The Armitage Bombshell that Isikoff Didn't Mention

by emptywheel

Gotta go have a good old old fashioned floor fight at my state convention (Go Amos Williams!!), so will have to post more later. But here are the most important passages in Isikoff's new article:

Armitage acknowledged that he had passed along to Novak information contained in a classified State Department memo: that Wilson's wife worked on weapons-of-mass-destruction issues at the CIA. (The memo made no reference to her undercover status.)

[snip]

Fitzgerald found no evidence that Armitage knew of Plame's covert CIA status when he talked to Novak and Woodward.

I'll come back and examine whether this means Armitage's source his leak to Woodward was the first version of the INR memo or not. But this very strong suggests that Armitage only had the information included in the INR memo. That, in turn, strongly suggests he didn't leak Plame's cover identity (remember, he told Woodward Plame was an analyst).

Therefore, whoever else leaked to Novak told him that Plame was an operative.

I still suspect it's possible that Novak had a third source--one who either said something that made Novak key into Plame or otherwise encouraged him to seek out the information. There is evidence to suggest Libby or Dick spoke with Novak, though it is unclear whether this conversation happened before or after the Novak leak.

But in any case, this story is a lot more interesting for the fact that it says Armitage didn't leak Plame's covert status, than it is for anything it says about Armitage. (Though I suspect Jeff will have some very interesting comments on the details.)

Update: One more thing.

Taft, the State Department lawyer, also felt obligated to inform White House counsel Alberto Gonzales. But Powell and his aides feared the White House would then leak that Armitage had been Novak's source—possibly to embarrass State Department officials who had been unenthusiastic about Bush's Iraq policy. So Taft told Gonzales the bare minimum: that the State Department had passed some information about the case to Justice. He didn't mention Armitage.

This would explain a lot of the confusion around 1X2X6. Armitage almost certainly isn't 1X2X6, because he just figured out he was the "leaker" with Novak's article. But from the WH perspective, they almost certainly thought it was someone at State, since they had been told State passed on information. Which is why they tried to smear Powell with the leak (I'll come back to explain this).

But it also raises the possibility of one of the weird scenarios that we've been discussing--that someone like McClellan or something is 1.

Comments

[joejoejoe]

One of the perils of reading emptywheel is it puts you in a time warp. My mom told me that there was breaking news about the Plame case that said Armitage leaked the Valerie's name and I told her I've known that for months. She looked at me like I was a crazy person because it was right on the screen on CNN as 'Breaking News'.

While it's fun being 3 steps ahead of anyone not named Patrick Fitzgerald it is a little bit confusing seeing 'news' that isn't new. Thanks EW. You are the best sleuth on the internets.

[WWB]

Perhaps I'm missing something -- and Lord knows, over the last 3 years there's been a lot to remember and forget -- but is there solid reason to believe that by "operative" Novak necessarily meant "undercover"? The word "operative" surely could mean undercover, but could also just be a dramatic word choice -- Novak is essentially a gossip columnist, after all. It's always seemed plausible to me that Novak himself didn't know that she was undercover; this would explain why he didn't take Bill Harlow's pleas not to report all that seriously.

And one can see why Armitage & co. would have scrambled even in absence of knowledge that she was (or had been) a covert agent; they shouldn't be leaking classified information in the first place.

Novak never reported Plame's covert status; curiously, that's the co-author of this report. As FactCheck.org">http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html">FactCheck.org verfied at the time, "Corn's entry is the first instance where someone alleges publicly that the release of Valerie Plame’s name disclosed the identity of a covert agent." Insterestingly, this Isikoff report manages not to report that.

[William Ockham]

WWB,

Everybody in the entire universe of English-speaking people knows what somebody is saying when they say CIA and operative in the same sentence. As we say in Texas, that dog won't hunt.

[kim]

Just heard Novak say on Meet the Press that time for his source to identify himself! I'd still be surprised if Armitage didn't tell Powll about Novak earlier than October 2003.

[William Ockham]

As Swopa has pointed out, Isikoff's version of Armitage's story doesn't make any sense at all. Wilson publishes his op-ed piece and Armitage's first reaction is to get a copy of the INR memo. Two days later, he talks to Novak and tells him most of the good stuff in the memo. Novak publishes a column a week later identifying a Plame as a CIA operative. If Armitage really didn't know she was undercover, what do you think Armitage did on July 14? Remember, Armitage was the head of the INR and had worked in the past for the DIA.

I don't know how Isikoff and Corn can live with themselves when the publish a story that is just so transparently bogus.

[Tom Maguire]

But this very strong suggests that Armitage only had the information included in the INR memo.

Troubling. If memory serves (and it is an uncertain servant - maybe I should offer it a raise), it was Ms. EW herself who pointed out a while back that, per some news story, the INR memo was a bit of a smokescreen, and that the genesis of Wilson's Niger trip had been kicked around CIA and INR for a year.

*Maybe* this round of leaks is the full truth, but I would not be surprised if blaming the INR memo is only the first fallback for Armitage.

Or, as a middle ground, maybe the INR memo jogged his memory, but he may well have heard Plame mentioned before he ever saw that memo.

From his">http://www.state.gov/s/d/former/42439.htm">his bio I certainly get the idea that Armitage has a bit of an intel background, so I bet he has plenty of old buddies at INR and CIA.

As an aside, I guess we have staked out our positions on the use of "operative" - since Andrea Mitchell got it that">http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/11/bob_novak_and_o.html">that day from what she described as "CIA" sources, I remain unconvinced that Novak's most probable source of that word was the White House.

[Tom Maguire]

Sorry, I typed that comment two hours ago and forgot to hit "Submit"; nice to see I am on the same page with William of O regarding this version's plausibility.

[Swopa]

... maybe the INR memo jogged his memory, but he may well have heard Plame mentioned before he ever saw that memo.

Except that (via polly)">http://pollyusa.blogspot.com/2006/06/pincus.html">polly) Walter Pincus has said on">http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4970443&ft=1&f=10">on NPR (and elsewhere) about his investigation into the background of the Niger trip in early June 2003:

"Nobody ever mentioned Wilson's wife playing any role at all and one of the people I talked to then on background and I've since been released to say his name was Scooter Libby who described how the thing came about to the Vice President's office, but never once mentioned Wilson's wife as being a participant."

The supposed role of Wilson's wife was an "improvement" inserted into the storyline after Pincus started nosing around.

[SaltinWound]

Can we finally put to rest the idea that Armitage was a savvy bureaucratic infighter? He was used in every way, and might still be giving less gossipy, more treasonous people ample cover with his stupid actions. It's easy to see why Powell lost every turf battle. I will agree with the coverage which states that Armitage is barrel-chested, however. He certainly is that.

[windansea]

Therefore, whoever else leaked to Novak told him that Plame was an operative.

or, as TM's post linked above postulates, Novak just linked CIA from one source, and operative from another.

[tnhblog]

Interestingly, on the very day that Armitage is leaking the info to Novak, Wilson's friend confronts Novak and inquires about this very matter. Does anyone beside me find that a strange coincidence? What are the odds that a chance encounter between two strangers would occur on the very day that a piece of disseminated info vital to the fates of both would occur? I would say they are astronomically against such an encounter. Wilson's friend supposedly confronts Novak near the Whitehouse on Pennsylvania Ave. in the late afternoon of July 8. The civil trial should be interesting, especially the testimony of Wilson's friend.

[mk]

What would be more ultimately untraceable than to direct Novak toward a gossipy guy who can be relied upon to tell what he knows? One of the hallmarks of a Rovian rumor is that you can never tell where it started (or better yet, the story "begins" with an non-partisan-gunslinger someone else who then spreads it around). Maybe Armitage was deliberately set up to be the sand in the eyes of the umpire -- and the "innocent" source for the story. But then the question is -- who sent Novak to chat with Armitage, at such a convenient moment?

[Mimikatz]

MK said what I was thinking. Armitage is known as an inveterate and indiscreet gossip. Libby et al were aware of Valerie around June 14-17, IIRC. Armitage gossiped to Woodward on or about June 17. Then he WENT TO SEE Armitage, evidently with an appointment, on July 8. Why couldn't Novak have a prior source (like Rove or Libby) who sent him to Armitage to see what he would spill, knowing his propensities, so Novak could then call Rove and confirm? Why does everyone assume there wasn't another (deliberate) leaker in between the two conversations Armitage had?

[tnhblog]

In a related matter, read this bombshell by Wayne Madsen:

Some of the surveillance intelligence came from decoded diplomatic communications between the Sudanese Mission to the United Nations and Khartoum, Sudan, where Osama Bin Laden then resided. While in Sudan, Bin Laden coordinated attacks on U.S. forces in Somalia and Saudi Arabia. WMR previously reported that a classified French intelligence report stated that Bin Laden and his Afghan forces remained under the operational control of Britain's MI-6 and the CIA until 1995.

1993 World Trade Center bombing evidence suppressed by chief federal prosecutors in case -- Patrick J. Fitzgerald and Michael Chertoff.

Ironically, the two men responsible for the failure to present the surveillance intelligence on the 1993 World Trade Center bombers to the juries and grand juries hearing the charges -- the main federal prosecutors for New York City and New Jersey in the bombing case -- were Patrick J. Fitzgerald and Michael Chertoff, respectively.

According to an FBI source, the chief FBI investigator against Al Qaeda in the 1990s, the late John O'Neill, was upset that the much of the telephone surveillance of the bombers was never introduced as evidence and remained un-translated and classified

[WWB]

Ockham, would it then appear that FactCheck.org is not considered part of the English-speaking world?

I agree that Novak's phrase can be construed as to mean secret agent -- but it can also be construed otherwise. Here in Washington we talk of campaign operatives as well, and frequently, they're desk jockeys who plot strategy from campaign HQ.

I'm not taking any dogs hunting here, just asking whether too much is put upon this one phrase. I think that may be the case.

[QuickSilver]

No wonder Judy's feelings are hurt; it appears we've got more than one cut-out here.

[QuickSilver]

WWB

Novak must hate the Internet. He's been reporting for more than four decades, and despite what he says, has apparently never before used the word 'operative' in connection to the CIA without referring to espionage and covert missions. (In fact, there are at least six instances in which he used CIA "operative" as the equivalent of CIA "spy," as several online sleuths have pointed out.)

The notion that what Novak really meant to say was that Plame was a "political operative" is beyond disingenuous. Particularly given that the CIA warned Novak against writing about Mrs. Wilson, and Novak chose not to follow that advice. What did Novak think he was doing, using a word with such heavy connotations?

I would challenge you to find an alternate usage for "operative", in the context of the CIA, in any of Novak's thousands of articles prior to 2003. No one has a greater incentive to produce an example than Novak, and it's telling that he can't.

[No Blood for Hubris]

1. How is Armitage 'no partisan gunslinger'?

2. Painting Armitage as some sort of impulse-control-disordered gossipmonger neatly jibes with the Rovian spin to minimize this event, does it not? It's the same smoke, the same mirrors they've been using since the start, Plame-name's just some trivial gossip bouncing around Washington, nothing to see here, move along.

[Rayne]

Of all times for Isikoff's article to be published; it's as if they knew EW, the world's preeminent Plame-ologist, would be busy duking it out on the convention hall floor!

I think the question we need to ask at this point is whether the perpetrators were capable of going deep on this; were they working one issue, or more? If they were only working on promotion of the Iraq War and discrediting any detractors, the rationale used to assess every participant (knowing or blind cut-out). If the perpetrators were trying to do accomplish more than one agenda at the same time, the challenge will be trying to keep their agendas straight along with their efforts.

Wonder if Fitz has tried to get these guys to tell their stories *backwards*? Because they'd have a tough time with a simple agenda -- and an impossible time doing so without cracking if they had more than one objective.

[tnhblog]

I think now that the odds are infinitely against a chance encounter between two strangers in which one of the strangers specifically asks the other, the very same day that other stranger gets the information, about that information. Most probably, Wilson's friend deliberately confronted Novak, knowing that Wilson was about to be setup for something nefarious through Novak. I recall that Wilson very soon thereafter received a call that "they" were coming after him.

[QuickSilver]

WWB

I was intrigued by your "here in Washington" allusion, and had a look at your work on www.blogpi.com.">http://www.blogpi.net/">www.blogpi.com. Assuming you are indeed William">http://www.blogpi.net/about/">William Beutler, I'm very interested in your employment as a "blog analyst" for New">http://newmediastrategies.net/service/protect.htm">New Media Strategies, as well as your work on the National Journal's Hotline.">http://blogometer.nationaljournal.com/">Hotline. Who among your client(s) are paying you to read, and respond, on the The Next Hurrah?

[p.lukasiak]

I think the narrative is pretty obvious at this point....

Novak is told by armitage on July 6 that "Wilson's wife" is a cia analyst -- calls Rove to confirm, and is told that she is actually an "operative". Rove knows this because he was told by Libby. Rove fessed up to being a Novak source, but "did not recall" specifically identifying her as an operative.

[p.lukasiak]

oops, first sentence should say "July 8"

[pdaly]

To borrow a well-used phrase of the apologists for the NSA spying on Americans, if the WH did nothing wrong they should have nothing to fear. Ok, so if it was 'just' Armitage all along, why did Libby lie to the FBI? Why did Libby lie to the grand jury?
Why did Rove leak to Cooper? Why did Rove and Libby lie to McClellan or if McClellan was aware of Armitage's original leak at the time why did McClellan lie to the press?

I don't think the WH was lying to protect Armitage.

[tnhblog]

I think the question now is, how did Wilson's friend know that Wilson was being set up on this day of July 8? There is obviously a conspiracy here that involves more people than Armitage.