About those Armitage Rumors

by emptywheel

Updated: Damnit. I checked Steve's site before I posted this. Anyway, he has a new post up saying that Inman is full of it. I'm glad Steve checked up on this--I hope in the future he doesn't treat people as credible simply because they're well-connected to things unrelated to the facts at issue. More thoughts on Steve's new post below.

Steve Clemons got sloppy yesterday with the way he printed rumors that Richard Armitage is a target of indictment. Here's what he said:

What Inman shared with some of us -- and this was a repeated assertion from comments that I have confirmed that he made in Austin -- is that the person in Patrick Fitzgerald's bull's eye is Richard Armitage.

I'll get into assessing what it is, exactly, that Clemons seems to imply. But for now, I'd like to discuss why this feels like just another crappily sourced rumor on the Plame Affair. I don't mind that Clemons is implying that Armitage is, in some way, a target of Fitzgerald's investigation. I've been rather convinced Armitage was involved since March. It's the way Clemons qualifies his source, Bobby Ray Inman, as a legitimate source.

But Inman stating this matters.

[snip]

Inman stating that Richard Armitage is the target of indictment is news and could have some veracity because of who Inman is. [my emphasis]

By virtue of Inman saying something, it makes it somehow more credible than any of the other rumors floating around the beltway (more credible, for example, than demonstrating that Armitage is the only name that fits Fitzgerald's redacted filings on the case perfectly). Having read a lot of poorly-sourced rumors on this case recently, my eyes glazed over and when I read Clemons' post and all I could see on my screen was, "Armitage is going to jail because a source, who is big and powerful but who has nothing to do with the case, says he is." For all the evidence Clemons provides to support his rumor, Inman may know no more about this case than my dog (who is pretty smart and gets to watch me blog Plame all day, though he admittedly naps a lot). Is there any reason Inman would have learned that Armitage "is the target of indictment" from one of the four people who might have direct knowledge of that information--Fitzgerald, Armitage, Novak, and Woodward?

As it turns out, Clemons didn't need to appear like Judy Miller's beltway brother. Dan Drezner gets into the act and describes why, beyond being someone big and powerful, Inman might have an inside scoop.

1) I can confirm Inman's statements as Clemons reports them. I can confirm them because Inman made these assertions (and others that, like Steve, I will treat as off the record) to me and the others at my lunch table on the second day of the conference.

2) I would describe Inman's knowledge of this as coming from sources who would be/would have been in a position to know the fact chain on these events. It's not simply that a former NSA head still has automatic inside info privileges.

Aha! See that Steve? That's the way you give reporting credibility!!! By explaining how your vaunted source knows what he knows!! "Inman's knowledge of this as coming from sources who would be/would have been in a position to know the fact chain on these events." I'll also add the very helpful comment peraspera offered in a DKos thread yesterday:

Inman, Armitage, and Powell have moved in the same social circles since their Reagan days. Inman was also CIA deputy director. If Inman knows anything it's likely plain old gossip from those people rather than him having any special insight from Fitz's end of things. Inman is smart and connected but seems to delight in being an insider bubble boy. I wouldn't trust him to get isolated facts put in the proper context in Plamegate.

Now frankly, I don't know peraspera nor do I know the source of her knowledge here. But this is the kind of detail someone who wants to establish the credibility of a source provides--describe how the source knows, rather than claiming the source has credibility "because of who [he] is." If Inman is an associate of Armitage, and if Armitage got a sense after a post-Woodward bombshell interview that Fitzgerald was miffed that Armitage hadn't been completely forthcoming from the start, then it's perfectly likely that Inman knows that Armitage is worried. (He likely doesn't, however, have a clue what Fitzgerald is thinking, unless Armitage has already been informed he's a target.) My point is not that Inman is definitely wrong. My point is that, in the sea of pre-indictment breathlessness, reasonable people would do well to remember how sources earn credibility. They do so not because they're powerful and well-connected generally. They earn credibility because they have a direct involvement in the matters at hand.

Shew. Now that I've got my rant off my chest, let's return to what these folks are telling us. Clemons describes this in clear terms. Not only is Armitage "the person in Patrick Fitzgerald's bull's eye," but "Richard Armitage is the target of indictment" [my emphasis]. Clemons describes this in stark terms--Armitage is the one and only person in Fitzgerald's scopes and he's going to be indicted. But Drezner says something different:

3) There was more that Inman said, and I'm tempted to spill all the beans -- but I'm not going to do it. It would be unfair to Inman, who has probably never heard of danieldrezner.com and would not necessarily have known he was talking to a blogger with any kind of audience. I know this stinks to the reader, but that's what my ethics tell me to do here. UPDATE: There is one other reason -- because this was a group lunch, and not me on a phone talking to a source, I didn't and couldn't press Inman on the complete provenance of his knowledge, Armitage's possible motivations, the relationship between what Armitage did and what Rove/Libby/Cheney did, etc.

4) Related to (3), it is my understanding that what has been blogged here is pretty much common knowledge inside the Beltway. I am genuinely surprised that it hasn't appeared anywhere else in the blogoshere.

Now, I'm going to guess that Drezner's Bullet 3 relates to more details of Armitage's involvement. By suggesting a comparison between "what Armitage did and what Rove/Libby/Cheney did," Drezner comes close to suggesting that Inman told his audience that Armitage did the same thing Rove/Libby/Cheney did, leak information about Valerie Plame. (Though it's worth pointing out that Inman apparently didn't describe the provenance of his knowledge, which raises more source questions for me.)

Okay, let's pretend that Inman told his listeners that Armitage is Mr. X--that he was a source on Plame's identity for both Woodward and Novak. Assuming Inman has recent knowledge from Armitage (but again, Drezner tells us we don't know the provenance of any of this information), then there are two reasons why Armitage would be the "target of indictment." The first, for knowingly outing a covert agent, Valerie Plame. Or, the second, for claiming to cooperate fully with Patrick Fitzgerald, while imploring Woodward not to reveal to Fitzgerald that Armitage had leaked Plame's identity earlier.

Before I assess these two possibilities, let me point out something that should be obvious. If Armitage is getting indicted for either of these crimes, it in no way erases Rove's apparently fast and loose treatment of the truth. That is, while Armitage may well be a target of indictment, he is almost certainly not the target of indictment (if Rove is in fact even that). Armitage may have been Novak's source that Valerie Plame was covert (in which case he'd be subject to the IIPA charge and Rove would not), but Armitage's troubles, if any, don't affect Rove's perjury troubles.

But is Armitage a target of indictment for these other two crimes? Could someone repeating an allegation from "sources who would be/would have been in a position to know the fact chain on these events" know whether Armitage was getting indicted? Well, it depends. As Drezner says, Inman said absolutely nothing about motive, which is a key part of any IIPA violation. And the existing evidence--what Woodward says he learned and what Novak leaked before he spoke to Rove--is inconclusive. Woodward's leak fell far short of outing Plame as a covert agent.

Wilson's wife worked for the CIA on weapons of mass destruction as a WMD analyst.

This may be a violation of classification agreement, but it's not an IIPA violation. Novak's blabbing to Wilson's friend is no more conclusive. According to Joe Wilson, Novak told the friend,

Wilson's an asshole. The CIA sent him. His wife, Valerie, works for the CIA. She's a weapons of mass destruction specialist. She sent him. (344)

Like I said, this is totally inconclusive. Novak adds the allegation that Plame was involved in sending Wilson. But he doesn't use the term covert and the the term "weapons of mass destruction specialist" doesn't specify covert status.

To this inconclusive evidence, let me repeat something Drezner says:

it is my understanding that what has been blogged here is pretty much common knowledge inside the Beltway

Well, I'm far from the beltway. But I have read many beltway insiders say they have "heard Armitage" was Novak's (and Woodward's source). If that's all Inman alleges, then we're not really at indictment stage, are we? That is, a lot of people accept that Armitage is Novak's source. But I've never ever heard the allegation that Fitzgerald is preparing to indict him for it.

Indeed, recent court transcripts suggest the opposite may be the case. In the February 24 court hearing, for example, Bill Jeffress goes to some length to rationalize getting information on Official One (who I will assume is Armitage). He makes it clear that this person--obviously not in the White House--is not Ari or Rove or Hadley.

First, there is the identify of a particular government official, obviously not in the White House, who told two reporters as early as mid-June of 2003 about Mrs. Wilson. I don't feel, because a lot of these revelations are made in letters that are marked confidential and are covered in an affidavit filed under seal, I don't feel comfortable going beyond I guess that description publicly.

But when it comes to arguing why he should get information on this person, he admits the issue of not impugning the innocent accused has been discussed in respect to this person.

Official one -- we know of two reporters that official one talked to. And you know, and I don't mean, and by the way we talked about innocent accused. And certainly I'm not here to tell you that official one did anything wrong whatsoever. But we do know that he did discuss Ms. Wilson with at least two reporters. How many others did he discussed it with? How many others discussed it with him? We don't have a single piece of information from the government as to what official one said about that. We presume that they have interviewed official one and we presume that he has testified . But we don't know that and we don't know a single thing that he has said about that. [my emphasis]

That is, when Jeffress argues that Libby should have access to all details on Official One, he is careful to state that he's not trying to impugn an innocent accused. And when Fitzgerald responds to Jeffress' argument, he suggests that providing the information on Official One would jeopardize the rights of "innocent people."

I think we go far a field and jeopardize the rights of innocent people if we start turning over an investigation of somebody else.

Now, I admit that this argument is only slightly more conclusive than the evidence on whether Mr. X leaked details of Plame's covert status to Novak and Woodward. But let me reiterate the credibility of my source. My source, using the term "innocent people" in a discussion that appears to be about Armitage? He's the guy who, with the help of a grand jury, gets to decide whether what Armitage has done might constitute a crime or not. He's the guy who has been studying "Armitage's possible motivations, the relationship between what Armitage did and what Rove/Libby/Cheney did" for the last two years.

Now this hearing was February 24, so it's possible things have changed in the interim (remember, Novak was reported to have testified post-indictment by Anne Kornblut). And again, I admit this is not conclusive evidence. But it does suggest that the lawyers directly involved in this case have been discussing Official One--who may well be Armitage--as if he is an innocent accused.

So I don't think this Inman revelation offers us much new, beyond the possibility that Armitage has admitted to being Woodward's and Novak's source to his associates. We have known for some time that Armitage was likely Mr. X. But that doesn't tell us a damn thing about what Patrick Fitzgerald thinks about that fact.

About Steve's New Post

The most interesting detail from Steve's new post is this passage:

Another person with deep knowledge about this investigation called to say that Fitzgerald seems to have abandoned any interest in securing indictments regarding the "outing" of Plame and has invested his efforts in challenging the "white collar cover-ups" involved. According to this source, the information provided by Richard Armitage is -- more than any other information -- what has put Karl Rove at major risk of indictment.

I noted in my Armitage as Mr. X post that, if Armitage did talk to Novak but didn't tell him more than Plame the WMD analyst worked at CIA, then it would incriminate Rove. Rove, after all, has claimed to be a confirming source for Novak. Which suggests that Armitage, not Rove, told him the really damning things--Plame's status and name. But if Armitage can prove he didn't tell Novak those things, then it will suggest that Rove lied his ass off about the nature of his conversation with Novak. And that Rove told Novak a lot more about Plame than he has let on.

Comments

[Jim E.]

Clemons has a new post today saying Inman is wrong. Therefore, Clemons has already validated your rant!

He also adds--strangely, in my opinion--that Armitage has provided testimony that specifically harms Rove.

[gbs]

To a layperson's (non-Plameologist's) eye, the comments of Steve Clemons' sources in his post today seem to imply that Armitage was the one who disclosed Plame's identity to the White House, realized how they were going to use the information, fessed up to Powell and has cooperated in full with the Fitzgerald investigation.

This takes IIPA charges off the table, allowing Fitzgerald to focus exclusively on the cover-up. Which, in terms of public perception of the story (and a future jury's response to it), is more damning for Libby, Rove et al (and Cheney?). People might be unsure about how executive privilege and the IIPA do or don't cancel each other out, but everyone can grok obstruction of justice and lying to a grand jury.

[gbs]

Forgot to add: If Armitage is involved so closely with the investigations (three appearances before the grand jury), I suspect Fitzgerald might be pursuing conspiracy charges in addition to the OOJ and perjury stuff.

[Mimikatz]

It seems to me that the lines

I didn't and couldn't press Inman on the complete provenance of his knowledge, Armitage's possible motivations, the relationship between what Armitage did and what Rove/Libby/Cheney did, etc.

could mean that what Armitage did is less serious than what Libby et al. did, i.e., Armitage told Woodward and possibly Novak, but not to smear the Wilsons and not with the intent that it be printed. Now I'll go read Clemons.

[Mimikatz]

So Clemons' sources, one of whom is almost certainly Armitage himself or, more likely, his lawyer, basically confirm your analysis. Armitage was the one who (inadvertently) gave the "Wilson's wife" connection to Novak, presumably also to Woodward, and as well to the WH (Rove) and, maybe, OVP. Maybe the INR memo was really written to explain why State didn't think Wilson was a big deal (since their analysts and their ambassador had debunked the Niger forgeries on their own) and when Armitage repeated the Fleitz/Bolton canard that Valerie had sent Joe, he didn't realize that Rove and OVP would use it as a way to publicly smear Wilson and scuttle Valerie's career, and possibly her operation.

So Armitage indeed is the unwitting person who we heard early on launched this disaster without meaning to or even intiially realizing it. But it is surely Rove's involvement that caused Ashcroft to recuse himself, and if Armitage came clean (mostly) early on, then Fitz must have known from early on that Rove knew about Plame from the get-go.

I can see Armitage spilling the Novak interview and whatever involvement he had in high-level meetings where the smear was either launched or where the details of what became the smear were discussed. But also "neglecting" to mention he had also talked to Woodward, knowing that Woodward, at least, could keep his mouth shut and wasn't going to publish the info.

But Woodward, who is clearly something of a prima donna, saw himself as being at the center of a part of the story and wanted Armitage to reveal that he had talked to Woodward too ("I'm important too!"). I can also see Fitz seeing this for the rather petty grandstanding that it was and understanding that Armitage's slip, in light of all that he had given, was no big deal.

[emptywheel]

More on the Rove details.

First, I suspect Steve is still getting details from people with an outside view of Fitzgerald's investigation. He hasn't lost his big eyes for "very prominent Washington insider[s]" or "well-placed insider[s] who has interacted directly with many of the key personalities involved in the investigation." Assume, for example, he was talking to Wilkerson (with whom he is buddy buddy) and Armitage's lawyer--or hell, even Powell. While it may be very easy for them to determine, based on the questions Armitage got asked and the way he was likely set up, that his testimony can directly disprove Rove's testimony as to what he told Novak, I don't know if they can rule out the IIPA violation unless one didn't occur (that is, unless Rove didn't have direct knowledge of her covert status, but leaked it anyway). I doubt Armitage leaked Plame's covert status to Novak. I suspect, rather, he got his info from the INR analyst notes, in which case he would know neither her name nor her covert status. SO either Rove told Novak those things, or someone else did, in an earlier conversation (say, Mr. Libby). Plus, it's not clear that Clemons' very prominent Washington insiders would know what was in those emails that Fitzgerald belatedly found.

In other words, assuming Clemons' sources really do have a reason to know these things (and I've lost some respect and trust for Clemons with his Inman post), then it doesn't necessarily mean they really know where matters unrelated to Armitage are going.

[Jeff]

I'm totally willing to abandon my pet theory on Armitage in jeopardy in the face of the apparent fact that Inman is clueless and confused and Clemon credulous of a connected DC guy. But the pushback that Clemons got strains credulity in its depiction of Armitage. Clemons says

Two sources have reported that Richard Armitage has testified three times before the grand jury and has completely cooperated and has been, as one source reported, "a complete straight-shooter" and "honest about his role and mistakes".

Well, that pretty much shoots at least one of those source's credibility. Unless Armitage forgot about his conversation with Woodward - and there is reason to think that's not the case - he failed to communicate the fact of that conversation to Fitzgerald and the grand jury until well after he had testified, until after Libby was indicted, and until after it was pretty clear the information was going to come out anyway, since Woodward freaked out and went to him after the indictment. And that doesn't qualify him as a straight shooter who has been honest about his role and mistakes.

What's more, of that is right, there's something screwed up with what Clemons says about Powell too:

According to several insiders, as soon as Armitage realized mistakes he had made, he marched into Colin Powell and laid out "everything" in full detail.

Again, assuming Armitage didn't forget about his conversation with Woodward, either this is just total bs, or Powell, who testified to the grand jury relatively early on, also failed to share his knowledge that Armitage had blown Plame's cover with Woodward.

Here's what we know. Armitage and Powell both were questioned in the investigation relatively early on - Powell at least on July 16, 2004 before the grand jury, and I can't pin down Armitage at the moment. Obviously neither of them revealed Armitage's cover-blowing with Woodward in mid-June 2003. Fitzgerald didn't learn of until after Libby was indicted at the end of October 2005, when Armitage went forward to Fitzgerald, but only after Woodward, all freaked out, went back to Armitage realizing that their failure to disclose their conversation meant Fitzgerald believed something, to the best of his knowledge, that was not so - that Libby was the first to blow Plame's cover with a reporter.

Now, if Armitage had forgotten about the conversation, he's probably off the hook. But I am seriously skeptical that he had forgotten the conversation, not least because it looks like Woodward reminded Armitage of the conversation twice between its occurrence and Armitage's confession to Fitzgerald. Here's Woodward on Larry King Live last November:

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.

I'm almost positive there is a more specific comment from Woodward or Downie on the point, but even this (and what Woodward goes on to say in the interview, about hos Downie wouldn't have done anything differently even if he knew on account of the source's refusal to let Woodward go public) makes it pretty clear that Woodward and Armitage talked about the June 2003 Plame-related encounter once in 2004 and once in 2005 before their October or November 2005 conversation. The point, then, is it's highly doubtful that Armitage didn't remember the June 2003 conversation.

The only other way I can see Armitage off the hook is if he can make the claim that even in fall 2005 he went forward not because he feared being revealed but out of a sense of responsibility. Woodward does say in the LKL interview that after Libby's indictment:

I then went into incredibly aggressive reporting mode and called the source the beginning of the next week and said "Do you realize when we talked about this and exactly what was said?"

And the source in this case at this moment, it's a very interesting moment in all of this, said "I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to tell the truth."

Does Armitage get off because he can credibly claim that if he had told Woodward to keep quiet, Woodward would have undoubtedly done so, thereby implying that Armitage was not motivated to go to Fitzgerald and alter his testimony by the fear that the falsehood of his earlier testimony would be revealed anyway?

Finally, a question. If Armitage has testified to the grand jury three times, were one or two of those times after Libby's indictment?

[TeedOff]

What is going on with firedoglake.com? Hacked by Rove?

[John Casper]

I can't get in either.

[emptywheel]

Jeff

Here's the more specific quote, from Vivnovka's coverage of Woodward:

Woodward said he had tried twice before, once in 2004 and once earlier this year, to persuade the source to remove the confidentiality restriction, but with no success.

Now, note what Vivnovka says. Not "to release me to tell Fitz," but "to remove the confidentiality restriction."

I also think it highly likely that Fitz, facing the prospect of a case with at least 4 top-ranking "very connected Washington insiders" with conflicting stories, he went through two rounds of GJ hearings. We know Rove and Libby both testified twice in March. I'd bet money Armitage and Ari did too. (And probably Hadley and Tenet, but that's just a guess.)

And we still have no idea what Armitage testified to Fitzgerald about. He may have said he leaked to Woodward, Novak, and two other people, but didn't know when he leaked to Woodward. Which wouldn't become important until after the indictment appears. And if you're Fitzgerald and a celebrate investigative journalist offeres to testify without a subpoena, and if that guy may help you to disprove Scooter Libby's claims about when he was authorized to leak the NIE, you do it. Voila, free witness!!

While I think your suspicions about CLemons' sources stories are well-founded. I strongly suspect the "very prominent washington insider--today's very prominent washington insider, I mean--is Wilkerson. Wilkerson, after all, is pretty close with Clemons. And I'm not sure how much I trust Wilkerson to know about what ARmitage told Powell or--more importantly--how current that knowledge is. After all, Powell has distanced himself of late from Wilkerson, because of Wilkerson's boisterousness slamming Bush. But Wilkerson is very much a team player, and very happy to put his boss (and with him, presumably, Armitage) in the best light.

Btw, the Armitage to Powell discussion MIGHT explain the Powell comment in September 2003. If Armitage were the 1X2X6 source, and if he had already told Powell "all" in Fall 2003, then Powell might have been sharing something related to that in a meeting.

[&y]

TeedOff -- It works fine from my terminal at the NSA.... and all the screennames come annotated with fascinating information. Did you know Jane buys vanilla ice cream five times more frequently than your average U.S. citizen? Think about it. Children's ice cream!

(I'm kidding. FDL hasn't been loading for a few hours now. It's complacating my Regular Friday GJ Vigil.)

[TeedOff]

Imagine that - Rove gets indicted today and firedoglake can't report the news. That would be tragic. I think I'd cry for them.

[Tom Maguire]

The most interesting detail from Steve's new post is this passage...

I disagree - I think the most interesting part of the follow-up post is what is missing, to wit, any attempt by any of Armitage's backers to pin the Woodward/Novakleak back on Hadley.

Should we take that point as settled - Armitage leaked?

As to the issue of "What did Armitage remember", his own followers provide a strong hint:

...as soon as Armitage realized mistakes he had made, he marched into Colin Powell and laid out "everything" in full detail.

Well - Colin Powell was not Secretary of State in Oct 2005 when Libby was indicted. Unless Armitage had the idea of 'fessing up to his former boss who was now in the private sector, I think we can assume the "complete straight-shooter" talked to Powell before Rice took over in Jan 2005.

As to Which suggests that Armitage, not Rove, told him the really damning things--Plame's status and name. But if Armitage can prove he didn't tell Novak those things, then it will suggest that Rove lied his ass off about the nature of his conversation with Novak. And that Rove told Novak a lot more about Plame than he has let on.

Maybe. But Novak had other sources - Bill Harlow, for example. Her name was public record (or at least, internet record). And I will never let Jim E forget his very interesting catch of Andrea Mitchell describing the Wilson trip as follows on July 8:

Well, people at the CIA say ...because he [Wilson] was sent over by some of the covert operatives in the CIA at a very low level, not, in fact, tasked by the vice president.

If Ms. Mitchell got that from the CIA, maybe Novak did too. Or maybe he has Lexis. And maybe Novak completed a syllogism - Low level operatives sent Wilson; Plame was involved in sending Wilson; ergo, she is an operative.

Anyway - it is not as simple as saying that whatever Armitgage did not provide must have com efrom Rove.

My guess, BTW - the "Armitage nailed Rove" is of a piece with "complete straight-shooter" - just an attempt to reassure the base that Armitage is a swell guy, and to keep our eye on the prize - even though Armitage shatters the Evil White House revenge conspiracy, he still helped nail Rove.

In other words, spin and BS.

[emptywheel]

&y

LOL, I planted that ice cream information. It's working like a charm, feeding the NSA bad data to throw of the scent. Everyone knows Jane eats chocolate ice cream!

[Cecil Turner]

makes it pretty clear that Woodward and Armitage talked about the June 2003 Plame-related encounter once in 2004 and once in 2005 before their October or November 2005 conversation. The point, then, is it's highly doubtful that Armitage didn't remember the June 2003 conversation.

And exactly how big a part of that conversation dealt with Wilson's wife? If we're talking a parenthetical aside like the INR memo has (almost certainly Armitage's source), it's hard to see why it would be a significant part or especially memorable. Also, Woodward's quotes appear to be in the context of asking for a release, not rehashing the details of the conversation. Finally, there's no indication Fitz ever asked (nor any compelling reason to think it was his focus, since he was tracking down Novak's source), and apparently Fitz is the one who asked him not to talk about it. At best, I think you have a "not proven."

[TeedOff]

All right - firedoglake is back up for me!!! The NSA/Rove hackers probably got nervous and pulled the plug once they realized emptywheel's ability to play dirtier than the NSA.

[John Casper]

I think FDL is back up, taking comments. I would trade that for a "media advisory," from Fitz, however, of which I see none on his site.

[&y]

Everyone knows Jane eats chocolate ice cream!

"All the bloggers know about it."
"Jane doesn't have a chocolate ice cream problem."
"That's not what I hear around TNH."
"It was an offhand revelation from this blogger, who is no partisan icecreamslinger."

Bleh. It's all fun and games until the FBI comes a-knockin'.

Hah! Preview tells me FDL is back online. Mission accomplished.

[emptywheel]

I'm most bummed about Steve's second post because I was just about to post a picture of McCaffrey the MilleniaLab, my secret source on all things Plame. Which I think I will start to do on every new post in which I shred crappily-source Plame rumors.

But here's what McCaffrey's scoop of the day is, in any case:

Richard Armitage looks exactly like a fire hydrant. Therefore he must be a target.

[kim]

I wouldn't be surprised if Woodward was one of Clemons sources defending Armitage.

[Jeff]

Thanks, emptywheel, for the VNovak cite, which is what I was thinking of. The key question on the two Armitage-Woodward conversations across 2004-2005 is the one Cecil raises: did Woodward specifically raise with Armitage the fact that they had talked about Plame back in June 2003. Woodward sure makes it sound that way, but it's not certain. If he didn't, it's slightly more plausible that Armitage might have forgotten that he had outed Plame to Woodward - although he seemed to have no problem remembering it when Woodward reminded him right after Libby's indictment (though that's not 100% certain either).

I'm pretty sure Fitzgerald didn't know Woodward was a leakee when he indicted Libby, so it's unlikely that Armitage owned up to it early on. And there's no way Fitzgerald wouldn't have tracked it down if he had known, given the story Libby told about reporters' knowledge.

I agree that whether it's Wilkerson or someone else, there's a push to put Armitage and especially Powell in the best possible light. I'm just saying they don't succeed, given what we know - which is a distinct question from whether Armitage is in legal jeopardy. I am deeply bothered by the tendency to think that because State folks were the neocons' adversaries within the administration, they were on Wilson's side in this matter, or on the anti-war side in the run-up to the war more generally, and therefore their conduct has to be viewed in a positive light in either case.

As for the September 2003 meeting, I sort of wonder if things didn't move in the opposite direction. That is, if one of the State folks - say, Armitage - is 1, I wonder whether Powell might have learned 2x6 (or some approximation thereof) at that Situation Room meeting.

[Jeff]

And what flavor does the NSA say McCaffrey's scoop is today?

[emptywheel]

Lemon sorbet, I think.

Jeff, I base my viewpoints about State on the animosity that pitted State, on the same side as CIA, against DOD and OVP. I'm not saying they were anti-war. In fact, in many senses, they were advocating a non-democratic solution (a strongman agreed to by all major groups) more than a democracy (which DOD thought they could game). They were advocating realism versus Neocon imperialism. And I'm not fond of either stance as it played out in Iraq.

At this point, I'm most interested in Woodward's motivations in the whole affair. He says, early on, that he wishes Scooter Libby was responsible for the leak, presumably indicating his unhappiness that his buddy Armitage appears to be the culprit. Then, he sees the indictment and realizes he got a leak first and goes forward--for all he knows putting Armitage in more jeopardy--to tell the prosecutor.

It all makes it more likely, I think, that Woodward's "scoop" was a story pushed by Luskin or Libby (I actually think Libby) that Armitage was the real leaker. I think it's Libby because Armitage's earlier leak helps Libby, but bringing Armitage in only helps Rove.

Or maybe they though they were looking at an IIPA and they wanted to introduce someone who more plausibly could have been the guilty party than Ari.

[Jim E.]

I wonder if Woodward would consider clarifying his conversation with what we all reliably assume is Armitage. While Woodward says his source (Armitage) didn't free him from any confidentiality agreement, it seems he should be able to clarify what he's already talked about--namely, the degree to which he returned to his source to talk about the source's disclosure of Plame.

And if Woodward won't talk about that, I wonder if anyone can ask him about Libby's notes. In one of Woodward's books, aren't Libby's handwritten notes described as neat and meticulous? If we learned anything in this case, it's that Libby's not are NOT neat--they're indescipherable. I'd like to hear Woodward explain that discrepancy.

[Jim E.]

OT topic message: I don't know if "SDangerfield" reads the comments here, but I'd like to say that I've agreed with just about every syllable he's written over at TalkLeft (where I'm not registered) the past several days, in particular his lament that TalkLeft has been way too trustworthy of Leopold. I find TalkLeft's defensiveness in the face of SDangerfield's well-intentioned criticism to be unfair and unfortunate. I do think TalkLeft has been admirably transparent in linking to debunkers as well as Leopold this week, but I think she's also being disingenious when she says she doesn't have anything invested in Leopold's story. SHe said she believed him, for crissake, and SDangerfield merely suggested that Leopold's track record shouldn't garner him that type of immediate trust. It's too bad she basically told such an excellent contributor to buzz off.

ANyways, sorry to muddle emptywheel's board with a conversation better suited for TalkLeft. Just wanted to high-five SD.