by emptywheel
This is the second part of a multi-part narrative of the whole Plame Affair. The first part is here. This installment is loooong, but I think it important to keep all of leak week together to show the trends and changes in the Administration's talking points.
Overall, the WH reaction to Wilson seems to have evolved over the week. They threw one then another detail out to smear Joe Wilson and didn't always seem clear about the details, even the details they wanted to disseminate. Libby seems to have been the avant garde of the leaking, leaking solid details of things on Tuesday that others started leaking more vaguely--but more publicly--on Friday. BushCo started, on Monday, simply denying OVP's involvement. By Tuesday, the emphasis was on leaking details of Joe Wilson's trip report and beginning to leak Plame's identity. Both these intensified on Wednesday. On Friday, they seem to have added one item to the more general
talking points (as distinct from the avant garde, more extensive points
Libby was working from): cueing reporters to figure out who sent Wilson
on his trip. By Saturday, they appear to have been seriously distorting the CIA report on Wilson's trip to suggest Wilson was an Iraqi-Nigerien go-between--though by the end of the day, Libby appears to have realized that falsehood might get them in trouble.
Sunday July 6: Dick Takes Notes
On July 6, the NYT publishes Joe Wilson's op-ed and he appears on Meet the Press. Dick apparently annotates his copy of Wilson's op-ed using some of the same terms others in the White House would use later in the week.
Have they done this sort of thing?
Send an Amb to answer a question?
Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us?
Or did his wife send him on a junket?
And OVP puts together--and sends to Ari Fleischer by the next day--a set of talking points.
On July 6 the article is printed. On July 7 in response to that, the office of vice president sends some talking points to Mr. Fleischer about the vice president didn't know about this trip before.
Monday July 7: Priming Ari
These talking points may or may not have reached Ari before his morning gaggle, but in any case Ari spins precisely the story about OVP that they want him to spin.
Q Can you give us the White House account of Ambassador Wilson's account of what happened when he went to Niger and investigated the suggestions that Niger was passing yellow cake to Iraq? I'm sure you saw the piece yesterday in The New York Times.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there is zero, nada, nothing new here. Ambassador Wilson, other than the fact that now people know his name, has said all this before. But the fact of the matter is in his statements about the Vice President -- the Vice President's office did not request the mission to Niger. The Vice President's office was not informed of his mission and he was not aware of Mr. Wilson's mission until recent press accounts -- press reports accounted for it.
Unfortunately for OVP, though, the talking points don't prevent Ari from admitting the uranium reference in the SOTU was based on the Niger claims--and therefore faulty intelligence.
The President's statement was based on the predicate of the yellow cake from Niger. The President made a broad statement. So given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the President's broader statement, David. So, yes, the President' broader statement was based and predicated on the yellow cake from Niger.
Q So it was wrong?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's what we've acknowledged with the information on --
Q The President's statement at the State of the Union was incorrect?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because it was based on the yellow cake from Niger.
No matter. When Libby and Ari meet for lunch, Libby thanks Ari for stating that OVP did not send Wilson. Then, Libby gets a little smarmy and buddy buddy with Ari, which is weird, because Ari is not considered a trusted insider, certainly not by Libby. Libby tells Ari that "[T]he Vice-President did not send Ambassador Wilson to Niger . . . the CIA sent Ambassador Wilson to Niger. . . . [H]e was sent by his wife. . . . [S]he works in . . . the Counterproliferation area of the CIA.” Libby also made sure Ari knew this was sensitive, calling it "hush hush," "its on the QT." Also that day, Bob Novak calls Ari and leaves a message--though I doubt Ari ever called Novak back. And Ari puts together a statement, explaining what he said during the gaggle, that the White House did not stand by the uranium claims in the SOTU anymore. Then Ari gets on Air Force One and flies off to Africa.
I suspect Novak also calls Richard Armitage on July 7 and asks him about the backstory to Joe Wilson's trip. Armitage appears to have told Novak something like:
Wilson's mission was created after an early 2002 report by the Italian intelligence service about attempted uranium purchases from Niger, derived from forged documents prepared by what the CIA calls a "con man." This misinformation, peddled by Italian journalists, spread through the U.S. government.
Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report.
[Bush's SOTU] attributed reports of attempted uranium purchases to the British government ... the British relied on forged documents
If I'm right about this reconstruction, Armitage appears to have been explaining that all of Bush's claims were based on the Niger forgeries and therefore were unsupportable claims. I actually rather suspect Armitage didn't use the name Plame nor the word operative. When Novak leaks the Plame detail as gossip the following day--presumably before he speaks to Rove about it--Novak says only:
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. (Politics of Truth 344)
Also on July 7, a leaker close to Rove or Libby claims, they start working with Stephen Hadley on Tenet's Statement.
Back at the White House, Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby had been at work all week, along with Ms. Rice's deputy, Stephen Hadley, helping to craft a statement that was issued on Friday by George Tenet, the C.I.A. director. Mr. Tenet did precisely what the White House needed: he took responsibility for the inclusion of the 16 words on uranium in the president's speech, and he made clear that Mr. Cheney had neither dispatched Mr. Wilson to Niger nor been briefed on what he found there.
Now, Tenet's leakers dispute this claim--they say Tenet's statement was drafted starting on July 9 at the CIA, and Hadley only got one look at it on July 10. I suspect that there is some kind of Rove-Libby-Hadley correspondance from early in the week, discussing classified issues--things like the contents of the CIA report on Joe Wilson's trip and the NIE that they were leaking--that they tried retroactively to explain away as early drafts of Tenet's speech.
Tuesday July 8: Leaking the CIA Report on Wilson's Trip
By the morning of July 8, Libby is ready to start leaking in earnest. He meets Judy Miller for a 2-hour breakfast at the fancy St. Regis hotel. He appears to have brought his whole packet of materials against Wilson. Judy claims she didn't look at any of the packet materials directly. Well, probably not. Maybe just a little tiny peak at the NIE. Oh, okay, maybe he read the contents of his packet to me.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked me to examine a series of documents. Though I could not identify them with certainty, I said that some seemed familiar, and that they might be excerpts from the National Intelligence Estimate of Iraq's weapons. Mr. Fitzgerald asked whether Mr. Libby had shown any of the documents to me. I said no, I didn't think so. I thought I remembered him at one point reading from a piece of paper he pulled from his pocket.[my emphasis]
But then she provides details that suggest Libby was leaking a distorted summary of the CIA report on Wilson's trip.
As I told Mr. Fitzgerald and the grand jury, Mr. Libby alluded to the existence of two intelligence reports about Iraq's uranium procurement efforts. One report dated from February 2002. The other indicated that Iraq was seeking a broad trade relationship with Niger in 1999, a relationship that he said Niger officials had interpreted as an effort by Iraq to obtain uranium.
My notes indicate that Mr. Libby told me the report on the 1999 delegation had been attributed to Joe Wilson.
Mr. Libby also told me that on the basis of these two reports and other intelligence, his office had asked the C.I.A. for more analysis and investigation of Iraq's dealings with Niger. According to my interview notes, Mr. Libby told me that the resulting cable - based on Mr. Wilson's fact-finding mission, as it turned out - barely made it out of the bowels of the C.I.A. [my emphasis]
Now it's unclear whether Libby deliberately floated a false story that Wilson was involved in the 1999 attempt by Baghdad Bob to establish commercial relations with Niger, or whether Judy just got confused by Libby's deliberately confusing depiction of the CIA report on Wilson's trip. At the very least, it seems clear (and Fitzgerald's fillings reinforce the suggestion) that Libby told Judy that Wilson wrote his trip report. And the muddled account here, on July 8, is remarkably similar to the same muddle that Ari presents on July 12.
At this meeting, Libby asks Judy to attribute him as a "former Hill staffer," and he tells Judy that Plame worked at WINPAC. He does not, according to Judy, imply that Plame's role constituted nepotism. (This is rather interesting--Judy also denies any mention of Cheney's authorization at this meeting. I suspect Fitzgerald is using the nepotism claim as a marker for leaks that trace back to Dick's notes on Wilson's op-ed. Is Judy telling the truth, or is she protecting Dick?)
Wednesday July 9: The Trip Report Goes Public
By Wednesday, the leakers seem most intent on leaking the contents of the trip report on Wilson's trip. Ari emphasizes Wilson's trip report in the gaggle.
Q: Ambassador Wilson said he made a case months before that there was no basis to the belief --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, he reported that Niger denied the allegation. That's what Ambassador Wilson reported.
Q: Was that report weighed against other --
MR. FLEISCHER: And of course they would deny the allegation. That doesn't make it untrue. It was only later -- you can ask Ambassador Wilson if he reported that the yellow cake documents were forged. He did not. His report did not address whether the documents were forged or not. His report stated that Niger denied the accusation. He spent eight days in Niger and concluded that Niger denied the allegation. Well, typically, nations don't admit to going around nuclear nonproliferation.
Q: But he said there was a basis to believe their denials.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's different from what he reported. The issue here is whether the documents on yellow cake were forged. He didn't address that issue. That's the information that subsequently came to light, not prior to the speech. [my emphasis]
Then sometime on July 9, Rove returns Novak's call (he had left a message on July 8). Rove claims he tried to push back against OVP's smear of Frances Fragos Townsend; I'm not so sure. And regardless of what else Rove said to Novak, Rove appears to have also said:
The CIA's decision to send retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson to Africa ... was made routinely at a low level without Director George Tenet's knowledge. Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. ... Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger ...
The story, actually, is whether the administration deliberately ignored Wilson's advice, and that requires scrutinizing the CIA summary of what their envoy reported. Wilson's report ... was regarded by the CIA as less than definitive, and it is doubtful Tenet ever saw it. After eight days in the Niger capital of Niamey (where he once served), Wilson made an oral report in Langley that an Iraqi uranium purchase was "highly unlikely," though he also mentioned in passing that a 1988 Iraqi delegation tried to establish commercial contacts. The CIA report of Wilson's briefing remains classified. The Agency never before has declassified that kind of information, but the White House would like it to do just that now -- in its and in the public's interest.
All this was forgotten until reporter Walter Pincus revealed in the Washington Post June 12 that an unnamed retired diplomat had given the CIA a negative report. Not until Wilson went public on July 6, however, did his finding ignite the firestorm. Messages between Washington and the presidential entourage traveling in Africa hashed over the mission to Niger.
So Rove's primary thrust is that the CIA report on Wilson's trip proves Wilson didn't debunk the forgeries. Also, if I'm right about this reconstruction, then Rove either attempts to cover up the May work on the Wilson write-up, or he's genuinely ignorant of it.
Thursday July 10: And On the Fourth Day the Cabal Rests
Maybe the White House did some real governing on July 10 (ha!), because there don't appear to have done any substantive leaking. We know Scooter Libby called Tim Russert to complain that Tweety correctly blamed OVP for the gaming of the intelligence leading to war. And Libby and Rove may have had their conversation about the Novak leak--but Rove has apparently testified that it occurred on July 11. About the only thing important that happened on July 10 is that Colin Powell pretty clearly stated that he found the intelligence on the uranium claims lacking.
SECRETARY POWELL: I think the President in the State of the Union address had this sentence in there and it talked about efforts on the part of Iraq to obtain uranium from sources in Africa. There was sufficient evidence floating around at that time that such a statement was not totally outrageous or not to be believed or not to be appropriately used. It's that once we used the statement and, after further analysis and looking at other estimates we had and other information that was coming in, it turned out that the basis upon which that statement was made didn't hold up. And we said so. And we've acknowledged it and we've moved on.
Note, too, the similarity to my reconstructed Armitage-Novak conversation. In the context of a public statement, Powell makes incredibly strong statement questioning the uranium intelligence, just as (I argue) Armitage made even stronger points off the record. It seems State had its own set of talking points that week, and they weren't coming from the INR memo.
Friday July 11: The Sword Falling
On Friday, in Africa, Condi lays out Tenet's sword so he can fall on it later that day.
Now, I can tell you, if the CIA, the Director of Central Intelligence, had said, take this out of the speech, it would have been gone, without question. What we've said subsequently is, knowing what we now know, that some of the Niger documents were apparently forged, we wouldn't have put this in the President's speech -- but that's knowing what we know now.
The President of the United States, we have a higher standard for what we put in presidential speeches. The British continue to stand by their report. The CIA's NIE continues to talk about efforts to acquire yellow cake in various African countries. But we have a high standard for the President's speeches. We don't make the President his own fact witness, we have a high standard for them. That's why we send them out for clearance. And had we heard from the DCI or the Agency that they didn't want that sentence in the speech, it would not have been in the speech. The President was not going to get up and say something that the CIA --
Later, both Ari and Dan Bartlett push Time's John Dickerson and others to go find out what low-level CIA employee sent Wilson.
The senior administration official spoke to me on background about Wilson and the president's amazing decision to blame the CIA. Other reporters wandered in and out of the conversation, but there were stretches where it was just the two of us (my tedious newsmagazine questions always had a tendency to drive other deadline-oriented reporters away). The official walked me through all the many problems with Wilson's report: His work was sloppy, contradictory, and hadn't been sanctioned by Tenet or any senior person. Some low-level person at the CIA was responsible for the mission. I was told I should go ask the CIA who sent Wilson.
[snip]
I chatted with a different senior administration official, also on background. We talked about many different aspects of the story—the fight with the CIA, the political implications for the president, and the administration's shoddy damage control. This official also pointed out a few times that Wilson had been sent by a low-level CIA employee and encouraged me to follow that angle.
By this point, clearly, the "Joe Wilson got sent by a low level employee, go figure out who" had become a talking point for those speaking publicly about this.
Meanwhile, rather than just seeding the leak, as Ari and Bartlett do, Rove gives it directly to Matt Cooper. Their conversation went something like this:
Cooper: I'm writing on Joe Wilson.
Rove: Don't get too far out on Joe Wilson. Wilson was not sent to Niger by the director of the CIA and Dick Cheney didn't send him either. Let me tell you something on deep background. Wilson's wife works on WMD at the agency, and she was responsible for sending him. We're going to declassify some material in the coming days that will cast doubt on Wilson's mission and his findings. I've already said too much.
To which Cooper emails his editor.
"Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation" He said "please don't source this to rove or even WH [White House]" and suggested another reporter check with the CIA. Karl gave a "big warning " not to "get too far out on Wilson." KR told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by DCI Director George Tenet or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." KR went on: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger ... "
Cooper's email reveals that Karl was leaking details of Wilson's trip report, in addition to Plame's identity, precisely the two important elements of my reconstructed Rove-Novak conversation.
At some point after this call, Rove emails Hadley ostensibly to keep him informed.
Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare-reform story coming, When he finished his brief heads-up, he immediately launched into Niger. Isn't this damaging? Hasn't the president been hurt? I didn't take the bait, but I said if I were him, I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this.
As with the Frances Fragos Townsend claim, I'm suspicious of the
this email. Either Rove is hiding something from Hadley (by implying he
didn't reveal Plame's role) in which case writing the email seems
pointless. Or he aims to provide cover for his leak with the details
about the welfare reform and the lie that he didn't take the bait.
While I'm virtually alone in this suspicion, I suspect this email may
have been altered after the fact, because it reflects information and a
mindset more evident in September 2003 than in July 2003. When you
remember Cooper's call doesn't appear on the phone log, it appears possible that
Karl tried to hide the entire existence of this phone call, so the
email seems doubly odd.
Probably also on July 11, at the White House senior staff meeting, Rove and Libby discuss their leakage to date. Rove tells Libby Novak will write an article on Wilson. Does Rove mention Plame? Does Rove mention his conversation with Cooper (this depends largely on whether the staff meeting occurs in the morning or afternoon). Does Libby mention his leak to Judy, and Judy's uncharacteristic insistence on having real facts and a real story to report? Does Libby mention his purported conversation with Russert (Libby's indictment doesn't mention Russert in its discussion, which might suggest Rove didn't testify that Russert had come up)? If Libby and Karl met in person to discuss these issues, why was Rove emailing Hadley about it, presumably later in the day? There are still many questions about this meeting. It seems more likely that the conversation would include Judy and Novak, but not Russert. But it's also an event about which Libby and Rove might contradict each other's testimony, unless they had practiced it, or about which their might be logical inconsistencies, particularly since Libby didn't testify to talking to Judy about Plame earlier in the week.
Later that day, Tenet mostly falls on his sword Condi has laid out there for him with his statement.
In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, CIA's counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn. He reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien (sic) officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office. The same former official also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales. The former officials also offered details regarding Niger's processes for monitoring and transporting uranium that suggested it would be very unlikely that material could be illicitly diverted. There was no mention in the report of forged documents -- or any suggestion of the existence of documents at all.
But while falling on his sword, Tenet challenges the Administration's claims that the NIE justified the uranium claims. It was in the NIE, he makes clear, but not in the key judgments.
In October, the Intelligence Community (IC) produced a classified, 90 page National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's WMD programs. There is a lengthy section in which most agencies of the Intelligence Community judged that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Let me emphasize, the NIE's Key Judgments cited six reasons for this assessment; the African uranium issue was not one of them.
Tenet seems unwilling to leave BushCo's central claim unquestioned, that the Niger claim was universally accepted within the Intelligence Community.
Saturday July 12: Dick Writes More Talking Points
July 12 is the big day, the day BushCo probably thought they could do Wilson in for good. They start the day with Ari--either intentionally or as a result of the same confusion Judy suffered from on Tuesday--misrepresenting the content of the trip report on Wilson's trip to suggest he's an Iraqi-Nigerien go-between.
In fact, in one of the least known parts of this story, which is now, for the first time, public -- and you find this in Director Tenet's statement last night -- the official that -- lower-level official sent from the CIA to Niger to look into whether or not Saddam Hussein had sought yellow cake from Niger, Wilson, he -- and Director Tenet's statement last night states the same former official, Wilson, also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official, Wilson, meet an Iraqi delegation to discuss expanding commercial relations between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales.
This is in Wilson's report back to the CIA. Wilson's own report, the very man who was on television saying Niger denies it, who never said anything about forged documents, reports himself that officials in Niger said that Iraq was seeking to contact officials in Niger about sales. [my emphasis]
As I said before, Ari seems to be making some of the same muddle of this as Libby did with Judy on July 8. Coinkydink? You decide.
Meanwhile, the British poodles allies get into the act. Jack Straw issues a statement
standing by the British intelligence--though not, it should be said,
asserting they had another source for the Niger claim--and presenting
the same warmed-over Wilson misrepresentation--though not going so far as Ari to mix Wilson into the story (thanks to &y and his
cool timeline for the link).
"We have now seen a detailed account of Ambassador Wilson's report. It does indeed describe the denials of Niger government officials in early 2002 that a contract had been concluded for the sale of yellowcake (uranium oxide) to Iraq.
"But, as CNN have reported, Ambassador Wilson's report also noted that in 1999 an Iraqi delegation sought the expansion of trade links with Niger -- and that former Niger government officials believed that this was in connection with the procurement of yellowcake.
Back in DC, Libby, Cathie Martin, and Dick fly back and forth from the commissioning ceremony for the USS Ronnie Reagan. On the trip back, they strategize their response to Wilson and decide to point people toward Tenet's mea culpa and Ari's weird statement of that morning. As Fitzgerald explains, Dick gave Libby some pretty specific intstructions.
Defendant further testified that on July 12, 2003, he was specifically directed by the Vice President to speak to the press in place of Cathie Martin (then the communications person for the Vice President) regarding the NIE and Wilson. Defendant was instructed to provide what was for him an extremely rare “on the record” statement, and to provide “background” and “deep background” statements, and to provide information contained in a document defendant understood to be the cable authored by Mr. Wilson.
After returning, at least two people start working the phones. There's the still-mysterious leaker to Walter Pincus (Cathie Martin is a favorite candidate):
On July 12, 2003, an administration official, who was talking to me confidentially about a matter involving alleged Iraqi nuclear activities, veered off the precise matter we were discussing and told me that the White House had not paid attention to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s CIA-sponsored February 2002 trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction.
There's Libby's and Cooper's conversation around 3:00:
On the record, he denied that Cheney knew about or played any role in the Wilson trip to Niger. On background, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger. Libby replied, "Yeah, I've heard that too," or words to that effect.
And then twice in the late afternoon, Libby and Judy talk. As I mentioned, Libby seems to have backed off his earlier claims that Wilson wrote a 1999 trip report (this is particularly curious, since it seems to contradict Dick's orders to point people to Ari's statement). He also backs off claims that the intelligence behind the claim was good.
My notes of this phone call show that Mr. Libby quickly turned to criticizing Mr. Wilson's report on his mission to Niger. He said it was unclear whether Mr. Wilson had spoken with any Niger officials who had dealt with Iraq's trade representatives.
With the understanding that I would attribute the information to an administration official, Mr. Libby also sought to explain why Mr. Bush included the disputed uranium allegation in his 2003 State of the Union address, a sentence of 16 words that his administration would later retract. Mr. Libby described it as the product of a simple miscommunication between the White House and the C.I.A.
This is really weird. On the same day that someone offered up Plame's identity to Walter Pincus and he confirmed Plame's identity for Cooper, Libby seems to back off some of the Administration's most central claims.
July 13: And the Cabal Said Let Us Rest Twice in One Week
Mostly quiet--Rummy and Condi do the talking heads shows.
July 14: The Real Damage Done
Finally, after a long week of back and forth, Novak's column appears. I encourage you to read it again; it actually attempts to synthesize the three competing versions of the story.
Summary
As I suggested with my comment in the Novak column, there appear to be three competing versions of the story which evolved over the week but retained the same features. These are:
- Authorized White House spin: Joe Wilson's trip report doesn't support his claims and oh by the way did you know his wife, who works at the CIA, sent him?
- State "We Told You So" version: The intelligence used to make the SOTU claim was faulty.
- CIA "certified Tenet lukewarm" version: The basis for the SOTU was based on sound intelligence but it wasn't widely accepted enough to use in the SOTU. And Wilson's trip report doesn't support his claims.
There is one other curious detail that pertains to this week. Dick authorized Libby to leak three documents, the NIE, the CIA report on Joe Wilson's trip, and a January 24 NIO-NSC document that supports the White House inclusion of the uranium claim in the SOTU. The first and third of these documents were declassified within the next several weeks (though only fragments of the NIE were declassified). But not the report on Wilson's trip. It seems increasingly likely that that report--which would be considered sources and methods information--is the reasons for some of the underlying tensions during leak week. Did Tenet refuse to declassify it further than what he said in his statement? At which point, Libby and Rove had already shared its contents with Novak and Judy, at least? Is that the explanation for the conflicting claims about who wrote Tenet's statement and when they wrote it? That also might explain Novak's mis-citation of the date of the alleged Iraqi-Nigerien delegation conveniently placing it in 1988, when Wilson was stationed in Baghdad, rather than 1999, when it occurred.
Update: Fitzgerald quote regarding 7/12 added.
Next Up: BushCo realizes they fucked up ... but they sweep it under the rug in hopes mom and dad don't notice.
Wow. To check my work, I referred to the DKosopedia Plame Timeline for the first time in months. And someone has been doing a superb job of keeping it up to date with all the Fitzgerald filings.
Wow" is the word. Let me be the first to extend kudos for ths wonderfully comprehensive installment. And to think that you cranked this out while dealing with us in the peanut gallery re your first installment. Great work.
PS to Polly and Viget: Please keep up the "forensic talking point analysis" (to use viget's felicitous phrase). I've been struck by the eerie similarities that keep popping up as well (bowels and boongdoggles, dispatches and junkets, cabbages and kings), and I think they are highly instructive even if they might not satisfy the criminal burden of proof.
Posted by: SDangerfield | May 26, 2006 at 14:51
PPS to EW: As I'm sure you're already aware, Reggie has issued a decision on the media motions to quash. It's rather interesting -- and unbelievably tantalizing. Sorry, I'm link-impaired today, but the WaPoo has a pdf of the decision if you don't already have it.
Posted by: SDangerfield | May 26, 2006 at 14:54
Amazing reconstruction, EW. I'll be anxiously awaiting Part III and hope you get into all the Novak/Rove contortions.
And yes, somebody (Quicksilver?) has really been on top of the DKosopdedia timeline, it's excellent.
Posted by: jane hamsher | May 26, 2006 at 15:45
A couple of quick notes:
Novak's version seems to be that he talked to Armitage on July 8. That's implied by Pincus' 8-11-05 WaPo story, for which he seems to have spoken to Novak, and Pincus is explicit in an interview on NPR on 10-23-05:
On July 8th, somebody talks to Robert Novak and mentions Wilson's wife's alleged role in setting up the trip.
To be sure, it's hard to know how to credit information coming from Novak, especially since he might have an interest in obscuring a variety of things on this issue. But his version at this point seems to be that he talked to his first source on July 8.
Here's a question: is it possible that that July 9 gaggle where Fleischer discusses the substance of Wilson's report - perhaps thanks to having seen the INR memo and underlying documents - is what got him in potential trouble, leading to the cooperation agreement it appears he might have? Though I don't think this is the gaggle whose complete transcript was subpoenaed by Fitzgerald, it is interesting that this one seems to be unaccountably missing from the White House website's press briefing archives. The problem with this idea is that a possible crime in disclosing Wilson's classified report would appear to fall outside the scope of Fitzgerald's investigation, so it's not clear how Fitzgerald would have incented Fleischer with that.
This might fall outside what you're interested in here, but it might be worth noting that on July 10 Novak has his conversation(s) with Harlow at CIA, as well as with Wilson himself. It's unclear - and it would be nice to be clear on - what the order was here.
I also think you're underplaying the extent to which Tenet, as he fell on his sword, also threw daggers both at Wilson and the White House.
As for this:
I suspect that there is some kind of Rove-Libby-Hadley correspondance from early in the week, discussing classified issues--things like the contents of the CIA report on Joe Wilson's trip and the NIE that they were leaking--that they tried retroactively to explain away as early drafts of Tenet's speech.
Did you notice there appears to be some confirmation of this in Waas' article yesterday?
Rove has testified that he did not learn that Plame was a CIA operative from classified information, that he was not part of a campaign with Libby or other White House officials to discredit Wilson or out Plame, and that any information that he provided Novak and Cooper about Plame's CIA job was only unsubstantiated gossip.
Finally, I'd also recently noticed how good the dkosopedia timeline is these days. My prime suspect is polly.
Posted by: Jeff | May 26, 2006 at 15:58
Jeff,
I'll come back to some of this later. But Ari's leaks almost certainly don't come from the INR memo (and I still consider that suspect, since we've got competing claims about whether Ari ever saw it). They come from the CIA report.
The briefing that got subpoenaed is the July 12 one, where Ari so egregiously misrepresents what the trip report says. I sort of wonder whether that made it into the talking points (Libby on July 8 and Ari on July 12), and if so, whether that's why it was yanked, because it shows a clear intent to smear Wilson uaing classified information.
Also, are you sure that that woudl be outside the purview of Fitz' investigation?
Posted by: emptywheel | May 26, 2006 at 16:20
Per usual, this is a fantastic post, emptywheel.
Been collecting links to Plame-related timelines for personal use here--the only two that I've visited recently enough to have the links appear as "visited" are the dKosopedia and eRiposte's "CIA on uranium from Africa." As many have pointed out, the dKosopedia timeline has been superlative of late.
If anybody knows of other timelines I'm missing (or updated versions of the ones I have), I am an avid collector.
Posted by: &y | May 26, 2006 at 16:22
[Incorporating my continuing objection to assuming that Armitage is involved by reference]
The curious detail - why weren't those documents declassified?
The Bush administration publicly declassifies only documents that make them look good. Since they didn't actually declassify the trip report, we can safely assume that they lied about what's in it (and the SSCI was probably complicit). It's important to remember that while Libby claims he was authorized to leak the NIE, what he actually did (besides out Plame) was to lie about the NIE. He told Miller that the classified portions made the case for war stronger, when it's now obvious that the classified portions were much weaker (more caveats, etc.). We can be pretty sure that trip report is not what it's been represented to be at all and it would be very obvious if they released it.
Posted by: William Ockham | May 26, 2006 at 16:30
William
I'm particularly intrigued by Libby's assertion that there were two reports.
There were two reports, if you count the al Zahawie report (which was about establishing commercial relations). But that's pretty clearly not related to Wilson. But somehow those two got conflated in a really egregious way.
Posted by: emptywheel | May 26, 2006 at 16:39
emptywheel
Very quickly, I've been trying to figure out what Fleischer would have to make a cooperation agreement for, if he has. (It's not even clear if he has, but he has been subject to sealed filings from both sides, and there is that discussion in the 5-5-06 hearing that seems to allude to someone probably with a cooperation agreement, subject to Jeffress' sealed affidavit. But I'm not even sure of much of that, as Fitzgerald clearly misdirects us and perhaps Team Libby when he is talking in court about sealed and other sensitive matters.) And that excerpt from the July 9 gaggle suggests he was not leaking but publicly announcing classified information from Wilson's trip report. So I wonder whether that could have gotten him in potential trouble, however he learned about it, as long as it was clear the information was classified. I will note, though, that the point about Wilson's report not talking at all about forged documents was emphatically made in the INR memo. The one other thing in this connection is that I think the bit about Nigerien denials was what prompted Wilson to tell Time that Fleischer was confusing his own report with that from Barbro-whatever, the U.S. Ambassador to Niger, as recounted in Wilson's book. (But Fleischer may have been talking about former officials' denials, not current ones.)
I'm not sure whether it would fall outside the purview of Fitzgerald's investigation, though it seems like it would, since one way or the other the investigation seems tied to the release of information specifically connected to Plame. And there's nothing in the gaggle about her, obviously. The other leading candidate for what could have made Fleischer enter a cooperation agreement was being Pincus' source, though even that doesn't seem so likely to me.
Posted by: Jeff | May 26, 2006 at 17:11
Wouldn't it be interesting if Fleischer's cooperation agreement was tied to his involvement in a conspiracy?
Posted by: William Ockham | May 26, 2006 at 17:19
Are we sure though? We know CIA reported a leak of classified information. It was reported as an investigation into an IIPA violation. Fitzgerald introduces it as an investigation into leaks. But does that exclude the leak of the CIA report and, for that matter, Armitage's leaking of Niger forgery sources and methods?
Posted by: emptywheel | May 26, 2006 at 17:20
"I suspect Novak also calls Richard Armitage on July 7 and asks him about the backstory to Joe Wilson's trip. Armitage appears to have told Novak something like:"
Go to the timeline of the Plame leak
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=9&q=http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Plame_Leak_timeline&e=9797
There is no mention of Novak having made contact with Armitage at this time.
Posted by: tnhblog | May 26, 2006 at 18:34
No, there's not. Nor is there a mention of when Mr. X spoke to Novak. Assuming Novak is marginally honest and he has two and exactly two sources, and assuming our little redaction analysis was correct, and Armitage's friends who all but admitted to the press that Armitage was involved, then the conversation probably happened on July 7 or 8. Or maybe Armitage spoke to Novak second, after July 9, and Novak is lying more than we know him to be lying. But there is a lot of evidence to suggest Armitage did speak with Novak and a lot to suggest he spoke to Novak on July 7, 8, ot 9.
Posted by: emptywheel | May 26, 2006 at 19:13
I have not come across any of this evidence for this time period. Maybe there is a disinformation campaign underway. It is curious how information seeps into the popular narratives.
Posted by: tnhblog | May 26, 2006 at 19:39
I have another question. Prior to July 9, when we know Novak talked to Rove, why would Novak have contacted Armitage concerning something about which he, Novak, could have known nothing at that time? Armitage purportedly immediately recognized his blunder after he had given the original info to Woodward in early June. Novak was coming out of the White House when he was confronted by Wilson's friend on July 8. Maybe this was when and where he originally got the info.
Posted by: tnhblog | May 26, 2006 at 20:36
The point is, Armitage is likely the source for what Novak said to Wilson's friend! When we say Armitage is probably Mr. X, that's what we're talking about. And it's hardly disinformation if friends of his are spreading the same expectations.
Posted by: emptywheel | May 26, 2006 at 21:27
It can't be Armitage because he already acknowledged his error in the leak to Woodward. Novak most likely got the info on that July 8, and it wasn't from Armitage, but it was from the White House.
Posted by: tnhblog | May 26, 2006 at 22:07
To bolster my argument: everything about Armitage is pure speculation. What we do know is that on July 8, Novak comes out of the White House, is confronted by Wilson's friend, and with what seems like consuming vitriol, exclaims that Wilson is an asshole, that his wife sent him and that she worked at the CIA. So he learned all three things that very day at the White House, which means that whomever it was that he met with was really catapaulting the propaganda.
Posted by: tnhblog | May 26, 2006 at 23:24
Are we sure though?
No, I am not at all sure.
What we do know is that on July 8, Novak comes out of the White House
Do we know that? How do we know that Novak was coming from the White House?
Posted by: Jeff | May 26, 2006 at 23:54
It is in Wilson's excerpt from his upcoming book:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.politicsoftruth.com/excerpt.html&e=9797
Posted by: tnhblog | May 27, 2006 at 00:01
tnh
Most of the stuff about Armitage is speculation. But very well sourced speculation, almost to the point of certainty. There are numerous references in court filings and several in court hearings that rule out just about everyone else to be Novak's other source. That is--it has to be someone with an 8-letter name who doesn't work in the White House. And there is a lot of evidence to suggest Woodward's source is Novak's second source. Add in Armitage's friends recently going on the record about Armitage's mistake, and I don't see much chance it isn't Armitage (why would his friends do that otherwise?)
Also, Politics of Truth has been out 2 years. The passage you cite says the friend was walking toward Wilson's office near the White House, but that Novak was probably on his way to GWU to tape his show. NOthing about coming OUT of the White House.
It is certainly possible Novak spoke to Rove twice or something like that, once in person. But Armitage is in the mix there, very probably.
Posted by: emptywheel | May 27, 2006 at 07:04
Great job Emptywheel.
As a coda to this timeline the White House announced on July 14, 2003 that Silvio Berlusconi would visiting the Crawford Ranch on July 20-21. Hadley and Bartlett gave a briefing on July 22, 2003 explaining the process/problems with the Cincinatti speech, the SOTU, and Powell's speech. There is lots of granular detail in the Hadley/Bartlett presser that corresponds to the great summary that Emptywheel presents above. I'd like to see this timeline reconstructed from the point of view of hiding knowledge about the forged Niger documents rather than leaking Valerie Plame's name. Only in hindsight was the White House in crisis mode over the Plame leak. Contemporary to the leak the White House was in crisis over the Niger claims/forgeries.
It wasn't until December 30, 2003 - when Ashcroft recused himself - that the White House was in crisis over the leak. Up until that point the White House was all about obscuring detailed knowledge (who, what, why, etc.) of the Niger forgeries. The forgery story got muted play prior to the Iraq War. It was only 10 days from the time the IAEA revealed the Niger documents as fakes until Bush ordered out the UN inspectors on 3/17. The war itself drowns out the extensive March reporting of the forgeries by Pincus and April is more battlefield success in the larger media narrative. Did the Bush administration think that the forgery story had been contained at this point?
In quick succession you have Kristoff's 5/6 "Missing in Action: Truth" and the fuse is lit connecting the Niger forgeries to the Administration's use of intelligence. Greg Theilman is in the news, Pincus is on the story, Condi Rice has a disastrous 6/8 MTP appearance filled with easily debunked spin, Kristoff slams Rice in a 6/13 column and then throughout June it's a new story on manipulated intelligence every day from multiple outlets. You can spin as disagreement every WMD intelligence detail save one - the forgeries. Remember that fact and then look at the White House interactions with the UK and Italy the week of the Plame leak.
Transcript - Hadley/Bartlett press conference 7/22/03
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030722-12.html
Posted by: joejoejoe | May 27, 2006 at 09:13
Here's a quote from the May 5 hearing that deserves a bit of attention.
I think Fitz probably means Libby didn't approve the insertion of intelligence that he knew to be based on forgeries into the SOTU. But it's an interesting formulation. I didn't know anyone accused Libby of "approving" forgeries. Bolton maybe. Ledeen, sure. But Libby?
Posted by: emptywheel | May 27, 2006 at 09:24
I still say it can't be Armitage. He was immediately repentent after the Woodward leak and he had no animus toward Wilson, even trying to dissuade Woodward from writing about Plame. Why would Woodward refrain and Novak publish? Why Novak's animus toward Wilson? It suggests someone other than Armitage was catapaulting the propaganda. I have not seen any of the references you refer to. Do you have cites?
Posted by: tnhblog | May 27, 2006 at 09:27
emptywheel - I think that line from Fitzgerald is slightly garbled shorthand for, "But when Mr. Libby says, for example, "He [Wilson] didn't prove they were forgeries," we won't disagree.
And this is going afield, but I am convinced Ledeen had nothing to do with the forgeries. I know this is eriposte's pet theory, but I just don't think it's there.
Posted by: Jeff | May 27, 2006 at 09:52