Powered by TypePad

« Shopping For Bombshells | Main | NY Times On Armitage - BS, Round II »

September 01, 2006


Barney Frank

Just up at Drudge.....
Joe Wilson Awarded New Book Deal

Working title; "The Politics of Being an Insufferable, Preening, Liar Whose Fifteen Minutes are Just About Up and Whom No One on the Planet Can Ever Stand Hearing Talk About How He Stared Down Saddam Again"

Ghostwriiten by Jeff, with cartoons by Cleo.

You may have seen this morning's editorial in the Post. It manages to recycle pretty much every lie and smear over the past three years in a last ditch effort to divert attention from the facts, and the role the Post itself played...
Wow! Something Joe Wilson and I agree on!!!
I want to let you know how much Valerie and I continue to be buoyed by your support and your dedication to getting the truth out
...while their support may be bouying, If anyone ever succeeds in "getting the truth out" I predict will have more of a sinking/drowning effect for Joe & Val...

--As you think about this, our website (Wilsonsupport.org)--

Did he mention Wilsonsupport.org???


So maybe she can sue them for not leaking her name?

Give that person a law office.

Why do I think that the risible Keith Olbermann will pose that question the next time he does a piece on this (which is probably never)?



"I want to let you know how much Valerie and I continue to be buoyed by your support and your dedication to getting the truth out and holding the administration and its lackeys accountable for the terrible policies they have foisted on our country and on the world. We must keep fighting."

What was to stop Joe from going into politics and fighting this the democratic way,instead of trying to bring down an administration in the middle of a war?
Yes I know,John Kerry gave him the heave ho,but other than that?


in a last ditch effort to divert attention from the facts, and the role the Post itself played both in the march to war and in the leak (see Woodward).

BUT, BUT, BUT Wilson's attorney said just yesterday that Armitage was just "gossiping" so Woodward's "role" was no big deal!


Anyone else bothered by the fact all these lefty sites apparently have been sppon fed biased and false information by The Wilsons? Joe is truly a class A idiot. I know now, as an attorney, who to subpoena for all their correspodences with the Wilsons since the news broke. Hope they will all thank joe for their new lawyers!



What is the link to Wilson's response? I can't find over there.




updated set of talking points



Chris Matthews{conveniently on vacation} will have to address this Armitage role when he comes back. Haven't seen Shuster lately -he and Jeff are probably throwing a few back at the nearest watering hole. I think the word has come down at WAPO to kill this story before it threatens to spread and multiply.
Always a day late and a dollar short-hasn't gotten the message to abandon the Good Ship Wilson/Plame!


Thanks Wind!

Gary Maxwell


Now that is damn funny. Thanks for the laugh.

Patrick R. Sullivan

Yes, yes Corn v York is very funny. Especially since in one of the two articles York mentions we can see Corn in full conspiracy mode.


de nada snoopdoggie

oh oh...the Clintonistas may be putting pressure on ABC for their (according to reviews) honest look at The Path to 911

Will ABC Cave on "The Path to 9/11" [Andy McCarthy]

I’m hearing all kinds of disturbing, though predictable, stories about a Clintonista offensive against “The Path to 9/11,” an ABC documentary written and produced by Cyrus Nowrasteh ("Into the West"), and directed by David Cunningham ("To End All Wars"). I haven’t seen it yet (although I hope to this weekend), but it is already drawing rave reviews from people who have (the piece is reviewed at FrontPage, here).



Here's a link to George Soros' hirelings trying one last time to make lemonade out of donkey pee:


Sorry boys.


"The Path to 9/11" shows the CIA and the Northern Alliance surrounding Bin Laden’s house in Afghanistan. They're on the verge of capturing Bin Laden, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to go ahead. They phone Clinton, but he and his senior staff refuse to give authorization for the capture of Bin Laden, for fear of political fall-out if the mission should go wrong and civilians are harmed. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger in essence tells the team in Afghanistan that if they want to capture Bin Laden, they'll have to go ahead and do it on their own without any official authorization. That way, their necks will be on the line - and not his. The astonished CIA agent on the ground in Afghanistan repeatedly asks Berger if this is really what the administration wants. Berger refuses to answer, and then finally just hangs up on the agent.



Johm Kerry hired them to aviod prosecution.


Maybe if he didn't gird his loins so tightly , he'd be better able to distinguish between shit and shinola.

Ok, it falls to me to shine a light on this glittering gem of a comment by Clarice in response to Semanticleo's explanation that Fitz hasn't commented yet because he looks both ways before crossing the street.



Frum posts an answer to a question he posed to Jim Bowman here

Jim Bowman answer:

You are of course right in what you say about Richard Armitage, but there’s plenty of dishonor to go around in this matter — beginning with the grand-daddy of it all, which was Joseph Wilson’s op-ed in the New York Times that set the whole sorry business in motion. For someone who, however temporarily, was working for President Bush and his agents to take his disagreement with them public was a despicable act that could have had nothing but evil consequences for the war effort, then in the very beginning of its difficult and painful adjustment from conventional warfare to counter-insurgency, as well as for the president’s and the country’s standing in the world. Joe Wilson was not in a position to know everything, or even everything that the administration knew. His second-guessing could have been of little or no usefulness even if it had been done privately and disinterestedly. Given publicly and patently for his own self-advancement at the administration’s — and his country’s — expense, it should have resulted in his being shunned by all decent people rather than lionized in the media.

The fact that it didn’t is also what helps to explain the behavior Richard Armitage as well as that of a great many other people who see public service as a means to personal advancement. If Joe Wilson’s insubordination made him a hero rather than a villain, why shouldn’t the same fate befall an internal administration dissident like Mr Armitage — or successors like Richard Clarke or Michael Scheuer who have found a quick route to celebrity in taking their disgreements with it public? Like others of Mrs Wilson’s fellow CIA employees, they actually briefed against the President during the 2004 election campaign without suffering any consequences. Ultimately, the greatest dishonor should go to the scandal-mongering of the media, so ready to heap rewards on such people, but of course that would only happen if we still had anything like an honor culture to appeal to over the media’s heads, as it were...(read the rest)

(links not in order of occurrence)

Strata has his take on the Africa bombshell in the wings. http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2418 Did the CIA assassinate the Nigerien leader who was scheduled to travel to Iraq? What was Wilson's role, if so and why was this done?
Nope, not buying it. I'm pretty sure if that's the kind of thing that Wilson's friends are hiding, they would have killed him ("unfortunate accident") three years ago once they realized that Tourette Boy couldn't shut himself up.
JM Hanes


"You need to write it."
Alas! Unfortunately, they need to write it. :)


Link 2 fixed


the role the Post itself played both in the march to war and in the leak

Oooooh I smell a cat fight brewing. Now wouldn't that be fun!

Alas! Unfortunately, they need to write it. :)

JM, you could help 'em along. Be kind to the pathetic and all that.


-Joe Wilson had been in Niger twice on business. Exactly what business is he in?

-As I'm sure you're aware A Q Khan (the Pakistani Prince of Nukes) and an Iraqi delagtion were in Niger at the same time in between Joe Wilson's two "business trips". Is that a coincidence do you think?

-As I'm also sure you're aware if you have done your homework: The government of Niger was deposed and repalced in between the Iraqi Delegation visiting the President and Joe Wilson visiting the President. The former President actually having been assasinated by the later President. So what exactly did Joe Wilson expect to find out from the "new" President regarding the old administration? And which US agency is involved in foreign coups? Hmmmmm.

-Oh, you might also ask yourself why Joe Wilson's "company" was sharing office space with a Middle Eastern Group with terrorist ties? Hmmmm. What was Joe Wilson's consulting business again? Oh, yeah it had to do with brokering business deals in foreign nations using his "connections" abroad. (Wait a minute, what business was Joe doing in Niger again?) Hmmmmmm

-Oh, by the way, you might also ask yourself how Smokin' Joe knew about the forged documents regarding the Yellowcake that so embarrassed the Administration before the public apparently did. Whoops, slipped up on that one. Guess who gave the docs to the Italians before they gave them to us? Yup, you guessed it, the French. Oh, by the way, the French run the Uranium mines in Niger. Oh, yeah, guess who had the contacts with the people who run the uranium mines in Niger. That's right! Joe Wilson.

-Wait a minute, wasn't Joe also an ambassador to Iraq? Wow, small world.


Folks, this what one person at the DU has to say about today's WaPo editorial:

AngryAmish (1000+ posts)
Fri Sep-01-06 08:45 AM
Response to Original message
25. We have to destroy whoever wrote this
and their families

One cannot write this bullshit and not
expect repercussions.

It will probably get deleted.


--Oooooh I smell a cat fight brewing. Now wouldn't that be fun!---

Yeah, is Wilson accusing WAPO of orchestrating a "smear campaign" designed to silence a critic? Too bad there is no-one to "out", he's just going to have to take this one.




is always posting teh crazy.

Can wait to see the WAPO comment jihad!


Did you see TM's DU poster creative lawyering update

"......it looks like Rove and Libby didn't leak her name. But, considering that the money [Valerie Plame] was offered for her book was largely based on them doing so, it strikes me that she may still have a case. After all, now she's not going to make nearly as much dough. So maybe she can sue them for not leaking her name?..."

Seriously. Can't. Make. This. UP!


TSK9, do you think Deb Howell is going to be working a little overtime over the holday weekend?


The administration needs to find ways to force this scandal out into the open in ways the libs cannot ignore.

Here is one delicious scenario to contemplate:

Can Bush and Cheney reappoint Libby to his old post, or are they barred because he is pending trial? How about if Fitz tosses in the towel, which I think is now a real possibility?

What would the libs say if this happened? Do they really want to talk about this at length? Would Libby need to be confirmed by the Senate? Oh yes, please!!! The public would be stunned to see Libby reappointed and forced to rethink what the hell is going on. And the libs would not want to tell their lies now. How sweet.

Here is another more realistic possibility, already discussed previously here at JOM.
Can Gonzalez and Justice come down on Fitzgerald and Comey for clearly gaming the system?

I expect the Democrats to behave despicably. What I cannot stand is when the Republicans do not fight back. That is too much to take.

Any other ideas?


JJ, about 9:12 am

Yeah, I love this #@$! too. I was being fecetious. Maguires posts make it better by adding some wit, along with his frequent posters. And nearly all of it without the rage you see at some places



we don't get mad...we get even :)


Did you see TM's DU poster creative lawyering update

I posted that quote upthread and then TM put it up, but it's not from a DUmmy, it was Brainster (got confused in a thread at CU)



Killing A Zombie

September 1st, 2006 Yesterday, I wrote about the attempt by some to resurrect the foul corpse of the Plame investigation. CNN was happy to bring Baron Samedi to the graveyard while the dynamic duo of Plame and Wilson keep trying the incantations in civil court. Today the Washington Post comes out with what reasonable people will consider the final word on this pumped up set of lies masquerading as a scandal.
excerpt from WaPo here....
Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson.

Now, while reasonable people may consider that the final word, the people who pimped this story endlessly and created the elaborate house of cards that was Plamegate have proven themselves completely lacking in reason. But salvation is at hand, folks. Obtain a copy of the WaPo editorial and roll it up into a tight tube. When someone raises the zombie of the Plame affair, apply the rolled up news paper sharply to the side of the zombie's head. After all, we have expert advice that that is the way to deal with zombies.

You'll have to visit BlueCrabBlvd
to link the expert advise

It is a TGIF after all.

PS sent all pertinent comments and
links to FOX including the weekend shows - hope they follow up and give Maguire and the JOMers some credit.

Can one be a Conservative Utopian??


He He He. Scary Larry Chimes in.


What a Rosebud moment.


Interesting. I like the Woodward quotes.

A minor point. You quote Woodward as saying "Aldridge[sic] James[sic]". The spy in question was actually "Aldrich Ames". I assume the original transcript was phonetic (and wrong).


This WashPost opinion piece will be harder to ignore than the SSCI report on Wilson.

Still the biggest riddle has not been solved. If Karl Rove is a such a genius, why the name "Joseph Wilson" been coupled with "Kerry campaign adviser?"


Oh Javani, honey that's not the half of it!

Now can we say, Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame are fair game!

Release the hounds. This is going to get good now that they don't have their media human shields! As the search engine shows, even KOS has cut them loose. All they've got left is George Soros' "Media Matters", Scary Larry Johnson the DUmmies and Jason Leopold.


A rare public commentary by 'Fred Hiatt:'

"I did write that editorial, it's a subject I've I've felt quite strongly about for some time, no I'm not going to discuss why I feel so strongly about this subject, but I do... should I be writing an editorial about something I feel quite strongly about, what are you saying... feeling quite strongly about some thing is a good thing... not for an editor of a major newspaper, eh... now who told you that... but that was years ago, newspapers are different now, we have a responsibility to be involved... no, they're not my masters, just friends that I agree with... like Rummy and Cheney and Dubbie and Condi and, oh you know, all of 'em... hey, I'm not a reporter, I'm an editor, I get Paid for having Opinions... just look at the WSJ, that's a fine paper, they have Opinions don't they... well so do I."


Sam,great news Iraq death halved in August,aren't you pleased little fellow?

Senator Kennedy stated "This was only a blip,because the insUrgents were on holiday".


The Last Hoorah from Flat Tire:

September 01, 2006
I'm Not Surprised
by emptywheel

I'm not surprised by several things in the WaPo's disingenuous editorial on the Plame Affair today. For example, I'm not surprised it relies on the word, "primary."

But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage. [my emphasis]

It's a word Novak conjured up when he went clean last month, and it seems designed to cast the majority of the blame on Armitage and away from Rove. Yet it relates solely to Plame's purported role in Wilson's trip to Niger; Novak never says that Armitage was his source for Plame's classified identity or name (he reverts to much less convincing stories to explain away his use of the word "operative," "Plame," none of which come from Armitage but which are more important to the story than Plame's general role). And the word "primary" might be taken to mean "first," particularly if you're the NYT, even though English speakers and smart doggies know there's a difference.

I suspect if I rifled through Fred Hiatt's, Chris Hitchens', and Byron York's trash, I'd find a little talking points document stressing the importance of this word "primary," which seems to suggest so much, but more likely obscures the entire story.

Continue reading "I'm Not Surprised" »

Geez, where to begin? How about an alarm clock, cause that chick is dreaming.

It was ARMATIGE. Say it again ARMATIGE.
Scooter, the VPOTUS and Rove had nothing to do with telling Novak. Novak called them. Deal with it honey.


make that Armitage! LOL


Armitage Verner,,,,Armitage :)

I told EW it's bad for your wheels to dribve on flat tires


This open warfare that seems to be coming between the NY Times and the Post will be interesting.

The Times is in trouble (to TM's disappointment I'm sure) since they've invested so much in the "Wilson was savaged" narrative. Not only would they have to backtrack significantly from previous editorials defending Wilson and excoriating the White House, they'll have to abandon some of their key personnel who've promoted the line. E.g., Nicholas Kristoff et al.

And where has old Taint Nick been lately?

On the other hand, much of the prestige press has been with the Times (or more accurately, tagged along) so I can see the Post having the smaller army in their battle against the coalition of the spinning.

And yes, Ayman al-Zawahiri will be played by Chris Matthews.


JM Hanes

Hi Joe!

Why be shy? You'd hardly give the best versed blog in town a miss, now would you? Tom Maguire may know almost as much about Plamegate as you do (your unexpected modesty on that score is a hoot, btw!), and anybody who knows anything about it, knows this is the ne plus ultra in Wilson watering holes. You may know TM yourself, Mr. Ambassador (can't help myself, it sounds sooo good), from the comments at Next Hurrah. We'd be going for the full Monty over at Firedoglake too, if it weren't for an apparent technical glitch.

So someday, when you're not all buoyed up, or think you're not getting enough attention, or otherwise regain your senses, come on in from the cold and I guarantee, we'll just shower you with questions. In the meantime, we'll check out Wilsonsupport.org. For sure. We're almost as fascinated by the Wilson personna as you are, so not to worry. We don't think this story is over yet either!

(Oh, BTW2, Tom's women are really hot in ear muffs and some of them already have cars!)


Senator Kennedy stated "This was only a blip,because the insUrgents were on holiday".

Yeah, he gave them the keys to Hyannisport.

Sara (Squiggler)

Bob Beckel, the strigent dem operative/pundit/talking head just admitted on Fox News "John Gibson" a simple "Yes" when asked if he was willing to now accept that Wilson is responsible for outing his own wife. Wow! This after being read the salient WaPo quote that is the subject of this post.



On Fox, democrat operative Bob Beckel was just asked if in light of the WAPO editorial he was ready to admit the Plame affair was over. With a very red face he quietly replied: "yes".

It's interesting to see who is falling and who is not.


Jane, next thing you know, the dems will start saying that the so-called "insurgents" are cooling it until the midterms so that the repubs can keep the House.


Heh, the insurgents don't recognize Labor Day weekend!

The responses given by Joe Wilson, Scary Larry, and others give me an indication that they know this is the last chance of keeping this story alive before it's over for all of them.

Seems to me that their argument for their lawsuit is going to be based on their belief that Bush misled us for going to war against Iraq.

If that is the case, then they've already lost the lawsuit.

JM Hanes

Sara & Jane:

Admit it! You conspired to out Bob Beckel, didn't you? Your stories are just too similar, and, well, I'm sorry but I've got to question the timing.


Tom's women are really hot in ear muffs


Rick Ballard

Beckel, the WaPo and the NYT would all like to get the nutroots off the front porch, both by killing this farce and through lack of coverage on Neddy the Unready.

There are a few key elements that I hope become the focus of coverage from the pitful remnants of press who still retain a few firing synapses.

Who within the CIA was pushing the original referral? How were they linked to MOM and the VIPers?

Who assigned Eckenrode as head investigator and what were his instructions? Did Comey have anything to do with Eckenrode's assignment? Was Ashcroft at all aware of what was going on from beginning?

Who within DoJ suggested to Ashcroft that recusal was appropriate? Were there any memos out of OCR that gave a little push? Who are Schumer and Conyer's contacts within DoJ? Are any of them still on the payroll?

Sensenbrenner should consider (or simply announce) hearings on Fitzpatrick's "continuing investigation". Fitz is using it as a thin pretense for holding certain information closer to his vest than is warranted. In particular, Eckenrode and his "investigators" actions in October and November deserve very, very close scrutiny.

We've known for five months that MJW fingered the right man. What would have happened had Armitage's name not been raised with some decent backup? The fact that Fitz talked Judge Walton into non-disclosure is not at all promising.

It wasn't just Woodstein's gargle that put Armitage on the hot seat. Let's not forget that Woodstein's career is built on the tissue of Felt half truths.

Sensenbrenner needs to make some noise - especially about the "ongoing investigation" garbage.

And Neddy the Unready's battle with Solid Joe needs to stay on the front burner as well.


Bob Beckel, the strigent dem operative/pundit/talking head just admitted on Fox News "John Gibson" a simple "Yes" when asked if he was willing to now accept that Wilson is responsible for outing his own wife. Wow!

You have to recognize the dem operative/pundit/talking heads from the insane believers. Beckel has never been able to cross over and "believe". Look at his face. He knows the difference even when he doesn't say it.

Jim Miller

There's one thing in the editorial that that I am not sure that I believe, the first two words, "We're reluctant". I suspect that most at the Post are a little pleased that this gives them a chance to, as I wrote in my own post, "rub salt" in the NYT's wounds.

Does anyone have even a guess at how many columns, editorials, and articles done by the NYT now need corrections or even complete retractions? Dozens, at least. This makes the Jayson Blair scandal look small. These mistakes weren't made by a junior staffer but by some of the top people at the Times.

Sara (Squiggler)

Isn't it about time that Judy Miller start telling ALL?


A reader has asked me two questions and I wonder if anyone can save me time by recalling the answers, please:
(1)Do you reacall(can you help me find?) a statement by Woodward on Larry King about a year ago to the effect that if someone had asked me the next day, I'm sure I would have known, but they didn't ask until months later ...

(2)Does anyone recall Miller writing about Wilson pre-indictment?

Did she Miller discuss her GJ testimony pre-indictment? (I recall that she did..but I have misplaced the citation.) Thanks in advance.


Let's just add Jim, top people at the NYT that I would bet my eye teeth knew EXACTLY where Plame worked from the very beginning--like half of DC.

I think Plame sourced Kristof's original piece. Can't you just hear those scummies at that breakfast meeting...

"Now Nic, keep this under your hat, now you really really can't tell, but Valerie, my little woman and the mother of my twins, works for the C-I-A. Yeah that's right, she's covert buddy, knows how to blow stuff up and all that! She can back up anything I tell you. She was there."

Come on, tell me it didn't happen just like that.


Armitage=just a gossip

Rove, Libby: EEEEEEEEEVIL!!!!!


How can the left perform such pretzel like contortions without their heads exploding?



I wouldn't bet that Plame was not a source to Corn, Kristoff or Pincus.
Now that Armitage has admitted that he was a source to Novak and Woodward and Woodward admits he mentioned it to Pincus, and Bradley told Vanity Fair (meaning he heard it on the grapevine) Libby should renew his motion re Armitage. Woodward concedes after all that he may well have told Libby what Armitage told him, that, in fact, his notes show that he intended to.


Texas Rainmaker has Joe Wilson's original draft of his editorial.

He gets it absolutely spot on.

(Sorry if this has been linked before. I've read the comments but not followed all the links.)

Ambassador Joseph Wilson Esq.

"Hi Joe!

Why be shy? You'd hardly give the best versed blog in town a miss, now would you?"


Sorry it took me so long to respond to your kind invitation, but I was out on a date with my hair.

"So someday, when you're not all buoyed up, or think you're not getting enough attention, or otherwise regain your senses, come on in from the cold and I guarantee, we'll just shower you with questions."

You may now shower me with questions or just shower me if you'd like, preferably while wearing your ear muffs.;)



In this transcript, is the Woodward thing. He says it a couple of times, here is one:

WOODWARD: And then as he has said, as Len has said, we would have worked. And, you know, it's a matter of record, and it's a matter of my sworn testimony.

I made efforts to get the source, this year, earlier, and last year, to give me some information about this so I could put something in the newspaper or a book. So, I could get information out, and totally failed.



Wiat, that quote didn't answer your reader question, but this is the transcript


Clarice -

Judy Miller and wrote about her GJ testimony on Oct 16.

Libby Indicted Oct 28


Thanks, ts. I knew you'd have it at hand.

I also recall an article in which Miller reported what she told the newsroom about her testimony before the indictment. If anyone has that, please whistle.


See, if Woodward said that had Armitage freed him to testify and he was asked if he'd tole Libby in mid June his recollection would have been better, isn't that indicating that it was Armitage who obstructed the investigation? Yes, it does. That is exactly the sort of thing real obstruction is designed to cover.


Thanks, Enlightened.


This Clarice?

WOODWARD: You know it's an ongoing story but just let me take what I said to you on the eve of these indictments of Scooter Libby. I called him the junkyard prosecutor. I think that's a term I shouldn't use because it's easily ripped out of context.

Mike Isikoff was there. Mike Isikoff I hired at "The Washington Post" many years ago. I used to laugh and call him a junkyard dog reporter as a compliment because he never gives up. And here on the eve of this indictment I'm saying this prosecutor looks everywhere, looks under every rock.

Well the irony is the next day I learned that he was missing a significant piece that -- or it might be a significant piece and it involved me so I'm one of the rocks he never turned over in an interesting way. And, as people have rightly written, so, you know, what do we know about this? It went on for two years. A piece was missed.

KING: But you still wouldn't -- you still wouldn't say you think the consequences are not great.


Sorry, Woodward's 3rd paragraph


Clarice - I think this is the Woodward quote you mean?

"And my sworn testimony is that it's possible. I simply don't recall
it, and he certainly said nothing. But after long interviews and you
have long lists of questions, you can't really say, "Gee, did I ask that
or that." At least, two years later, I can't. Maybe the next day I
might have been able to."



Thanks again, ts. I haven't time to review the transcript so I sent it to him.

I think he recalled Woodward saying something to the effect that if Armitage had released him, he went before Fitz and Fitz asked him if he's told Libby, his recollection about that would have been fresher then than it is so much later.

But whether he said it quite that way or not, the point is a good one. By reusing to give Woodward a waiver in 2004 when he asked, Armitage most certainly obstructed the investigation.


BINGO!!! ts. You are the winner and still champion of fast retrieval of really important things ..and an absolute doll to boot (ear muffs or not.)


After November, Libby gets pardoned.

Or certainly before Bush leaves office. Which again may be shortly after November if the Democrats take back the Senate and House.

And Wilson is posting at the DU. When you've got to appeal to that crowd, you're in trouble.



Clarice - Miller's article- you need to scroll down a little -



And this is the little tidbit that Fitz didn't have when he indicted Libby?

"And my sworn testimony is that it's possible. I simply don't recall
it, and he certainly said nothing. But after long interviews and you
have long lists of questions, you can't really say, "Gee, did I ask that
or that." At least, two years later, I can't. Maybe the next day I
might have been able to."

Note to Fitz: SHUT.IT.DOWN


Thanks. I think this is it.



Are you sure it's the real Joe Wilson SMG?

Please don't make me go there--tell us what he's written!


This is an interesting overlooked factoid, that reiterated the WAPO today

And so -- and if you were there at this moment in mid-June when this was said, there was no suggestion that it was sensitive, that it was secret.

KING: How did it even come up?

WOODWARD: Came up because I asked about Joe Wilson, because a few days before, my colleague at the "Washington Post," Walter Pincus, had a front-page story, saying there was an unnamed envoy -- there was no name given -- who had gone to Niger the year before to investigate for the CIA if there was some Niger-Iraq uranium deal or yellow cake deal.

I learned that that ambassador's name was Joe Wilson, which was, you know, Wilson eventually surfaced...

KING: I see.

WOODWARD: ...*** I guess a few weeks later.*** [[does this mean Woodward learned about and name of WIlson a few weeks BEFORE June 12th???]] So I said to this source, long substantive interview about the road to war. You know, at the end of an interview like this, after you're doing an interview on television, you might just shoot the breeze for a little while. And so, I asked about Wilson, and he said this.

OK, Wilson was UNNAMED at the time of the Woodward/Armitage interview. (Remember, Andrea said everyone was trying to find out who the unnamed Envoy was)

Woodward easily learned his name BEFORE he went to the Armitage meeting. (through his colegue Pincus, and he and Pincus and Priest would meet freuquently for their "War Group" sessions)

and Armitage was not surprised that Woodward was using the anonymous Envoy by name?

And Armitage answered the question IN TERMS OF WILSON not the "Niger Trip"

AND -- I might ADD -- this was ALL BEFORE the Wilson OP-ED in which he said he went at the BEHEST of Cheney

(but it has been a long time since I have read Kritoff's and Pincus's originals)


(and I also think t is interesting Woodward learned ABOUT Wilson a few weeks BEFORE the June 12th meeting)


Nevermind on Woodward learning Wilson name a few weeks BEFORE the Army meeting,...he's saying Wilson went public a few weeks later.


But he did know Wison before the Army meeting (just did SAY it was WEEKS before) -- didn't think I was clear

thomas mcneely

for what it's worth, and don't kill me for saying this, but has anybody read Jason Leopold's book News Junkie? I picked it up because I was curious but I have to admit that it was one helluva read. I know shocker, but I read the whole damn thing in one sitting. It was that good. Anyway, just sayin


"Who was that masked stranger?"
"That was the Unnamed Envoy"

Well, that's the title for the book,not as good as the "Manchurian Candidate" but OK.

Just imagine the "Third Date"(Plames book)
"Oh Oh Oh! Unnamed Envoy,I'm COVERT!!!"



This goes to Armitage's motive for leaking. I think there was concern in State that because they had been leaking so much in the policy fight over the war Wilson would come across as speaking for them (especially since he was claiming that he wasn't sent by the CIA, which really leaves only State as the agency that would have sent him and he was a former career State employee). People at State wanted the press to know that Wilson wasn't speaking for them and that State didn't send him. This is why I think Armatige told every reporter who showed any interest that Wilson's wife at CIA had sent him on the trip.


Also, add to what Woodward is saying, what Cliff May has written. Wilson was known about town as a State Department wash-out and not all that bright. BW asked Armitage "why him?" and was told, with a wink and a nod--the wifey. Woodward didn't go after it, but it appears that he may have told the other WaPoers not to get too far out on a limb with Joey boy--kind of like Rove was trying to do. In other words, not an attempt to hurt Joe and Val, but an honest try to keep the press from printing his half truths and lies.

Now what's wrong with that?

By the way, if Armitage doesn't release Woodward, Novak, maybe Miller, and whoever else he blabbed to from their source agreement, he is without question a pathetic wee little bit of a man. I'd fess up at this point, or he may be telling it in front of a judge.


Well doesn't it just sound like the State Depart. was just a bit more in the know on Wilson BEFORE Wilson was an anonymous newspaper source, as in BEFORE the INR memo?

I trying to figure how Armitage was so casual about talking by name a person that was supposedly Anonymous ...and if Woodward proposed the name "Joe Wilson" to Army...wasn't Army at that point not in a position to acknowledge he knew the name of an anonymous newspaper source? He should have only --at that point -- been able to speak about the Niger trip in general terms?

pretty sure I am not making my point well


And shall we remember TS9, that Val was in the process of transitioning to State when all of this broke? Of course they knew about her. As was written in The New Republic many moons ago, lots of people knew about ole Val.


-- People at State wanted the press to know that Wilson wasn't speaking for them and that State didn't send him. This is why I think Armatige told every reporter who showed any interest that Wilson's wife at CIA had sent him on the trip.--

Prolly. I am going to (ACK!) reread the original Pincus and Kristof articles and see if it was clear the innuendo was the VP office sent him or if in those articles it was unclear WHO sent him.



To me, that is where Grossman comes in. I think Armitage leaned about Wilson and his wife from their long time friend. To the Wilsons and to Grossman, the fact that Val worked at CPD and set up his trip actually added, rather than detracted from Wilson's credibility (and others might have agreed if Wilson hadn't lied about how he got the gig). Armitage saying he got it from the INR is juat a way to blame something that can't be interigated.


Oh, and TS9,

Don't forget, People from State were in the meetings both before and after Joe went to Niger. The Ambassador knew about Joe's meeting, so I assume Armitage and the rest of them would have known, with little effort. And certainly after those Pincus/Kristoff pieces, they were curious, wouldn't ya think?

richard mcenroe



Well in re-reading the 2 Kritof and 1 Pincus article it looks like Armitage's intent was a little bit more than "gossip" (like Thomas said), he was engaging in a little hot potato and he and State were well apprised of Wilson, he was doing exactly what The VP's office was and the most striking aspect of the re-read is the stunning LIES Wilson told those 2 reporters - had Wilson not lied and embellished his information or it's non-existent importance - NO ONE - Libby, Army anyone would have had to say a word.

All things known, still can't believe this crud ball was able to pull off for so long


It's odd that in all of this there have been no calls for the indictments against Libby to be dropped. I understand the arguments people will make (it's perjury not leaking blahblahblah) but it really is a travesty of justice and someone besides us should realize that and say something.

What is perfectly clear now is that Wilson's civil suit will be laughed out of Judge Banks Court.


TM has updates and this one on EWheels post today

--Uh huh. And nearly three years later, the lights will be burning in Special Counsel Fitzgerald's office this Labor Day Weekend as he continues to plumb these mysteries, right? Wrong.---

cracked me UP!


How can they call Armitage's leak inadvertent when he was obviously blabbing it to any and all that would listen.the fact that they have their leaker should be shouted to the rooftops by the MSM. Overall-silence. I agree with SteveMG and also predicted earlier that after the midterm elections Bush either shuts this dog and pony down or pardons Libby.


"had Wilson not lied and embellished his information or it's non-existent importance - NO ONE - Libby, Army anyone would have had to say a word."

Exactly TS9, and that's exactly what the WaPo finally said today. Woodward has been saying something along those lines in a round about way all along--though he (and his home gig) had to wait until Corn and Issie finally outed Armitage in print--because the big fat liar would not give him, or Novak, permission to do so.

By the way, how 'bout that Colin Powell. Hope Laura has taken him off the White House Christmas card list.


It's inadvertent because he was against the war.. That makes it a "good leak". Silly, folks. A "bad leak" is anything said --no matter how innocent and inadvertent--that was done to correct lies which seriously damaged the Administration.

And a good leaker's name must be protected from public scrutiny lest we find out he was in fact THE rat and THE person who actually obstructed the investigation.

I must say that Mr. suspenders AND belt (per Cleo)must have an annotated copy of the Federal Criminal Laws not available to the rest of us, but such an "Eliot Ness with a law degree" cannot, must not, be questioned.

Ask Andy McCarthy who succeeded in getting almmost all of Libby's potential allies to keep their traps shut when the demented prosecution path was so evident.

Foo Bar

Since The Next Hurrah has the skilled researcher, I am sure she will want to square that

Here, let me do it for her. Fitz was appointed December 30, '03. Here are the expenditures for the Fitzgerald Special Counsel office for the 6 months ending March '04: $27K. The first fifteen months of the investigation would bring us through March '05. $585K + $113K + $27K=$725K (I have rounded up in all cases; I imagine if you do the math more carefully it comes out to $723K).

Dude, it was a good week for you and the rest of the right-wing Plamaniaces. You should have quit while you were ahead. Well, you probably still are ahead, but still...

Well, maybe you were right to question firedoglake on that figure. After all, they got that info from some cheap rag that prints nasty anti-Joe Wilson editorials.

Sara (Squiggler)

Jane -- the WSJ article calls for Libby to be freed from his misery. For some reason TM has chosen not to highlight that article with its own post.

The comments to this entry are closed.