The Conspiracy to Out Joe Wilson

by emptywheel

In my previous post, I pointed you to a little tidbit at Josh Marshall's. The Barton Gellman article I mentioned this morning has been edited to remove the following italicized bit:

On July 12, the day Cheney and Libby flew together from Norfolk, the vice president instructed his aide to alert reporters of an attack launched that morning on Wilson's credibility by Fleischer, according to a well-placed source.

Libby talked to Miller and Cooper. That same day, another administration official who has not been identified publicly returned a call from Walter Pincus of The Post. He "veered off the precise matter we were discussing" and told him that Wilson's trip was a "boondoggle" set up by Plame, Pincus has written in Nieman Reports.

Apparently, someone doesn't want us to know that Dick Cheney was actively involved in pushing journalists toward that morning's press gaggle.

The Attack
So let's look at that morning's press gaggle. As coincidence (!) would have it, this is the press gaggle transcript the Bush Administration had removed from its server, forcing Fitzgerald to go to the trouble of subpoenaing it. And what attack did Ari launch that morning against Joe Wilson? I'm not entirely certain the existing gaggle is the complete transcript, but assuming it is, here's the passage I think Dick wanted reporters to focus on:

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.

Ari and Dick Cheney (Barton Gellman tried to tell us today) wanted journalists to know about a minor reference Wilson made about a possible contact between Iraq and Niger. Here's how Tenet explained it in his statement:

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.

And here's what the SSCI report says Wilson said:

[Former Nigerien Prime Minister] Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, [redacted] businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq." (43)

The idea, then, was to discredit Joe Wilson by suggesting his trip report actually supported the claim that Iraq tried to get uranium from Niger, rather than refuted it.

Update: You know, I've always just assumed Ari's statement was grammatically sloppy--that he just didn't make his antecedents clear. But after reading MarkC's comment below, I think that ambiguity is intentional. Only, it's not at all ambiguous. Ari says, clearly, that someone approached Wilson to get him to expand ties between Iraq and Niger. In other words, the attack Dick wanted everyone to pick up on is an insinuation that Wilson was some kind of go-between between Iraq and Niger. Wow. These guys suck. They're using Tenet's nearly truthful statement to make an absolutely baseless accusation that Wilson was a liaison between Iraq and Niger.

Update 2: Ah, now I see. The grammatical ambiguity was Tenet's, which Ari took advantage of to make his claim about Wilson. I've included a bit more of his statement to show that he never calls Wilson a "former official"--he calls him "an individual with ties to the region." He speaks of all the Nigeriens as former officials. And then, by the time he talks about who offered details about Niger's uranium industry, he refers to former officials in plural, which clarifies (barely) that Tenet is speaking of the Nigeriens all though here. But since we know Wilson is a former official, Ari can pretend Tenet was speaking of Wilson as the former official. Tricky.

Now, there's a bit of funkiness in the SSCI on this, suggesting there might be more to the way Wilson reported this incident. For example, in the passage describing differences between Wilson's SSCI interview and what made it into the actual report, it says Wilson described his findings "as more directly related to Iraq." But then, after a series of non-sequiturs, the report notes,

In fact, the intelligence report [on Wilson's trip] made no mention of the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal or signatures that should have appeared on any documentation of such a deal. The only mention of Iraq in the report pertained to the meeting between the Iraqi delegation and former Prime Minister Mayaki.(44)

In other words, the reports officer who transcribed what Wilson said tried to hide the underlying reason for his trip--and emphasize instead this meeting, which was later alleged to support the Iraq uranium allegations. (The INR analyst's notes, incidentally, clearly state the Wilson meeting was called to "sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue" and indicated quite a lot was said about Iraq during the meeting.) I'll return to this in a later post, I think (or maybe eRiposte will work on it--this is kind of his forte). But now I'd like to consider whether this information had been declassified, or whether Tenet and Ari were leaking something classified when they mentioned this.

Was this Information Declassified?
No greater expert than Robert Novak suggests they were still in the process of declassifying the report these leaks were based on.

A lot of people recall that Rove told Cooper he was going to declassify something soon related to Wilson's trip. Most people assume that Rove wanted to declassify the INR memo. But in a little noted passage of Novak's column outing Plame, he says clearly the White House wanted to declassify Wilson's trip report:

The story, actually, is whether the administration deliberately ignored Wilson's advice, and that requires scrutinizing the CIA summary of what their envoy reported. 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.

So, at least according to whomever told Novak they were going to leak something, they were going to leak the CIA report, not the INR report. And, again according to Novak's source (who seems to be a White House official), it was not yet declassified. As far as I know, that report is still not declassified.

Actually, I don't know whether it is classified or not. Clearly, Dick Cheney and George Tenet would seem to have a significant say in whether something remains classified or not, right? At the same time, though, the CIA had told Wilson they would keep his relationship with CIA confidential (while they did not ask him to do the same). Did Wilson effectively declassify all aspects of his trip by speaking of it himself?

I honestly don't know.

But there is one more indication there was hanky-panky going on with the inclusion of this bit in Tenet's speech, and then Ari's briefing (beyond, of course, the ham-handed attempt the Bush Administration made to hide it).

Tenet's Statement--a Group Project?
There's some controversy over whether Tenet's statement was his own work or whether he had help. Even in Ari's press gaggle, for example, some of the journalists seem to believe Tenet may have had help.

Q     Ari, did Dr. Rice ask Director Tenet to put out the statement, or did anybody else from the White House ask him to put out the statement?

MR. FLEISCHER:  Discussions with Director Tenet about the statement have been going on for days, have been worked out previously.  It's appropriate for the CIA to speak out.

Q     Did he bring up the notion of addressing a statement, or did the White House ask him to?

MR. FLEISCHER:  It was mutual.  The discussion was, the CIA needs to explain what its role was in this.  And the best way for any entity in the government to explain its role is to issue a statement.

Q     Why, if he was going to    if it has been talked about for several days, did Dr. Rice come out and brief yesterday?  Why not just wait for Tenet to put out his announcement?  I mean, was there any reluctance on the CIA to put out a statement?

MR. FLEISCHER:  Dr. Rice was always scheduled to brief yesterday, just as Secretary Powell was scheduled to brief at the filing center the night before.  So we actually, literally the day before the trip or the week before the trip -- sit down.  She was scheduled to brief on the flight to Nigeria.  It was moved up to the morning flight.  It was easier to do it that way, frankly, and to disseminate whatever she said.

I love this bit: "Discussions with Director Tenet about the statement have been going on for days, have been worked out previously." Which is it Ari? Were they worked out previously, or only in the previous few days? It also seems like some journalists believe Condi's press conference of the previous day was a failed attempt to do what Tenet's statement did somewhat better. So contemporaneously, at least, journalists found something suspicious in Tenet's speech and in Condi's press briefing timing.

And there is one more suspicious thing.

Earlier this summer, there was a bit of a squabble played out between the White House and CIA on the pages of the NYT and WaPo. First, in the NYT, Libby's and Rove's leakers said the following:

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.

This always sounded to me like an attempt on Rove's and Libby's part to explain away a very incriminating email, as Rove had with his email to Cooper and as Libby seems to have done with some of his notes. In other words, I suspect there's a document that shows Rove and Libby and Hadley were very actively talking about the issues appearing in Tenet's statement, whether or not Rove and Libby were actually involved in drafting the statement.

But the CIA disputes the Rove-Libby story in a WaPo article appearing a few days later.

On July 9, Tenet and top aides began to draft a statement over two days that ultimately said it was "a mistake" for the CIA to have permitted the 16 words about uranium to remain in Bush's speech. He said the information "did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches, and the CIA should have ensured that it was removed."

A former senior CIA official said yesterday that Tenet's statement was drafted within the agency and was shown only to Hadley on July 10 to get White House input. Only a few minor changes were accepted before it was released on July 11, this former official said. He took issue with a New York Times report last week that said Rove and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, had a role in Tenet's statement.

So now we've got three different versions--at least--of the drafting of Tenet's mea culpa. Tenet says the CIA wrote it between July 9 and July 11; only Hadley reviewed it at the White House. Rove and Libby say they had been working on it longer than that. And Ari? Perhaps he agrees with both sides, when he says discussions have been going on for days but it all has been worked out previously.

I don't know who is right. I actually suspect Rove and Libby might be (gasp!) telling a truth on this one. But in any case, the competing stories suggest we may have a cast of characters involved in drafting Tenet's speech to include information that may not have been declassified. If Tenet and Hadley and Rove and Libby and Dick and Ari and Condi were all involved in this statement and the subsequent peddling of the story in it, who is responsible for the unauthorized leak, if one occurred?

Perhaps it doesn't matter. Because when you've got such a cast of characters as you have here, that's when you begin to talk about criminal conspiracy.

Judy Botches the Story (?)
I'll leave you with one final tidbit on this issue from our friend Judy. In her description of what Libby told her during the July 12, post-Dick discussion coverstion, she said the following:

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.

Libby was supposed to make it clear that Wilson did talk to a Nigerien who talked to Iraq's trade rep. Did he not make this clear? Did Judy once again take atrocious notes? Or, did Judy and Libby commit a truth (double gasp!) and admit that the accusation BushCo was making everywhere was nowhere near as clearcut as they were claiming?

Or, was Judy trying to obscure this illegal declassification? Was she, once again, telling the stories her Neocon patrons wanted her to tell?

Comments

[a]

Look at the odd way that the July 11 press briefing on AF1 begins. This is where Condi addresses the Tenet statement, and there seems to be some confusion about whether it's on background or on the record.

Now look at the July 12 press briefing, Ari's statement from Nigeria that you're focusing on. The last paragraph:

MR. FLEISCHER: Dr. Rice was always scheduled to brief yesterday, just as Secretary Powell was scheduled to brief at the filing center the night before. So we actually, literally the day before the trip or the week before the trip -- sit down. She was scheduled to brief on the flight to Nigeria. It was moved up to the morning flight. It was easier to do it that way, frankly, and to disseminate whatever she said.

That "whatever she said" seems mighty weird to me, considering Ari was there. Maybe, for example, she said something on background -- and then something on the record?

Combine that with the new report about what's going on AF2. I think we've got Condi and Ari on the phone on AF1 making phone calls to six journalists, while Libby makes the rounds in Washington.

[Swopa]

Sigh... as I said in the previous thread, there's a simpler explanation -- and it's even stronger proof of a conspiracy.

[emptywheel]

I agree, Swopa, if you're right, then Dick is toast, clearly.

But, for someone who takes things as literally as you do wrt the 6 reporters, you're really loosey goosey here. Dick didn't say, "go tell Ari to call 6 reporters" (which would invalidate your whole 1X2X6 theory, because it would mean Martin could be a witness to the plot). He said, "go point the reporters to what Ari said."

You might be right. (And I agree that this makes it highly likely that Ari is Pincus' source.) But this reading sounds closer to Libby's story, which is that Dick told him to go tell people about Tenet's statement. It also provides a bit of an explanation for why they removed the gaggle transcript from the website.

And, finally, Ari really wasn't in either faction at the WH. But he was certainly closer to Rove than to Dick. Why would Ari leak at Dick's/Libby's direction?

[Swopa]

Why would Ari leak at Dick's/Libby's direction?

Because Rove was smart enough to keep his hands off this as much as he could?

Personally, that was one of the biggest surprises I had in reading the indictment -- that Libby told Ari directly about Wilson's wife. I had assumed that Rove would have been the intermediary there.

Maybe we'll find out eventually that Rove was part of the conversation, too, but it seems like Karl did everything he could to maintain a low profile on this until Novak's article came out ... except for leaking to Matt Cooper. Does that explain why he said to Cooper, "I've said too much already"?

[emptywheel]

One more question about your theory, Swopa.

If Dick said, "go tell Ari to leak" and we have VERY good reason to believe that Cathie Martin is cooperating fully. And we have VERY good reason to believe that Ari is cooperating fully. Then why isn't Dick already in jail? And why did Karl lie (I'd understand why Libby would have)? No need to subpoena Judy, Cooper, or anyone else (although I realize it has been asserted that the Judy Cooper subpoenas were a side-interest).

[Swopa]

Then why isn't Dick already in jail?

Because the case is much stronger if he can flip Libby. So the first order of business is to assemble the strongest possible case against Libby and see if he cracks.

I presume that both Karl and Libby lied from the start because they had already planned out the "heard it from journalists" cover story, and they thought Ashcroft would cover for them.

[emptywheel]

Maybe I'm not understanding then. You say Ari is one of the two main leakers, along with someone else on Air Force One.

If so, then why are Karl and Libby in trouble at all? Why did they have to lie at all? Why has the main hold up on this case been subpoenaing Judy and Cooper, who weren't leaked to by Ari or the other main leaker, as far as we know?

[MarkC]

A couple of minor points:

1. Ari misunderstands the sequence of events in his press conference. As I read it, he is saying that Wilson himself was approached. He's mistaking the "former official" of Niger for the former official of the US (i.e., the former ambassador).

2. Here are a couple of minor steps in the Tenet mea culpa: 7/9 BBC reports CIA leak that blames SOTU on WH. 7/10 FT quotes Rockefeller "The very public role of Ms Rice in putting the blame on Mr Tenet was 'dishonourable', he said in the Los Angeles Times, adding that he guessed she 'had a lot more to do with this mistake than Tenet did.'" (7/11 is the Tenet mea culpa and 7/12 is the disappeared gaggle. Neither here nor there: it seems that by 7/16 the CIA story was changed to absolve Tenet and put the blame on Alan Foley. Then 7/22 the mea culpa shifts to Hadley.)

3. The NYT (Sanger and Miller) story of 7/23 characterized the pressure on Tenet this way: "Ten days ago the White House fingered the director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet, who accepted partial blame the next day in a statement that said he had never read the draft of the speech that was sent to him."

That last one makes it sound like Tenet didn't know he was going to take the fall until Rice told him he was.

[emptywheel]

Mark C

Very astute observations; thanks for those.

Are you suggesting Tenet didn't know he was going to issue a statement when Condi said he was culpable on the 10th? That would certainly explain the questions from the reporters.

And yes, you're right, Ari misstates what the report (and Tenet) says. But I suspect he doesn't "misunderstand" it. He has read the CIA report at this point. (He says several times in a previous presser things like, "That's not what he said in his report," which suggests he's got a pretty clear idea (or thinks he does) what was said. In other words, I think the idea was to shift what Tenet said, from something approaching the truth, into a really amazing lie, insinuating that Wilson was a go-between between Niger and Iraq. Sounds kind of like what they insinuate about Joseph Galloway.

[Swopa]

If Dick said, "go tell Ari to leak"...

Incidentally, I don't think that's exactly what happened. Absent any other evidence, I'm assuming that the WaPo's line is word-for-word what Libby was told ("alert them to...," etc.).

Just to put this in fresh terms, let's pretend that instead instead of leaking about Plame, Ari fed the journalists poisoned meat loaf.

What Cathie Martin overheard in Air Force Two wasn't "Tell Ari to poison those #)%#(!~ reporters"; it may only have been "Tell them Ari's has really good food." Because Libby had already gone to Ari a few days earlier and given him a little "something extra" to put in the meat loaf.

The unresolved question is, when did Ari specifically get told to put the meat loaf on special?

[Swopa]

You say Ari is one of the two main leakers...

Whoa there ... to quote Joe Wilson:

"I have read in the Post that two leakers called six reporters. But the leakers were probably not the decision-makers. They just carried out the decisions of their superiors."

Just because they got Ari and someone else to make the actual calls doesn't get Libby and Rove off the hook at all. (It might get Rove somewhat off the hook if all the instructions came from Libby.)

[emptywheel]

Right, but Swopa, the attack Ari launched has nothing to do with Plame. As Mark C suggests, it's a suggestion that Wilson is a go-between between Niger and Iraq. The 1X2X6 theory explains a leak about Plame, not a leak about Wilson being in bed with Iraq.

[emptywheel]

Now I'm stewing over this "Joe Wilson as go-between" thing. It would explain some things. First, where did Ari get that claim from? It's got all the hallmarks of a Rove ratfuck--resembling something that is true, but utterly shamelessly false. Kind of like McCain's "black baby."

Is it possible Rove and Libby and Hadley were brainstorming this ratfuck in their emails? And that Tenet wouldn't let them put that into his speech? And that his insistence that he wrote his statement by himself is just a statement that he didn't include the ratfuck, because he knew it wasn't true.

And is it possible that Libby really didn't have the stomach for the Rove ratfuck? That he told Judy, "yeah, Dick says I should go with Rove's ratfuck, which Ari launched yesterday, but it's not true. It's pretty clear Wilson isn't the go-between?

Well, it would make sense--but I'm still getting my brain around this...

[Swopa]

... the attack Ari launched has nothing to do with Plame. As Mark C suggests, it's a suggestion that Wilson is a go-between between Niger and Iraq.

To believe that was a conscious attack rather than Ari being terminally confused, I think I'd have to see some evidence of someone else making the same accusation.

[emptywheel]

Regardless of whether the go-between thing is conscious, at the very least we know Ari was working the "Joe Wilson corroborates us rather than refuting us."

Again, still not Plame. And an accusation other people used. And utterly consistent with Libby's statement (that Dick told him to refer to Tenet's statement), since Ari was working off of that statement.

[Swopa]

I think you've lost sight of the point here. Yes, reporters who got in contact with Ari probably got a reiteration of his morning statement. But they also got the poisoned meat loaf something else -- remember what Pincus wrote:

He "veered off the precise matter we were discussing" and told him that Wilson's trip was a "boondoggle" set up by Plame...

Now compare this with a quote from the SAO in an Oct. 12, 2003 WaPo article:

"It was unsolicited," the source said. "They were pushing back. They used everything they had."

See any dots that connect there?

Also, as I said the day of that article that WaPo quote sounds like the comments of someone who was there when the calls were made.

In fact, the context of why that SAO spoke to the WaPo again backs up even further the notion that he was there.

[Jeff]

With regard to Miller's report of her July 12 conversation with Libby, not only is Miller just reporting a small portion of what the (37 minute) conversation consisted in, and putting two sentences together that don't actually connect, I suspect, more importantly, that that second sentence has to do with something Libby had told her earlier, in line with what Fleischer had been pushing at his July 9, 2003 gaggle, which strangely seems not to be on the White House website along with the other gaggles. (I got it from here) An initial line of attack from Fleischer and, I suspect, from Libby was that Wilson talked to Niger officials who denied any trade with Iraq, but of course that's what the government officials would say, so it has no credibility. Apparently, according to Wilson's book p. 336, he corrected Fleischer on this point publicly in some print article, in response to reporters, though I have yet to track down where he did so. As Wilsons says, "He [Fleischer] thus obliged me to point out to reporters that I had not spoken to the current Nigeien government, so there must be another report in U.S. hands. Of course, there were in fact two other reports . . ."

So my suspicion is that the point (perhaps understood by Miller, perhaps not) of this particular line from Miller's account of her July 12 conversation with Libby is that Libby is backing off from his previous pushing on Miller of one of the Bushie talking points on Wilson's trip. The significance of that would be to confirm both that Libby was engaged in an effort to discredit WIlson, and that this was in ongoing coordination on message with Fleischer, among others.

[Saugatak]

Quite an exchange between EW and Swopa :) Enjoyed it.

Emptywheel, you know I have a lot of respect for your work on Traitorgate, but I don't quite follow your logic on this one.

Why would Iraqis use an-ex U.S. ambassador as a go between for uranium purchases from Niger? IMO, that question would have to be answered satisfactorily FIRST before I'd believe any accusation that Wilson was a go-between in Iraq's alleged attepmts to purchase yellowcake from Niger.

That's why I don't think Ari or anyone else was accusing Wilson of being the go-between on Nigerian yellowcak. It's such an unbelievable accusation that it would only damage the accuser.

I think Ari Fleischer was trying to say, "Even if Iraq didn't buy yellowcake from Niger, they were trying to, as evidenced by conversations Wilson had with Niger officials."

It just came out a little funny.

[emptywheel]

Jeff

I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying that Libby HAD said Wilson had only talked to current officials, but he had learned since that he had spoken only with former officials? But why would he say that? The report (which Libby had had for a month) may not be clear about a number of things, but it's clear that Wilson spoke to former officials. Or are you saying the Libby was correcting Ari's statement?

Saugatak

Thank you! Swopa and I aspire to replace Laurel and Hardy.

I do think that's quite possible (after all, I've puzzled over this passage several times and always assumed it was a mistake). But why would Dick have Libby direct reporters to Ari's statement then, rather than Tenet's, which would be more credible to journalists? And why would Fitz subpoena this gaggle and not the 9 October gaggle, which had also been removed, and which contained evidence that Ari was getting close to declassifying info from the CIA report? There's something in this gaggle that Fitz was after; there'd be no reason to subpoena it if it said basically what Tenet said.

[antiaristo]

emptywheel,
Someting for you, then a question.

Isikoff is another former WaPo man, just like Mike Allen.
From the Isikoff piece:

One lawyer involved in the case who declined to be identified because of the matter's confidentiality said Novak decided "early on" to cooperate with Fitzgerald's probe and ID his source—whom Fitzgerald never charged, apparently because the mystery leaker told the truth to the grand jury.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/10/30/novaks-source-cooperat_n_9835.html

Paragraph 21 of the indictment:

21. On or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke to a senior official in the White House ("Official A" ) who advised LIBBY of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson's wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson's trip. LIBBY was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson's wife.

Seems pretty damned clear to me that Official A is Novak's original source. Seems pretty damned clear to me that Official A is the focus of Fitzgerald's inquiry.

Now my question. I've seen it written that "We know that Libby is not Novak's source". Is that true? How do we know that?

[Swopa]

Swopa and I aspire to replace Laurel and Hardy.

This is true. For some strange reason, though, Leno and Letterman aren't returning our calls.

[MarkC]

At this point, I have two questions:

There is a moment hidden here when things suddenly change, and a decision is made to move from pushing Narrative 1 (Wilson actually found an official who had been approached about uranium) to Narrative 2 (Wilson had been sent by his wife). They had been pushing Narrative 1, even talking about declassifying the CIA report (Ari and Rove to Cooper Novak on 7/14 both mention this) and then suddenly things shift on from the plane they have moved to Narrative 2. Why?

Then there is the declassification wish. "A secret report will be declassified" is definitely part of Narrative 1. We know Rove used it to Cooper on 7/11 when he said “material was going to be declassified in the coming days that would cast doubt on Wilson’s mission and his findings”, and Novak mentions it in his column on 7/14.

There is another mention of declassification. The only record I can find of declassifying actually happening is the NIE on 7/18, although some of the NIE had been included in a letter to Bob Graham earlier. Rice had said that: "The only thing that was there in the NIE was a kind of a standard INR footnote, which is kind of 59 pages away from the bulk of the NIE" in the July 11 gaggle. She also said: "You know, we don't want to try to get into kind of selective declassification, but we're looking at what can be made available." Of course, the Boston Globe reported on the 19th, after the NIE was released: "Previously, the White House has said there was a 'footnote' reflecting concerns raised by the State Department. The document includes a sentence in the first paragraph of the Iraq section highlighting the State Department's alternate view, or dissent, in what was called an 'annex' to the report."

But the point is that the earliest mention of declassification I can find, on the same day that Rove mentions it to Cooper (and perhaps the same day Official A mentions it to Novak) is Condi in the gaggle.

Not definitive, of course, but it raises the question: were there other people in on Narrative 1 pushing the declassification story?

A couple of other notes:

I think Laurel and Hardy are actually converging on this one. Swopa's point that Pincus actually says that he called to talk about Narrative 1 when his source switched to Narrative 2 is a great point. And it matches with what the Washington Post's source says about the "unsolicited" hit. Note that Pincus uses the name "Plame" rather than Wilson, which might indicate this was the same moment that Novak was informed.

Also, Saugatak seems to think emptywheel is saying Wilson was a middleman. I don't think emptywheel is saying that at all. I think the only thing at issue is what Ari and the WH were trying to say that Wilson reported about an alleged "new" Iraq/Niger connection that came from Wilson's trip. Myself, I'm still not sure Ari is prevaricating. How about this reading: that Ari doesn't seem to have too firm a grip on the story. I noted above he is clearly confusing the "former officials" but then several sentences later he straightens out: "[Wilson] reports himself that officials in Niger said that Iraq was seeking to contact officials in Niger about sales". That's consistent with Tenet. So he's got a text that keeps saying "former offical" and he ad libs an explanation of the term -- incorrectly at first and then rights himself.

[MarkC]

antiaristo

Isn't the reason for the assumption that it is not Libby that Novak says he is "no partisan gunslinger"? I myself think there are two ways to parse that phrase (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/20/264/24229).

[emptywheel]

Mark C

Again, good comments. I'm still trying to piece together when their narratives changed and when. I actually think at least as likely that they had two different narratives, depending on how trustworthy the journalist was perceived to be. So Cooper, Pincus, and a few others get the CIA employ but not the NOC. Novak (and probably Judy, even if she doesn't tell us about it) get the NOC. Which might also suggest that Ari was told to leak one thing, and more trustworthy leakers (Rove and Libby and ?) were told to leak another. Reviewing Cooper's first story on this, it does appear that he got the "emphasize Tenet" line, rather than the Ari line (if it is different, which I agree it may not be):

A source close to the matter says that Wilson was dispatched to Niger because Vice President Dick Cheney had questions about an intelligence report about Iraq seeking uranium and that he asked that the CIA get back to him with answers. Cheney's staff has adamantly denied and Tenet has reinforced the claim that the Vice President had anything to do with initiating the Wilson mission. They say the Vice President merely asked routine questions at an intelligence briefing and that mid-level CIA officials, on their own, chose to dispatch Wilson.

Wilson tells the story differently and in a crucial respect. He says the official in question was contacted by an Algerian-Nigerien intermediary who inquired if the official would meet with an Iraqi about "commercial" sales — an offer he declined. Wilson dismisses CIA Director George Tenet's suggestion in his own mea culpa last week that the meeting validates the President's State of the Union claim: "That then translates into an Iraqi effort to import a significant quantity of uranium as the president alleged? These guys really need to get serious."

[antiaristo]

MarkC,
Thank you for the reply.
I thought it mught be that. That's nothing at all, is it?
So it probably was Libby.