One-by-Two-by-Timing

by emptywheel

I mentioned the other day the story Armitage's colleagues told Corn and Isikoff raises interesting questions for the 1X2X6 story; I'd like to explain why. First, let's review the timing:

September 26: DOJ launches an investigation into the Plame leak

September 28: Priest and Allen publish the 1X2X6 article

September 29: Novak and Rove speak about the leak--Novak assures Rove he will protect him

September 29 (evening): DOJ officially notifies the White House of the investigation

September (unknown date): Colin Powell, in a meeting in the Situation Room, declares that "everyone knows it" with regards to the Plame affair--it is disputed whether he referred to Wilson's identity, or Plame's

October 1: In response to the 1X2X6 article, Novak publishes his "partisan gunslinger" column

October 1: According to Isikoff and Corn, in response to Novak's column, Armitage first tells Powell of his conversation with Novak--Powell informs Abu Gonzales, but doesn't provide details

October 12: 1X2X6 source reiterates claims

Now, we can't be sure, because there are a few claims that are suspect in this timeframe (the meaning of Powell's comment, the timing of Armitage's "realization" that he was Novak's source, and the veracity of a claim Jeffress later made about Libby's knowledge of Novak's source), but this raises several interesting questions.

• Did the Situation Room conversation happen before or after the 1X2X6 article?
• Did the Situation Room conversation happen before or after the White House was officially informed?
• Did the White House believe Powell was the 1X2X6 source when Novak wrote his article in response to it?
• Did Libby know Armitage was Novak's source when Powell told Abu Gonzales about State turning over information?

The Relationship between the 1X2X6 Article and Novak's Gunslinger Column

But let me go back and explain the context. Novak's October 1 column--the first version of his walk-back from his prior story--was a response to the 1X2X6 column. He effectively mentions the article when he says:

The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

(And remember--Judy told almost exactly the same story to Phil Taubman at around the same time.)

And he spends much of the rest of his column trying to refute the notion that he received a planned leak--he was basically trying to walk back from what he had said to Phelps and Royce, that he had been "given" the leak:

"I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."

Novak's October 1 column was designed to refute the incredibly damaging quotes from the 1X2X6 source that clearly indicated the leak was planned.

Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. Wilson had just revealed that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account touched off a political fracas over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.

"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.

Who Was 1X2X6--and Who Did the White House Think It Was?

Now I have long believed Novak's October 1 column was a red herring, intended to cast blame away from the real culprits (and remember--there is evidence that Libby or Cheney spoke with Novak either before the leak and/or after the Libby to Rove conversation) and towards the person BushCo believed to be behind the 1X2X6 leak. Many commentators believed, when first reading the 1X2X6 article that Powell was the source, since he is the kind of person to be disgusted by such behavior, and since he was opposed to Bush's approach to war (though not, as the UN speech proves, the war itself). And consider it from the White House perspective--if Powell said something notable in the Situation Room meeting, they may well have assumed that he was Allen's source. And just about the only one in the Bush Administration who could be deemed "not a partisan gunslinger" is Colin Powell. (Of course, once it became clear that Armitage spoke to Novak, Novak once again changed his tune, from "not a partisan gunslinger" to "not a political gunslinger," since Armitage is clearly a "partisan gunslinger.")

Now, I'm wondering if the following scenario is possible. I'm not committed to it, mind you. But I'm trying it out.

September 26: DOJ announces investigation

September 27: 1X2X6 talks to Allen

September 28: Situation Room meeting (after all, with the WaPo article, the Plame leak became a "situation"!)

September 29: Rove and Novak speak (following which, apparently, a number of other people talk to Novak, and--I'll bet--Judy Miller)

September 30: Novak writes the "partisan gunslinger" column

October 1: Column is printed and Armitage "realizes" he was Novak's source; he tells Powell; Taft tells Abu Gonzales that "the State Department had passed some information about the case to Justice."

Then, in July 2005, when it becomes clear that Rove is one source for Cooper, Rove someone leaks the INR memo story that suggests that Ari Fleischer and Colin Powell are the leakers. In story after story, we see Ari with the memo (this from paid archives of the Thomas DeFrank story that started this smear):

Along with Bush political guru Karl Rove, the grand jury is investigating what role, if any, ex-White House mouthpiece Ari Fleischer may have played in the revelation that the former covert operative Plame was married to former Ambassador Joe Wilson.

"Ari's name keeps popping up," said one source familiar with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's probe.

Another source close to the probe added there is renewed interest in Fleischer, "based on Fitzgerald's questions."

A State Department memo that included background on Wilson - and who in the White House had access to it - appears to be a key to revealing who gave conservative columnist Robert Novak Plame's name, both sources said.

And Colin Powell as having given it to him.

Federal prosecutors are investigating whether then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who was on the Africa trip with Bush, carried with him a memo containing information on Plame, as well as other intelligence about allegations made by Wilson.

[snip]

Lawyers involved in the probe said prosecutors are interested in whether anyone called back to Washington to talk about information in the memo. Prosecutors have asked numerous questions about then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, who was on the trip and aboard Air Force One, according to the lawyers. Fleischer has declined to comment.

Rove said of the memo that he "had never seen it, had never heard about it and had never heard anybody else talk about it," according to a lawyer familiar with his testimony. Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said he can say "categorically" that Rove did not obtain any information about Plame from any confidential source, such as a classified document.

Now, this would explain why they went after Powell, and not Armitage--because they believed Powell was the 1X2X6 source and wanted to punish him. And it would explain an even bigger "problem" with this story--how it is possible that Armitage didn't "realize" he was Novak's source until he read the October 1 column. That is, it is remotely possible (though not likely) that Armitage didn't consider himself the leaker because he clearly hadn't "thought it was significant," he hadn't sought out Novak; but when he saw Novak's revised description on October 1, he began to believe he was one of the sources. (I think it more likely that, when he read the column, he "realized" that Novak might reveal his identity, so he came forward.)

But there are two giant, glaring problems with this. First, this argument would assume that Novak didn't know Armitage was his "source"--that the "not a partisan gunslinger" was complete and utter bullshit. (Though it would explain why he is now changing his tune, partisan to political.) Or, at the very least, that Novak didn't tell Rove, when they planned his October 1 column, that he was going to blame this all on Armitage.

This is further refuted by a claim Libby's Nixon lawyer made in the February 24 hearing.

MR. JEFFRESS: Mr. Libby said that he had heard this. One of the reporters told Mr. Libby offical one discussed Ms. Wilson. The government says one of those didn't tell him that. However, the government in the indictment has revealed another person
who did tell him that.

Taken literally, this says one reporter told Libby (it is implied, directly) that Armitage discussed Plame. And that "the government says one of those" reporters didn't tell Libby that Armitage discussed Plame. But that another person--Rove--did tell him that.

Jeffress is desperate, in this hearing, to introduce Armitage's identity in  order to support Libby's claim that "everyone knew" Plame's identity, presumably hoping to blame it on Armitage. And given the muddle, it's not clear that my interpretation is what Jeffress meant to say (if he meant to say anything clear at all). But regardless of whether Novak told Libby directly that Armitage spoke with him, Jeffress' claim seems to suggest, indubitably, that Rove not only told Libby that Novak was going to publish a column on Plame, but that Armitage had told Novak of Plame's identity.

Given these last two bits of evidence, I suspect this is not quite right--I suspect BushCo knew of Armitage's identity at least before the INR memo smear, and almost certainly by the time of Rove's and Novak's September 29 conversation. But the timing--Powell's comment in the Situation Room and the oblique notice that State had passed on information--may have confused BushCo, in Fall 2003, into believing that Powell was 1X2X6. I think the fact that 1X2X6 reiterated the story on October 12, after Powell knew of Armitage's involvement, makes it less likely that 1X2X6 is Powell. After all, 1X2X6 likely was thinking of Rove and Libby (particularly since Tweety, whom Rove called, seems to have been included in the 6). By continuing to propagate the 1X2X6 story after Armitage's confession, you'd only expose him to greater risk.

So I don't know the answer. But the details offered by Isikoff and Corn--at least regarding what Armitage is claiming--raise some interesting questions about what the Administration believed in Fall 2003.

Comments

[Jim E.]

I'm still somewhat surprised at how little gloating there's been on behalf of the administration and Rove and Libby's respective teams in terms of Armitage's involvment. I mean, I saw Tony Blankley say on Hardball last night how this exonerated Libby and the administration, and John Poderetz continues to embarrass himself with his Corner comments and columns, but there's otherwise been seemingly few background quotes spinning how Armitage is to blame for all of this. I would have expected more.

Armitage was fingered months ago by Ben Bradley very publicly, and "Armitage" very clearly fit into the redacted name slots in the legal briefs. Blogs figured out that Armitage was involved months ago. Yet the disclosures in the traditional media of Armitage's involvment have come only by drips and drabs.

Why didn't the administration -- or at least Rove and Libby -- drag Armitage into this earlier? Rove and Libby are clearly not clean in this matter, but you'd think that just for reasons of spin that they'd have thrown Armitage under the bus a long time ago. As you point out, Novak (and thus Rove and probably LIbby) have known about Armitage's involvment for years.

It's occured to me that perhaps Rove, Libby and the administration are fearful of Armitage on other things. Maybe they're fearful of smearing him too badly for fear that he could turn on them regarding bigger, more serious, issues. Of course, that scenario doesn't really make sense either given that Libby (and for awhile, Rove) is facing prison time. That's pretty dang serious right there.

Anyways, that's a very interesting post. I still think that Powell could be 1x2x6 since as others, such have Jeff, have pointed out, Armitage's role was conceivably much different and less sinister than what Libby and Rove were up to. Perhaps Powell concluded the same thing, and was explaining Libby and Rove's motivations as he understood them.

[John Casper]

Thanks for the Fitz fix.

[kim]

Brit Hume and the others on Fox last night were doing their best to express pure anger at Powell and Armitage, Clarice on TMs site also, so I'd say they are throwing Armitage under the bus. Maybe there's a worry that he'll be a witness for Fitzgerald?

EW, any opinion as to whether Novak was referrring to a different source, not Armitage, with "no partisan gunslinger?"

Incidentally, I think there's a tape of Novak saying "they gave it to me" on something like Capitol Gang.

[kim]

I mean an actual source, not a Powell or Armitage red herring by Novak. For instance, from my historic bias, Tenet could be considered "no partisan gunslinger" and there are a variety of other potential candidates, Card for instance. I guess I'm following up on your last main post suggesting that Novak had another source.

[kim]

Oops, sorry, Card might be good for 1x2x6 but not as a Novak source for Plame... getting my non-partisan gunslinger source activities jumbled there.

[Jim E.]

kim,
I still don't see why Armitage wasn't fingered in late 2003 or even earlier last year. Glad to hear Hume and others on Fox are doing their part now.

Clarice is nuts, so I'm not surprised that she hates Armitage. Libby and Rove are heroes and truthtellers in her book for disclosing Plame, but Armitage is for some reason scum for disclosing Plame. Go figure.

Also, Novak never--as far as I know--said anything remotely interesting about Plamegate on the Capital Gang. He was quoted by KnightRidder reporters with teh "they gave it to me and I used it" line.

[SaltinWound]

You know I'm always happy when Tom DeFrank enters the narrative.

[emptywheel]

Clarice is nuts, but she's getting Comstock's press releases, so she's useful as a gauge of media strategy. But remember--Comstock works for Cheney, many of the other likely Armitage attackers work for Rove. It's not clear Rove and Libby share a common interest at this point.

Kim

If Novak has another source (and I think it likely), it almost certainly Libby and/or Cheney. Or possibly Hadley. None of them fit the description "not a partisan gunslinger."

Jim E

We know what at least one damaging attack Armitage can make is. He apparently knew, as of July 8, many details of the Niger forgery scandal. The Administration has successfully suppressed all the details they know of the Niger forgeries. So if Armitage goes public, they may be in deeper doo doo than they are now.

[lemondloulou54]

What do you think the odds are that Isikoff really has more to release next week when the book is actually published? He was trying to be his most tantalizing self last night on Hardball. Unless it's an explosive bit of news, though, I don't see why they would wait to publish the book next week. This is a DEAD news week, and they could have capitalized on that by moving up the pub date one week. On the other hand, maybe they are keeping something under wraps so that when everyone is back at their desks next week paying attention they will let another shoe drop.

[Mo]

The Niger forgery was targeted at Powell who had to be briefed on it. His CIA brifer had nothing good to say about him on the radio and was alot like Plame. He was targeted by Plame and the leaks followed. Plame was out of control.

[kim]

I have a memory of seeing Novak saying "they gave it to me" etc... (both hands extended for emphasis, eyebrows up, upside-down-smile).

Maybe it's one of those false memories, but I'd say either Meet the Press or Capitol Gang. I'm a fan of all the yelling that went on on Capitol Gang and still on McLaughlin, BTW, and sort of like Novak, as a pioneer and strong voice for his side - but not in this Plame debacle.

[Mimikatz]

Armitage also clearly knew by July if not June that the WH had been told that the Niger intel was based on forgeries, whether they chose to believe that or not. I also thkink it very likely Novak had another source. Why does everyone abet Armitage's belief that he was Novak's forst source?

[mk]

Makes it clearer and clearer why the INR memo -- and Armitage (Powell and Ari too) -- keep getting thrown into the limelight, doesn't it? Interesting angles about these stories just keep on getting leaked out....

One of the questions that's always fascinated me is what the press is covering when -- and I'm guessing that includes book publishing. In a world where we know there are no Fitz leaks, it becomes a great indicator of what spin the Libby defense team/WH are trying to push now.

And I still wonder if somehow the Armitage penchant for gossip wasn't factored into the whole strategy. As Arthur Hugh Clough wrote in his Latest Decalogue, "Bear not false witness; let the lie/Have time on its own wings to fly." The only thing better than smearing someone is to have someone else do it.

[emptywheel]

mk

I couldn't agree more. A lot of my better guesses in this case have been based on what Rove was leaking the press was covering when.

And I think this Isikoff-Corn project is diablogically clever, from a WH standpoint. Isikoff, as a Rove shill, has zero credibility by himself. So you get Corn's participation--the guy who first noticed the IIPA possibility--and you get instant credibility. Corn probably gets more money than any of his other books, and Isikoff gets to piggyback on the expanding liberal book publishing market without even being a liberal. And most importantly, if your name is Turdblossom, you get to pump up the importance of Armitage, even while Armitage's evidence proves that the other source--the one for the operative information--was the really important one.

[Sebastian Dangerfield]

I know I court howls of protest for doing so, but I continue to believe that Novak (like all seasoned liars) includes at leasst a kernel or more of truth in his misleading locutions.
Thus, I do not believe the "no partisan gunslinger" line to be an out-and-out lie designed as a diversionary tactic; rather it is a literally accurate (at least in Novak's bizarro-world) diversinary tactic. I take Novak to mean something like "he is not one of those egregiously partisan types who fight the ideological fight in a very public way." This definition thus rules out folks like Rove, but leaves in the following:
Armitage. Not egregiously partisan (at least by Novak's standards) and certainly not much of a public or media figure.
Libby. An ideological warrior to be sure, but not a public one -- more like a sniper-assassin who wears black and uses a silencer. Would therefore be a literal fit, again, in NovakWorld.
Tenet. This one is irresistable: not partisan (the kissass buffoon worked for Clinton after all) and likely to friggin' stupid to know which end of the gun to point outward, much less "sling."

[emptywheel]

By the way, "diablogically" is a mistake.But a fortuitous one. I hereby adopt it as my new favorite word.

[viget]

EW-

It truly sounds like a Bush neologism. Are you sure he hasn't used it before?

[susan]

EW, Sometimes there are just no words to describe...especially in the last six years!

[Jeff]

I would caution against letting our diablogic imagination carry us beyond the carnivalesque to the grassy knollesque. I think there can be little doubt that the first of Novak's two senior administration officials cited in his original article was Richard Armitage. That's not to say there isn't a lot that remains to be explained about how Novak learned what, and he is clearly lying about why he used the word "operative" and why he used the Plame name. (It is of course troubling and puzzling that Novak probably told these same lies under oath and Fitzgerald has evidently finished with him - as a witness, I mean, not as a target.) It seems like a key to addressing at least the last issue - the name - probably lies with Miller, as Kevin Drum and others have suggested. Who gave Miller the name? I take it the leading leftwing speculation is some combination of Fleitz and Bolton. I've always thought that this was too bad to be true, given the lack of any direct evidence or even much circumstantial evidence. But who knows. I take it the leading rightwing speculation is Maguire's, to the effect that it was Armitage who gave Novak the name, and Armitage got it from Robert Grenier, who is a plausible candidate because we know he was talking about Plame's purported role in her husband's trip with Libby in June, and because Grenier might well know Plame as "Plame" from back in the day at the Agency, and because Armitage has good intelligence connections.

Of course, the trouble with this Maguirean speculation is that we don't know that Grenier was talking to Armitage and we do know that Grenier was talking about Wilson's CIA wife to . . . Libby. However, best as I can tell, we don't know how Grenier precisely referred to Wilson's wife when he told Libby about her on June 11 2003. Plus, if he told Fitzgerald that he called her "Valerie Plame" to Libby, then it seems more likely Libby would have gotten in even more trouble. Also militating against that idea is that on June 14, it appears that Libby was complaining about "Valerie Wilson" to his CIA brief, Craig Schmall. Finally, to the extent that Grenier referred to her not as "Valerie Plame" to Libby but by some other formulation, that would seem to make it somewhat less likely he would refer to her as Plame to Armitage.

One other odd tidbit and a not-odd one about Grenier. The odd thing is that best as I can tell, it appears that Fitzgerald had not heard from his when Fitzgerald wrote up his 8-27-04 affidavit, since when he enumerates the government officials who allegedly talked with Libby about Wilson's wife before Libby's conversation with Russert, Grenier is left off the list. I suppose that could be because Grenier was under cover or some such, but I tend to doubt that's the explanation. I'm not sure what if anything to make of the idea that as of late August 2004, Fitzgerald had not yet learned about the Grenier conversation. The not-odd tidbit is just that the NYDN story on him and Schmall noted that Grenier had been CIA station chief in Islamabad, helped stage the Afghanistan war (presumably the CIA part), then joined the CIA's Iraq Issue Group, and ended up this year as CIA CTC chief before being demoted. It would be interesting to know the dates of his various appointments.

[kim]

One thing Blankley said on Hardball was that Armitage put Plame/Wilson "in play" similar to Rove's "fair game."

This reminded me that Rove told Cooper on July 11 2003 that Mrs. Wilson's occupation 'n stuff would be "declassified soon."

Is the official Rove/Luskin story that Karl was referring to Novak's pending article, or that there was an ongoing WH process to declassify Plame before Novak's article was even published? Would Tenet have been asked to declassify Plame solely for responding to Wilson's op-ed? Was Novak or Woodward (ie Armitage) the actualy motivation for this?

Also, TM's thinking Libby didn't know Plame's status prior to July 14 2003, if Rove was waiting on declassification on July 11 Libby surely must also have been.

Diablogical is a great one.

[pow wow]

I wanted to point out this statement by Novak on television, which seems to confirm kim's memory:

September 29, 2003 - On CNN's Crossfire, Novak explains, "Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weaons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing. ... They asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, and not in charge of undercover operatives. So what is the fuss about, pure Bush-bashing?" ("Crossfire," CNN, Sept. 29, 2003) [I pinched this excerpt from a DailyKos diary] Crossfire aired live every weekday starting at 4:30 p.m.

Novak's got some pal at the CIA feeding him stuff that contradicts Bill Harlow's line, so of course Novak goes with the information from the pal, despite the warnings of the responsible official CIA spokesperson. Novak is just despicable.

And that horrible, inveterate "gossip" Armitage sure can keep his mouth shut when he wants to, can't he? [Three years and counting, now.]

What's really getting to me is the sense that the media is far, far more knowledgeable about this situation than the public they supposedly exist to inform. [Jeff Smith's line today in the Washington Post that Armitage being Novak's source was 'the worst-kept secret in Washington' -- oh, really? Seems to me our Washington-based "press" is in the running for a Pulitzer for NON-coverage on this story (everywhere except where it comes from self-serving anonymous sources who request the coverage). Note too that Smith's anonymous ex-colleague of Armitage uses the Woodward scenario (end of the interview - just chatting when the CIA spy's identity 'slipped out') for the Novak interview, but, as I recall, Novak himself has stated that the disclosure from Armitage came 'in the middle of' their hour-long interview/conversation.]

I figure that after word leaked that the DOJ made the decision on Friday, September 26th to pursue the investigation, the cover story plotting quickly began, probably over the weekend of the 27th and 28th (when #1 made the front page of the Sunday Washington Post). Based on Novak's Monday, 9/29 late-afternoon statement on CNN, he had his October 1 story already pretty well written, and the guilty plotters were 'good to go' with their cover-up as the slow-starting investigation began to get under way that week.

[kim]

The source at the CIA that Novak is referring to could be Harlow, he and Novak had some disagreeing versions of whether and how Novak was told to back off about Plame - Novak called the CIA, talked to Harlow, and then Harlow called him back... basically saying that it wouldn't be good to write about her. Most recently Novak again discussed Harlow, after Fitzgerald released him. I don't recall any public coments Harlow has made about Novak since the Post article a year or so ago.

[readerOfTeaLeaves]

Not wanting to spend any time on a knollesque, grassy or otherwise, I respectfully differ with at least one earlier poster:

Armitage was **not** a "WH official." Therefore, whether Armitage told anyone, or whether he didn't, is irrelevant to the main narrative. The main story line as I understand it is: Who **in the White House** deliberately, illegally leaked Plame's name?

The June 28 WaPo article specifies, "two top **White House officials** called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife."
I assume:
1 = Valerie Plame {Wilson};
2 = WH officials;
6 = journalists (incl: J Miller, NYT; Pincus, WaPo; Novak; Matthews, MSNBC; Mike Cooper, Time; and at least one other journalist, --however, "at least 6" does not limit journalists to only 6 )

Armitage was not a WH official.
Therefore, Armitage is almost certainly an effort to 'throw sand in the eyes'; he's a red herring.

The WaPo article June 28, 2003 includes evidence of motivation specifically by WH officials:
(a) ... [Plame/Wilson's wife] ... is.. "fair game".
(b) A WH official is quoted in the article as stating, "Clearly, [outing Plame] was meant purely and simply for revenge."
(c) The WH was "...seeking to undercut Wilson's credibility."

Armitage was not at the WH. He does not appear to have had any motive to view Plame as 'fair game,' nor would he have had any reason to seek revenge on Wilson for the OpEd. Only WH officials, with tight ties to Cheney and Bush, would have been motivated to undercut Wilson's credibility. Only the WH had the motives stated in the WaPo article.

[kim]

pow wow,
On the other hand I just saw this quote from Wilson's book in a new Leopold article about the stranger who men Novak in the street:

" '[Novak] cited not a CIA source, as he had indicated on the phone four days earlier [July 10 2003], but rather two senior administration sources; I called him for a clarification,' Wilson wrote in his book. When we first spoke, he had cited to me a CIA source, yet his published story cited two senior administration sources. He replied: 'I misspoke the first time we talked.'"

So, maybe this supports your point about the CIA source in Crossfire transcript.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/082906J.shtml

[emptywheel]

kim

Novak almost certainly spoke to Harlow, in July, then spoke to someone else not long before his October 1 column. Which is where he got this for his column:

While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is "covered" -- working under the guise of another agency. However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations.

Jeff

Let's review Novak's original claim.

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him.

The two sources clearly relate to the Plame's purported role in the trip (and I'll remind everyone--Novak got told by Armitage Plame had a role, supposedly got told by Rove "you heard that too?" and told by Harlow that's not what happened, so he really had 1.5 for Plame's involvement, and 1 against).

But Novak does not claim he learned of Plame's identity from the two SAOs. And in all his parsing in the last month or so, he was inconsistent in where he learned of her ID from (or if in fact he even did). Add that to the point about the word operative. Now go back and read Phelps and Royce. In the context of the article at least, Novak's "they came to me," comment refers to the leak of Plame's ID, not the purported involvement in the trip (though they do acknowledge that his article said the two SAOs gave him the trip info). And then add to the fact that Armitage didn't "come to Novak"--Novak came to him, literally at least.

You see, I'm not questioning that Armitage told Novak that Plame was involved in the trip. I think (agreeing with Sebastian about Novak's grains of truth) that Rove may have been confirming for her trip involvement. But grammatically, Novak is not saying he learned of Plame's ID from two SAOs. He just asserts it, without a source.

In other words, Novak may well have had two sets of SAOs, Armitage and Rove for the trip involvement, and Rove and Libby for her classified identity (or hell, even Dick and Libby). And that would actually accord at least as well with most of what Novak has ever said publicly as the current story.

One more point. There are two reasons for the basis of the Bolton/Fleitz suppositions. First, Fleitz and Shedd are the two people who are rumored to have worked with Plame closely enough to actually know her cover--you know, things like her pseudonyms Victoria Wilson and Valerie Plame, as well as an awareness of B&J.

Second, the INR memo was clearly written to obscure their (Fleitz and Bolton's) role in the Niger forgeries (it hides their role in the fact sheet and accepting the forgeries from the Embassy in Italy, at the least). Which suggests they had SOME role in the INR memo, whether it was strictly a vetting role (it would be perfectly normal for them to have vetted at least their part of the INR memo), or in some more substantive role. That puts them with some involvement in the Plame questions in early June, just when Libby was collecting information.