, I believe.

Andrew Bryant

For what it's worth, Armitage never mentioned the name Valerie Plame. He only referred to her as Valerie Wilson with conversations he had with Robert Novak. Novak found her Plame name in the Who's Who registery of Washington. Which the entry was added by Joe Wilson.


They are crawling out of the woodwork now. I have not put one word of blame on Powell because no way to know exactly what all went down. It sure looked bad that he let it go on for years.

I have had a change of heart because it seems that he now wants to 'spotlight' once again his disagreement with the President. Geesh, how in the heck has Bush even managed to get through a day with all these fine fellows watching his back.

Patrick R. Sullivan

Fitzgerald tells Armitage; "absent unexpected developments, I do not anticipate seeking any criminal charges against you."

So, is this unexpected by Fitz?

JM Hanes


I don't think Armitage is spinning for Wilson, I think he's spinning Wilson into a defense for himself. If Wilson is supposedly corroborating State, Armitage has no reason to target him.

In fact, I've been wondering how it would affect the basic narrative if the ultimate C.I.A. analysis of Joe's report was undertaken by folks above Val's pay grade.

In other words, what if Val & Joe originally didn't know that the higher ups thought his info tended to confirm the unranium shopping scheme? Aside from the irony of Joe being the actual villain of his own "twisted intelligence" story, it makes sense in a number of different ways -- one of which is that he thought he was giving the State dept. what they wanted.

Have to run, but will post some additional thoughts on this later.

Gabriel Sutherland

Has Colonel Wilkerson, Powell's Chief of Staff, made any statements about Le'Effaire De Plame?

Wilkerson has been very public in his criticism of the White House and more specifically the DoD. But I don't know if he made any comments about Plame. Although, he'd be in a great position to know as much about Plame as Armitage or Powell.

Cecil Turner

That differs from the description given by Novak as "in the CIA’s Counter-Proliferation Division", but it certainly suggests that Armitage was not shy about providing a description.

If Novak's original column had specified Plame's employment at the "Counter-Proliferation Division" (or "DO's CPD" or any other correct formulation), I'd find that compelling evidence. But since he only managed "Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction," and cites the CIA as the source for the "counter-proliferation" tidbit ("The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson"), I'm left thinking he got the best info from Harlow. Further, it's close enough to the INR memo's "CIA WMD manager" to make that the best bet as to what Armitage told him.

Finally, from the Hubris description, Plame's actual job title appears to be some variant of "Staff Operations Officer." The long description would be something like "Staff Operations Officer, Counter-Proliferation Division, Operations Directorate." I know Jeff and the EW crowd want to believe Novak's description ("Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction") displays some guilty knowledge, but IMHO it's a pretty good indicator he didn't know very much.


Clearly Justice Department guidelines say that if you have a leaking Government official who's testimony contradicts the testimony of the reporter he leaked to, well, then you INDICT SOMEONE ELSE WHO DIDN'T LEAK TO THE REPORTER...DUH!


Cecil you may well be correct. One thing I've learned from the close reading of newspaper accounts is that when reporting on anonymous sources often disguises them thru fake designations and generally reporters are careless about what they say.

As to Armitage's account--remember the Sidney Blumenthal rule. Post gj, witnesses can just make up anything they choose to about what went on. In Sid's case he was caught out long after the fact by the jury comments in the independent prosecutor's report. There will be no such report here..

n sum, whose version is the more accurate is a total crap shoot IMO.


*** One thing I've learned from the close reading of newspaper accounts is that when reporting on anonymous sources JOURNOS often disguise them thru fake designations and generally reporters are careless about what they say.


"but IMHO it's a pretty good indicator he didn't know very much."

... a distraction from the real conspiracy, among Rove and Libby and Cheney, etc....


Jerry, as for the real conspiracy, prove it! Fitz hasn't been able to find proof of a real consipracy.

No, wait! The real conspiracy was well-planned by the Wilsons, VIPSers, Armitage, et al.


No, no, jerry, the real conspiracy was with the aliens from outer space who regularly visit at Area 51. They are pink lizard people from a planet that revolves around a double-star.

(If you are gonna just make shit up, you might as well make it interesting...)


Part of the Plame timeline that has been completely forgotten is that the Democrats VOTED to go to war with Iraq in OCT 2002, as demended by Ted Kennedy and the Democrat leadership.

So Bush's state of the union in 2003 in NO WAY swayed any Democrats votes for the war, unless once again Bush is capable of time travel.

Telly Salivas


What a Load of Armitage!
What did Patrick Fitzgerald know, and when did he know it?

Friday, September 15, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

Mr. Armitage, who came forward after Mr. Libby was indicted, was told in February 2006, after two grand jury appearances, he would not be indicted. Mr. Rove, however, after five grand jury appearances, was not informed until July 2006 he would not be charged. Mr. Fitzgerald made the Rove decision appear strained, a close call. Yet of the two men's conduct, Mr. Armitage's deserved more scrutiny. And Mr. Fitzgerald knew it. Each had testified before the grand jury about a conversation with Mr. Novak. Each had forgotten about a conversation with an additional reporter: Mr. Armitage with Mr. Woodward, Mr. Rove with Time's Matt Cooper. However, Mr. Rove came forward pre-indictment, immediately, when reminded of the second conversation. When Mr. Woodward attempted to ask Mr. Armitage about the matter, on two separate occasions pre-indictment, Mr. Armitage refused to discuss it and abruptly cut him off. To be charitable, assume he did not independently recall his conversation with Mr. Woodward. Would not two phone calls requesting to talk about the matter refresh his recollection? Now we also know Messrs. Armitage and Novak have vastly different recollections of their conversation. Isn't that what Mr. Libby was indicted for?

What Mr. Fitzgerald chose not to know is even more troublesome than what he chose to ignore. When Mr. Armitage came forth in October 2003, why did Mr. Fitzgerald not request his appointment calendar from early May, the time the first story appeared in the national press about an unnamed former ambassador's trip to Niger? Mr. Fitzgerald demanded this type of information from White House personnel. Just think, if he had done so of Mr. Armitage, he would have learned prior to indictment about Mr. Woodward's appointment.

By the time he indicted Mr. Libby on Oct. 28, 2005, Mr. Fitzgerald knew two conflicting facts about the classified nature of the Niger trip: since at least early May 2003, Mr. Wilson was discussing his Niger trip with the press (Nicholas Kristof, the New York Times) and claimed in his July 2003 NYT op-ed that his mission was "discreet, but by no means secret." Yet, the indictment states that around June 9, 2003, the CIA sent "classified" documents to the vice president's office discussing "Wilson and his trip to Niger." If the trip was classified for the vice president, why was it declassified for Mr. Wilson? Did Mr. Wilson violate any law by revealing his trip or did Mr. Fitzgerald choose not to know?

Did Mr. Fitzgerald subpoena Ms. Plame? He could have asked her why, if she were truly covert, was she attending an Eastern Shore meeting in May 2003 with Democratic senators. The first journalist to reveal Ms. Plame was "covert" was David Corn, on July 16, 2003, two days after Mr. Novak's column. The latter never wrote, because he did not know and it was not so, that Ms. Plame was covert. However, Mr. Corn claimed Mr. Novak "outed" her as an "undercover CIA officer," querying whether Bush officials blew "the cover of a U.S. intelligence officer working covertly in . . . national security." Was Mr. Corn subpoenaed? Did Mr. Fitzgerald subpoena Mr. Wilson to attest he had never revealed his wife's employment to anyone? If he had done so, he might have learned Mr. Corn's source.

It is not just Mr. Armitage who should apologize. So should Joe Wilson and Pat Fitzgerald."


john henry

I am having trouble understanding the basic premise that Wilson somehow lied at least about the underlying issue-- was it likely that Irq had yellow cake from Niger. It seems like Mr. A says he heard that a duck was seen walking into the lake. His secretary suggest that we better be care full because having a duck in the lake woould be bad bad bad. Mr. B says he went to the lake and while there may have been report re duck walking towards the lake his assessment is that there is not much chance the duck is in the lake and suggestions that the duck is in the lake are overstated. Years later no one has found a duck in the lake. Your conclusion: Mr. B is obviuosly a liar. If you are right I would expect you could point to the duck in the lake. Your reasoning puzzles me. Yopur reasoning concerns me.


The question, John Henry, is whether the issue is, "did Iraq buy uranium from Niger?" or "did Iraq seek to buy uranium from Niger?" In the SOTU address, Bush said British intelligence indicated Iraq sought to buy uranium, and Wilson's report revealed that Iraq attempted to open trade talks with Niger that almost certainly involved uranium. In his NYT op-ed, Wilson actually only said Iraq didn't buy uranium, but dishonestly implied his report contradicted Bush. To use your duck analogy, Mr. A said he saw a duck walking by the lake; Mr. B says there was a duck walking by the lake, but there was no duck in the lake, so Mr A. was lying about the duck. Followed by the duck throwing sand in Mr. B's eyes -- or something like that.


Good evening. Working hard, in this busy time for you called. This is my friend and the Boke,just established, the time is not long. The issue here isthat everybody can see my Boke, Ha-ha, raising some visibility, which caused trouble to ask your forgiveness! We all hope to see. Please! 如烟往事博客 记忆深处博客 漠北孤烟博客 天涯无悔博客 月光城市博客 寂寞如烟博客 三国演义博客 江南记忆博客 青海日光博客 月复西斜博客 马帮茶道 雨天下雨博客 秋日私语博客 苍凉世界博客 把酒问天博客 逍遥过客 铿锵玫瑰 寂寞雨夜 乡下孩子博客 天上人间博客 我心飞翔 尘封往事博客 岁月如歌博客 庐山之恋 三间茅屋博客 wanqiudaocao guyan

The comments to this entry are closed.