Cuckoo--I Mean Booby--Clock

Jane does some heavy lifting this morning (last night?--I notice people were on a 24-hour Plame watch both here and, especially, at Firedoglake) on the timing of Woodward's bombshell, particularly as laid out in this Time piece. Jane's post is inconclusive but it suggests certain conclusions that I'd like to explore.

The folks in the haloscan Firedogswamp seem to be split over whether Rove is Mr. X or Rove flipped on Mr. X. I lean toward the second theory--that the tidbit Rove offered Fitzgerald right before Libby's indictment basically gave away Mr. X's role in this. But I don't think Rove told Fitzgerald directly who and what and when Mr. X is. Rather, I think Rove used knowledge that Woodward had gotten the leak to expose Mr. X without doing it himself.

Here's what I think happened (all the caveats about speculation apply).

Rove Floats Woodward Rumors as Part of His Campaign to Avoid Indictment

Rove was desperate to avoid an indictment and was in mad negotiations all week with Fitzgerald to avoid it. He couldn't get Fitzgerald to back off of a felony indictment, so Rove didn't give him the full details before Friday. But he made sure to set up the story anyway. Around the end of the week, some leaks go out that Woodward's sitting on a big story.

ISIKOFF: No, look, this is the biggest mystery in Washington, has been really for two years and now as we come down to the deadline of tomorrow the city is awash with rumors. There's a new one every 15 minutes and nobody really knows what's going to happen tomorrow. Nobody knows what Fitzgerald's got.

I talked to a source at the White House late this afternoon who told me that Bob is going to have a bombshell in tomorrow's paper identifying the Mr. X source who is behind the whole thing. So, I don't know, maybe this is Bob's opportunity.

KING:  Come clean.

WOODWARD: I wish I did have a bombshell. I don't even have a firecracker. I'm sorry. In fact, I mean this tells you something about the atmosphere here. I got a call from somebody in the CIA saying he got a call from the best "New York Times" reporter on this saying exactly that I supposedly had a bombshell.

KING:  (INAUDIBLE).

WOODWARD: Finally, this went around that I was going to do it tonight or in the paper. Finally, Len Downie, who is the editor of the "Washington Post" called me and said, "I hear you have a bombshell. Would you let me in on it."

Isikoff receives a leak from Rove the White House, someone with good CIA access at the NYT received a leak (no mention of where), and someone at the WaPo got enough of a leak (no mention of where) to convince Downie to press Woodward for more information. All perfectly consistent with Rove leaking to, say, Isikoff (his most obliging mouthpiece and conveniently on Larry King with Woodward that night), VandeHei or Leonnig, and JehlJohnstonStevenson that Woodward had a big scoop. Which of course led them to ask Woodward, either directly or indirectly, what the scoop was.

Now Woodward doesn't reveal when Downie approached him, or when the CIA via NYT leak came back to him. Let's presume it happened at least the day before the Larry King interview, on October 26. Which would be perfectly consistent with Downie's contention that Woodward first told him he received a leak "just a few days before the indictment."

Woodward's Larry King Talking Points

Now, Woodward really really really didn't want to tell his story. I'm not sure precisely why (I've got theories, none very complimentary to Woodward). It's worth noting, though, in that same Larry King interview, Woodward tried to justify the original leak. First, he brought out the notion that this was all gossip and--critically--that it was not originally a smear campaign.

WOODWARD: But Michael's point is exactly right. There is deep mystery here. It only grows with time and people are speculating and there are -- there is so little that people really know.

Now there are a couple of things that I think are true. First of all this began not as somebody launching a smear campaign that it actually -- when the story comes out I'm quite confident we're going to find out that it started kind of as gossip, as chatter and that somebody learned that Joe Wilson's wife had worked at the CIA and helped him get this job going to Niger to see if there was an Iraq/Niger uranium deal.

And, there's a lot of innocent actions in all of this but what has happened this prosecutor, I mean I used to call Mike Isikoff when he worked at the "Washington Post" the junkyard dog. Well this is a junkyard dog prosecutor and he goes everywhere and asks every question and turns over rocks and rocks under rocks and so forth.

KING:  And doesn't leak.

WOODWARD: And it doesn't leak and I think it's quite possible that though probably unlikely that he will say, you know, there was no malice or criminal intent at the start of this. Some people kind of had convenient memories before the grand jury. Technically they might be able to be charged with perjury.

But I don't see an underlying crime here and the absence of the underlying crime may cause somebody who is a really thoughtful prosecutor to say, you know, maybe this is not one to go to the court with. [emphasis mine]

Then, Woodward goes on to try to explain the whole source of confusion. He even reaches into his pocket to try to bring out either the SSCI report or the actual CIA report on Joe Wilson's trip to prove, presumably, that Wilson's report didn't refute the Niger claims.

WOODWARD: I agree but there is some factual problems here. When Wilson went to Niger before all this blew up, in fact before there was a war, he came back and reported and Michael and others who have read the Senate Intelligence Committee on this know his report was very ambiguous.

In fact, most of the analysts at the CIA said that Wilson's findings when he went to Niger supported the conclusion that there was some deal with Iraq. Now that's, I mean the Democrats -- the Democrats and the Republicans all signed that report. That is a fact. And, you know, there are other facts and speculation.

DODD:  That report didn't go into all of that.  The report was about other issues.  I mean...

WOODWARD:  No, but it did.  I've got it in my pocket.  I'll read it if you want.

Now, call me crazy, but this looks like precisely the kind of stance someone would take if he had been coached with talking points. "Tell them this, Booby. Tell them we had a legitimate reason to look into Wilson's trip because his claims didn't match what was in the CIA report. And just by accident, virgin birth if you will, we found out that Plame is Wilson's wife and that she was the one who first sent him. All in the normal course of a day full of office gossip, you understand. And, sure, a couple of us had 'convenient memories'--yeah, that's good, use the term 'convenient memories'--when we testified. But there was no underlying crime, so we really shouldn't be prosecuted. Got that? Good. Now go wow Larry King!"

Which suggests Woodward heard journalists were onto his Mr. X, he panicked, talked to Mr. X, and got a set of talking points to try to back down indictment buzz.

Okay, that takes us to the night of October 27.

Early the next morning, really desperate now that he'll be indicted, Rove sends Luskin to tell Fitzgerald that Woodward received a relevant leak.

The Libby Indictment

Now, before we can figure out how much Rove told Fitzgerald, we should consider a few things. Why did Fitzgerald go ahead with the Libby indictment as written? Why did he go ahead and make two allegations in the press conference that Libby was the first known person who received this leak?

There are two possibilities. Perhaps Rove told Fitzgerald who leaked to Woodward and when. But Fitzgerald went ahead and claimed Libby was the first to receive the leak anyway, in hopes it would increase the chances Libby would flip. After all, Libby had overseen all of Woodward's conversations with Dick. So if Mr. X were Dick, then it would mean Libby probably also knew that Dick had leaked to Woodward in early to mid-June. (Hell, there's a distinct possibility Rove knew about the Dick to Woodward leak because Libby told him!) By naming Libby as the first leaker, Fitzgerald would create a false trap, allowing Libby's lawyers to believe they were refuting Fitzgerald by disproving the Libby was first claim.

My biggest doubt about that theory, though, is the that Fitzgerald didn't caveat the Libby was first claim. As I've said, I don't think the Woodward leak affects the Libby indictment one whit. But just to prevent all the wingnuts from claiming Woodward had proved Fitzgerald wrong, you'd think he'd have caveated his claim better if he had known of the Woodward leak.

So the other possibility is that Rove only told Fitzgerald who leaked to Woodward, but not when, so Fitzgerald still believed Libby was the first leak recipient. And Fitzgerald went ahead with his indictment, knowing that it sent a pretty clear message to Dick that he had the goods on him and he was coming after him. I don't believe this though--Rove was desperate, and probably needed to provide real details to stave off the indictment.

Why Did Mr. X Come Forward?

Which brings us to when and why Mr. X came forward. Well, actually, we know when Mr. X came forward--he came forward on November 3. What we don't know is why.

November 3. A fairly long time after the indictment for Mr. X to sit and wait. Now, as Woodward tells it to Time, his source came forward after Woodward contacted him:

Woodward realized, given that the indictment stated Libby disclosed the information to New York Times reporter Miller on June 23, that Libby was not the first official to talk about Wilson's wife to a reporter. Woodward himself had received the information earlier.

According to Woodward, that triggered a call to his source. "I said it was clear to me that the source had told me [about Wilson's wife] in mid-June," says Woodward, "and this person could check his or her records and see that it was mid-June. My source said he or she had no alternative but to go to the prosecutor.

[snip]

Asked if this was the first time his source had spoken with Fitzgerald in the investigation, Woodward said "I'm not sure. It's quite possibly not the first time." But it is the first time Woodward had contact with Fitzgerald, even though Woodward's name shows up on various White House officials' calendars, phone logs and other records during June and July, 2003, the time frame that is critical to determining whether a crime was committed when information about Plame's employment was shared with reporters. Those White House records were turned over to Fitzgerald long ago.

Something happened between October 28 and November 3 that caused Mr. X to come forward and then, in turn, for Woodward to testify. Perhaps Fitzgerald (in the scenario that says Rove didn't say who leaked to Woodward) simply called Woodward and said, I know you received a leak, time to come in. Or maybe Woodward put two (all the leaks that he had a bombshell) and two (not Libby's indictment, but Rove's lack of indictment) together to realize Fitzgerald had him. Or maybe Fitzgerald called Mr. X (in the scenario that says Rove said who the leaker was) and said, "remember when we chatted in June 2004? Well, you seem to have forgotten something." Or maybe Fitzgerald first called Mr. X, who responded, I did no such thing, and then Fitzgerald called Woodward, who said, hmmm, let me call Mr. X. I kind of lean towards the last scenario, but then that means Woodward's self-hagiography ("I called my source") is a bunch of bunk. Big surprise.

One more detail on Mr. X. If you believed Woodward was just the naive recipient of a leak, while Mr. X was the criminal mastermind, then whom would you want to interview first, Woodward or Mr. X? Woodward, I'd presume, because you'd learn precisely what to ask Mr. X. And maybe, it would provide the evidence you needed to justify subpoenaing someone who had thus far relied on executive privilege. It certainly might explain why you very publicly started presenting evidence to a grand jury again.

What Was the New Information?

There's one last bit I'm not sure about. Woodward told Time that he had gotten some new information, which is what led him to talk to Downie.

In the final weeks before the grand jury indicted vice presidential aide I. Lewis ("Scooter") Libby on Oct. 28 for perjury and obstruction of justice, Woodward says he was asked by Downie to help report on the status of the probe. In the course of his reporting, Woodward says, "I learned something more" about the disclosure of Plame's identity, which prompted him to admit to Downie for the first time that he had been told of Plame’s CIA job by a senior administration official in mid June 2003.

And, as Jane points out, there were a lot of rumors about Fred Fleitz that appear to be connected with Woodward's big bombshell.

As I've mentioned before, many denizens of Traitorgate world -- including Steve Clemons, myself, the Washington bureau at the NYT, Michael Isikoff and apparently Len Downie himself -- had spent the day before the Libby indictment trying to track down the rumor that Bob is working on a "blockbuster" story that some had heard involves Fred Fleitz.

I'm not sure what that Fleitz rumor might be, although I have been saying for months that Fleitz may have offered up Plame's covert status when Fleitz and Bolton had an opportunity to vet the INR memo sometime before the memo was finished on June 10. By that scenario, Fleitz is aware people are shopping incriminating information on Wilson before June 11 or 12 when Grossman briefs at the White House and before June 12 when Dick passed on the information from Tenet.

So let's put two floating factoids together. Woodward's big bombshell may be in some way connected to Fred Fleitz. And Booby is hiding the date of the leak as fiercely as he is hiding Mr. X's identity. Woodward's hiding the date, I'd warrant, because the date will either reveal another inaccuracy in Fitzgerald's chronology, it will reveal a channel of information on Plame not included in Fitzgerald's chronology, or it will reveal the identity of Mr. X as surely as just announcing his name.

Or some combination of all three.

So let me make a stab at Woodward's new information. First, I suspect that Woodward learned that Fleitz was the source of Plame's covert status, not Tenet, as Libby's notes are reported to have said. Not only that, Fleitz said more than Tenet is reported to have said (Tenet is reported to have said that Plame worked in DO, which should have informed Libby and Cheney that Plame was probably covert, but still left some doubt). I'm betting that Fleitz said clearly and unequivocally that Plame was a NOC. And possibly, Woodward learned of this because he realized that Cheney (or Hadley) learned of Plame's identity not through Grossman nor through Cheney's CIA source because he had been leaked the information before either of these conversations transpired, perhaps around June 8, around the time Fleitz was vetting the INR document. And it wasn't solely the claim that Libby was the first to receive the leak that Woodward reacted to when he read the indictment. It was also the claim that Plame's identity came through somewhat legitimate channels, through both Grossman and Tenet.

Is it possible that Woodward called his source and confronted him with the fact that he--Bob Woodward, journalist extraordinaire--had been lied to when he was told this was just gossip?

Well, there are a few problems with this story. Most seriously, it would mean Woodward is really pushing all normal standards of "mid" when he says he received the leak in mid-June. Not a fatal flaw to this theory, I think. Because Booby may be lying at the request of Fitzgerald. Or he may just be a shill.

Another problem with this story is that Woodward still appears to be carrying Mr. X's water. Remember, when Woodward and Bernstein believed they had been lied to by an FBI agent during Watergate, they confronted the agent's boss, justifying outing a source because they had been lied to. If Woodward was misled about the intent of the leak, he should and could reveal Mr. X's identity. Then again, he may just be a shill.

Woodward's Changing Mood

But one observation that may explain some of this. Not only did Woodward change his mind about testifying sometime between October 27 and mid-November. But he also changed his mind--dramatically--about Fitzgerald. On October 27, of course, he considered Fitzgerald a junkyard dog prosecutor, chasing something that wasn't really there. But he revealed to Time his impression of Fitzgerald is vastly different:

During his time with the prosecutor, Woodward said, he found Fitzgerald "incredibly sensitive to what we do. He didn't infringe on my other reporting, which frankly surprised me. He said 'This is what I need, I don't need any more.'"

Could mean that Fitzgerald didn't ask about things aside from Woodward's source (like Fleitz, perhaps). Could also mean that Woodward has a very different impression about the underlying justice of this investigation now than he had on October 27.

Comments

[depressed (formerly obsessed)]

So maybe Woodward, against his will at first, winds up playing a key role bringing down a second corrupt administration -- the "Journalist with a Conscience" scenario. There's also, again, the "Journalist as Conspirator" scenario which thus far hasn't been proven in the cases of Judy, Andrea Mitchell, Novak, et al. but which can't be ruled out.

[Meteor Blades]

I don't quite know why, but I so want to believe that Woodward isn't a shill.

[obsessed]

As I see it, there's a shocking, and growing, number of journalists and news organizations who had, and withheld, information which would have prevented the reelection of George Bush. Woodward, as one of them, is eternally damned in my book, but at this point, I'd be happy to see him or any of the others repent and do something to partially repair the damage they've caused.

[emptywheel]

A few more comments. I think this paragraph...

Asked if this was the first time his source had spoken with Fitzgerald in the investigation, Woodward said "I'm not sure. It's quite possibly not the first time." But it is the first time Woodward had contact with Fitzgerald, even though Woodward's name shows up on various White House officials' calendars, phone logs and other records during June and July, 2003, the time frame that is critical to determining whether a crime was committed when information about Plame's employment was shared with reporters. Those White House records were turned over to Fitzgerald long ago.

...suggests Mr. X may have come forward because he was caught in a perjury trap. It suggests 1) Mr. X has "spoken with Fitzgerald" and 2) that there was evidence of a conversation between Mr. X and Woodward that may have come up in that early conversation.

Also, I suspect I'll be asked, "is this Condi, is this Hadley, is this Cheney." I think all are possible. If Woodward's scoop really relates to a Rove play, it makes it less likely it's Hadley (remember, Hadley thought he'd be indicted anyway, which suggests Fitz didn't need Rove to indict Hadley). Condi is more likely because--recall--she rushed back to DC, all in a crabby mood, early in Fitzmas leak. But I still vote Dick. In another TV appearance, Woodward said,

Now there is a hitch, and--and we've been talking about this, but Joe Wilson, Ambassador Joe Wilson, has a book that's out now, which goes after Cheney's top guy: Scooter Libby, his chief of staff, who is--also has a long history with many of the other people who have been advising the president. And it--there's an ongoing investigation into who leaked Wilson's wife's name, an undercover CIA agent, to reporters and made it public. And his is pointing the finger at Scooter Libby in his book.

Mr. WOODWARD: Does--does he have any evidence, though? Or is this just a guess, surmised?

Ms. BROWN: It is--he...

Mr. WOODWARD: I wish it was Scooter Libby.

Granted, he wasn't asking directly about who his very own personal Mr. X was. But why would he wish this was Libby? I can see him wishing it was Libby if he knew it was someone bigger, Bush or Cheney...

[MarkC]

Meteor: Daily Howler is your site for a defence of Woodward. Indeed, the BS case is compelling if you assume that any light thrown on the process is sure to reflect badly on Bush. But as to Woodward's real intentions, I'm inclined not to be quite as generous.

OT, but I don't know if the amazing article by James Bamford has been mentioned on this site, but I'm taking the liberty of doing so, with a link to my discussion of it:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/19/151049/71

[JWC]

Wow. My head spins. Great analysis.

[JWC]

Wow. My head spins. Great analysis.

[KM]

Wow, emptywheel, you're really on fire this past week.

I don't see how Woodward isn't a shill, given everything we know (pace, with tiresome consistency these days, Bob Somerby). I find it incongruous that Woodward would even confront Mr. X about having been lied to (I'm sure Woodward would conceive the action more charitably), let alone consider that grounds for outing his source. (Perhaps he called up to get clarification.) So I don't see that as the least bit problematic for the rest of your theory. If he was so ruffled by the lie, to the point where he might even have considered whether it warranted outing his source, I don't see why he would have been blithely parroting that very lie on national television scant days later.

And I'm not sure why the "mid-June" thing should be taken so strictly. Perhaps there is some powerful journalistic code against such misattributions that I'm not aware of, but given Woodward's past deceptions, and the Miller mould he seems bent on following, I don't see why he can't be dissembling on this point. Certainly he must have known that to have written "early June" would constitute at least as great a bombshell as the initial revelation of his involvement.

[emptywheel]

MB

He may not have perceived himself to be a shill. But I think it's safe to say, he was taken for a ride on this--may still be on that ride. Is it fair to call Bob Woodward naive?

[whenwego]

It is not clear what you are surmising. Appears to be:
1. Mr. X is Fleitz
2. Timing is June 8 or so for X to tell Cheney
3. Leakers are Rove, Libby and Fleitz
4. Rove outed Woodward/Cheney on indictment day to Fitz
If so, there are two rings here. One is the WHIG ring of Rove, Libby, etc. But they were tools in the hands of the higher ring of Cheney, Fleitz, and maybe others. Fitz paused his indictments of the lower ring because Rove just gave him the higher ring? 'Splains everybody's behavior, but is all speculation, of course.

[Mimi Schaeffer]

The new information Woodward received was quite simple, that he had been outed. The gig and jig were up. He would soon be called to testify before Fitzgerald and had to tell Downie.

[Jeff]

emptywheel - I saw over at fdl that you were asking for the article that stated that Woodward's source had not talked to the grand jury. Here it is from Entous at Reuters.

One question. Unless I am missing something, there is a problem with your intriguing guess as to what the new information Woodward learned was. If Woodward had learned that Fleitz had passed along info the effect that Plame was a NOC, then there's no way that Woodward would still be so dismissive of the whole investigation on Larry King on Oct. 27, would there be?

[along]

I don't know if this is self-evident or not, but it just leapt out at me: in Woodward's comments on Larry King:

"First of all this began not as somebody launching a smear campaign that it actually -- when the story comes out I'm quite confident we're going to find out that it started kind of as gossip, as chatter and that somebody learned that Joe Wilson's wife had worked at the CIA and helped him get this job going to Niger to see if there was an Iraq/Niger uranium deal."

and:

" and I think it's quite possible that though probably unlikely that he will say, you know, there was no malice or criminal intent at the start of this. Some people kind of had convenient memories before the grand jury. Technically they might be able to be charged with perjury."

in the bold passages, he's really talking about HIMSELF. He's laying the groundwork for his own defense, trying to convince himself that everything was innocent and that he will not face any legal jeopardy.

[emptywheel]

whenwego

No, I'm saying Mr. X is Cheney, but he found out about it from Fleitz. Fleitz is the one who knew of Plame's NOC status who passed it on to Dick.

Mimi

Yeah, it could be as simple as that. Which would help out answering Jeff.

Jeff

Yeah, you're right. I felt like there was a hole and you've pointed right to it. Woodward know of Fleitz' role on October 27 and not realize he'd been lied to yet know he'd been lied to as soon as he saw the indictment on October 28.

Or could he? Was Woodward aware of the other leak chronology in the indictment? He almost certainly was aware of when Grossman briefed. But could he have known that Libby wasn't claiming to have learned of Plame's DO status until June 12?

In any case, you're right. That part doesn't make sense.

along

Yeah, those passages are telling. Add in my speculation that Woodward may have passed information TO the get-Wilson people, and it might be very telling.

[whenwego]

emptywheel:
Maybe I am confused. To me, Mr. X is the third leaker who has been speaking with Fitz all along. You think that is Cheney, not Fleitz or (Raw Story) Hadley?

[jane hamsher]

Damn, ew! Great sleuthing. My brain hurt so hard last night by the time I finished that post I simply could not connect the dots any further.

Condi -- I specifically heard Len Downie on CNN repeatedly use "he" and "him" with regard to Woodward's source. If he was being intentionally misleading about gender I would be quite shocked.

I'm also a firm member of the Rove gave somebody up theory. But I have to say I really like the Occam simplicity of Mimi's theory. It feels right.

[emptywheel]

As I understand it, Mr. X is Woodward's first source. Which is kind of confusing, because Rove's first source and Pincus' source have also been called Mr. X.

I think it's much more likely to be Hadley than Fleitz. I can't even imagine Woodward talkign to Fleitz. Too junior, and too far away at State/CIA. Also, someone did an index search on Woodward's book and Fleitz doesn't show up at all.

[whenwego]

Got it.Woody's X is Cheney - no doubt in my mind; the other X is either Fleitz or Hadley or ? You think Hadley. But if it were Fleitz, it rounds off the whole thing, don't you think? (see my upstream post)

[emptywheel]

Thanks Jane.

My brain hurts now. Do you think you can figure out the answer to the big hole Jeff shot in this theory above?

[whenwego]

One answer for Jeff is, Woodie would still be dismissive if he thought he had gotten away scot-free. After all, everyone thought the investigation was over at that time.

[M]

I'm curious why nobody in this thread thinks Richy Armitage might be involved here, maybe not as X but as a source along the way. He and Woody were close, at least back in 03/04 and so far I haven't heard a denial from him, and the WSJ and other point out he was definitely in the know about Plame's id. Somebody didn't like him at the WH since he and Colin "resigned". Something about Hadley being X doesn't compute at this end.

[al-Fubar]

emptywheel -

I only have one small, perhaps irrelevant quibble. It doesn't seem to me that from Fitzmas Day to Nov 3 is really "a fairly long time" for Mr. X to come forward - depending on what exactly "come forward" means.

Presumably if you're Mr X, you don't just see what came down on Friday, then take a cab to the Prettyman Court House on Monday morning (Oct 31) for a chat with Fitz. You call your lawyer, and your lawyer calls Fitz.

And Fitz doesn't say to come right down. He realizes he just shook an unexpected apple out of the tree. (He expected apples to start falling, but the whole sand-in-the-ump's-face point is he wasn't quite sure which ones.) So he has to review his own notes, and make sure exactly what he wants to ask Mr. X. All of which easily gets us to Thursday the 3rd.

Which probably has no bearing on your overall line of argument, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. :)

-- Rick

[Chris Loosley]

KM: And I'm not sure why the "mid-June" thing should be taken so strictly. Perhaps there is some powerful journalistic code against such misattributions that I'm not aware of.

I agree, in fact I've been rather surprised to see previous arguments built on the notion that "mid-June" must refer to a fairly small time window in the middle of the month. Unless there is a journalistic convention here, I would draw exactly the opposite conclusion, as follows:

First assume the speaker needs to refer to a subset of the month, but does not want to state precise date ranges. Next assume that the only three options to hand are 'early', 'mid', and 'late'. If these assumptions are reasonable (which they seem to be in this case), they rule the existence (in the speakers mind) of portions of the month that do not fall into any of the three subsets. That is, the three subsets must partition the entire month.

So how (mentally) would a speaker do that? If they have a very mathematical mind, they could possibly describe June 1-10 as 'early', 11-20 as 'mid', and 21-30 as 'late'. But actually, this allocation, although perfectly logical, is not ideal semantically. In the context of a mental partitioning scheme like this, the terms 'early' and 'late' are semantically more precise than 'mid'. I believe many people would naturally tend to restrict the label 'early' to the first week, and 'late' to the last week of the month. 'Mid', being a much less precise term, is left to cover a much wider range of dates -- in June, potentially as wide as the 8th through the 23rd.

This may seem counter-intuitive if you have been thinking of 'mid' as implying "in the middle of the month". That line of thinking suggests that 'mid' should refer only to small date ranges either side of the 15th -- 13-17, 12-18, the 'middle week', etc. But I don't think that is how the term is being used in the context of a mental partitioning scheme. Rather, I believe 'mid', because of the greater precision of 'early' and 'late', actually just means "not early, and not late".

So in my mind, any logic based on a stated event "in mid-June" should allow the speaker a wide range of legitimate possible meanings. That is, we should not consider that the speaker was being deliberately deceptive if the actual date turns out to have been the 8th or the 23rd. Because the same speaker might consider it more deceptive to describe the 8th or 9th as 'early June', and that line or reasoning would take precedence when deciding which label to use.

Just my $0.02.

[bossanova]

Woodie has not suddenly found a conscience in my opinion. The reason he has changed his tune with respect to Fitz is that he is now part of the investigation and is scared shitless that he might get nailed. There is no doubt in my mind that he and Judy and many others were active participants in the information war against the American public.

There is much more to all this than meets the eye. As Fitz continues the investigation and as each of these rocks get turned over more of these venomous snakes get uncovered. If we can get another indictment or two, then I believe the conspirators will really start to get worried about the heat that is so close to them and start flipping.

Unlike what Booby told Larry King, when all is said and done this will turn out to be an even larger conspiracy than we could have imagined. The reason these guys reacted so viciously to Wilson is because that was the first breach of their conspiracy to intentionally and actively deceive the country and even the world to war. Another dot in this conspiracy is the Rolling Stone story linked to on firedoglake on the role of John Reddon, Judy Miller and Chalabi in the propaganda war. This is an absolute must read to understand the scope of the deception campaign.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/8798997?rnd=1132370690329&has-player=unknown

[emptywheel]

Rick

I guess I assumed the leadup to "coming foward" wasn't that elaborate. And we're not sure what "coming foward means." It doubtfully means testimony (otherwise it'd be easier to pin down Mr. X, particularly since Bush's admin has been travelling so much lately). It might just mean a call on the 3rd. But your scenario works, too.

M

Two reasons I don't buy the Armitage line.

First, the most detailed and best sourced description of the INR memo states that Armitage (and, incidentally, Powell) hadn't seen the memo:

Armitage called Ford after Wilson's op-ed piece in The New York Times and his TV appearance on July 6, 2003 in which he challenged the White House's claim that Iraq had purchased uranium yellowcake from Niger.

Armitage asked that Powell, who was traveling to Africa with Bush, be given an account of the Wilson trip, said the former official.

[snip}

The June 2003 memo had not gone higher than Grossman until Wilson's op-ed column for The New York Times headlined "What I Didn't Find In Africa" and his TV appearance to dispute the administration.

You could argue that Armitage was the source for this story and he was anticipating in July that he would need plausible deniability. But otherwise, this is the gold standard description of the INR memo--particular wrt what happened with it in State.

And there's also a tidbit from Laura Rozen's site.

My best source on this stuff says he's heard differently. Thinks those who have issued denials may not be telling the truth. Imagine that

Keep in mind Laura is personally friends with the best source on this, period, Murray Waas. So I'm guessing that this is Waas saying that not only is Armitage not the guy, but the guy who IS Mr. X issued a denial.