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 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 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 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) Walter Pincus has said 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. Assuming you are indeed William Beutler, I'm very interested in your employment as a "blog analyst" for New Media Strategies, as well as your work on the National Journal's 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.

[pdaly]

tnhblog,

I suppose you are right: the WH would be more interested in knowing, as you say, who was helping Wilson defend himself from its attacks? Such conspiracies are a no no.

[tnhblog]

No, I'm saying that Wilson's friend had to have had prior knowledge of a setup, because a chance meeting between the friend and Novak is an impossibility. How did he come upon this prior knowledge? There must have been conversations between different parties and that involves a conspiracy greater than Armitage alone. Armitage was not an isolated leaker. He must have been involved in a greater conspiracy.

[Tom Maguire]

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.

I'll agree with this much - the odds are infinitely against every chance encounter experienced by every "player" in washington being newsworthy, before the fact.

But after the fact? C'mon, Wilson was in the news and a topic of conversation. And for all we know, Novak had ten chance encounters that day and a hundred that week, but the other 99 were not relevant to this case.

Or, since the stranger promptly called Joe Wilson, doesn't that argue that it was Wislon, not Rove, who was orchestrating this incident? Please.

Armitage is known as an inveterate and indiscreet gossip.

He was also Deputy Secretary of State at a time when learning who sent the former Ambassador to Niger was a topical question.

Do you really think Novak couldn't figure out all by himself to give Armitage a jingle?

(FWIW, Novak had used Armitage as a source several times before, and they shared a skepticism of the war and the neocons. But would Novak have called Armitage without prompting? Tough call!)

Painting Armitage as some sort of impulse-control-disordered gossipmonger neatly jibes with the Rovian spin to minimize this event, does it not?

That Rove really is a genius with tremendous foresight, since per David Corn, Armitage described himself as a "terrible gossip" during the Iran-Contra probe:

When Armitage testified before the Iran-contra grand jury many years earlier, he had described himself as "a terrible gossip." Iran-contra independent counsel Lawrence Walsh subsequently accused him of providing "false testimony" to investigators but said that he could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Armitage's misstatements had been "deliberate."

I think that it is Armitage who is hiding behind this "ahh, I just love to chat" shtick - he forgot to chat about his leak to Woodward until the all-clear had sounded.

[tnhblog]

But after the fact? C'mon, Wilson was in the news and a topic of conversation. And for all we know, Novak had ten chance encounters that day and a hundred that week, but the other 99 were not relevant to this case.

Sorry, the odds that a complete stranger to Novak and a friend of Wilson's, on the very same day that Novak receives info damaging to Wilson, would encounter Novak and then inquire about Wilson, are almost nil. As for your last assertion-come again?

[emptywheel]

Tom

My point about the INR memo is that 1) it was meaningless wrt Ari, 2) that there is evidence to suggest Armitage didn't get the info for the Woodward leak from the (June 10 version) INR memo, but that there was info floating around that was related. I'm guessing that if Armitage had found out Plame was covert, Fitz would have found it--as he found that Dick and Libby did know Plame was covert. Your narrative for Armitage's role in this leak gets weaker, not stronger with this, not least for the reason pdaly raises--why did they go to such lengths to cover-up if they didn't have something to cover-up.

p luk

Yes, the most obvious narrative is the one you tell. But I still think there's the possibility that there's another twist--another coversation we don't know about. It completely fits Novak's parsing on his revelations. And it would explain why Rove got off charges.

[kim]

tnhblog: I mostly agree with TM, it would depend upon who Wilson's friend is I think. Maybe they used to work at the CIA with Plame. If they work in DC they would have surely known that Wilson's NYTimes op-ed was a hit at the Administration, and that Novak would at least have an opinion - boy did he!

I agree with pdaly about all the WH lies and obfuscations. I also thought today that it would be something if they were doing this to protect Armitage, hard to see Libb's situation in this light though.

Also agree with Minikatz about someone in the WH potentially pointing Novak to Armitage about Plame....

While it is plausible, as TM describes, that Novak just called Armitage and wound up with the Plame info, they could have wanted to source the leak outside the WH....

Woodward met with someone at the WH on June 20 2003 and had "Mrs Wilson" in his notes as one of the questions to ask (Clarice on TMs site says it's Libby, but whether Valerie was discussed is unclear). Shortly after this Libby met with Miller and talked with her about Mrs Plame on June 23.

It sure does remain fascinating.

[tnhblog]

I mostly agree with TM, it would depend upon who Wilson's friend is I think. Maybe they used to work at the CIA with Plame. If they work in DC they would have surely known that Wilson's NYTimes op-ed was a hit at the Administration, and that Novak would at least have an opinion - boy did he!

We are talking about probabilities and confluences of events here. You are talking about a one in a million year confluence of events. The probabilty of such a confluence of events happening by chance is so minuscule, that the logical conclusion is that it did not occur by chance but by design.

[Tom Maguire]

I'm guessing that if Armitage had found out Plame was covert, Fitz would have found it--as he found that Dick and Libby did know Plame was covert.

I am pretty sure that I would have remembered the news that Libby and Cheney knew Plame's status was classified (although Freud might predict that I would repress that memory). Any link or source for that?

We are talking about probabilities and confluences of events here. You are talking about a one in a million year confluence of events. The probabilty of such a confluence of events happening by chance is so minuscule, that the logical conclusion is that it did not occur by chance but by design.

Are we? If I were a friend of Wilson, and Wilson was in the news, and I saw a prominent talking head, I might very well ask about Wilson. Those are hardly impossible odds.

And for all anyone knows someone else asked, for example, Tom Brokaw about Joe Wilson that very day. And that encounter has never been reported because no one cares. And someone else asked Novak about Martha Stewart, and we don't know about that, either.

So, is Wilson the type of guy who might have a lot of frinds in Washington? Why not?

And is Bob Novak approachable on the street? Why not?

There is a huge selection bias in saying, after that fact, that a reported event is unlikely, since it is generally unlikely items that make news.

But if you insist, then it must point to a Wilson-orchestrated event (unless Rove is slyly recruiting Wilson's friends to keep Wilson in the loop); why he would want to do that, I decline to guess, but it seems as if tnhblog ought to explain that.

[kim]

tnhblog,
The probablility of your handle being "tnhblog" is 1/26^7 or 1/8031810176 or 1.2x10^-10, that's impressive. The probability of TheNextHurrah having its name is even more amazing. It's no wonder people think the existence of humanity is a miracle.

[Tom Maguire]

Hmm, on the "Libby knew she was classified" front, perhpas this is the source - here is an old Walter Pincus story:

The classified status of the identity of former CIA officer Valerie Plame will be a key element in any trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, according to special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

Fitzgerald has said that at trial he plans to show that Libby knew Plame's employment at the CIA was classified and that he lied to the grand jury when he said he had learned from NBC News's Tim Russert that Plame, the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, worked for the agency.

Hard luck, though - Pincus needs reading glasses, since what Fitzgerald *actually* said in the court filing (p. 39 of 42) was that

...we will argue that he [Libby] knew or should have known it [Plame's status] was classified and that he was being investigated for disclosing classified information.

"Knew or should have known" does not equal "knew".

Also, IIRC, Fitzgerald was referring to the *investigation* and a cryptic comment made by a CIA guy following the Novak column on July 14, 2003.

I stand by my point that no one has demonstrated that Rove (or Libby, or Cheney, or Armitage) knew that Ms. Plame's status was classified prior to the Novak column. Obviously, they may have been apprised of that after the column was out, and that knowledge may have guided their 9mis)conduct during the investigation.

[tnhblog]

Are we? If I were a friend of Wilson, and Wilson was in the news, and I saw a prominent talking head, I might very well ask about Wilson. Those are hardly impossible odds.

I think you are being disingenous. We are not talking about one event but a confluence of events. The stranger just happening to be Wilson's friend. The stranger just happening to encounter Novak the very day that info of momentous import to Wilson. The stranger then just happening to decide for no reason to strike up a conversation with Novak about this very topic. Yes, the odds against this happening by chance are staggering.

Kim, if you saw a house would you say it just got there by chance or that someone built it? You could not possibly be so naive as to argue that although the probability of the house existing in the first place is astronomical that someone did not in fact build it. You are not arguing rationally. By the way the probabilty that my handle is tnhblog is 100%.

[sultan]

I think Jason Leopold's stories were right in light of all this. I think he was onto something big. I think Leopold probably got closer to the truth than anyone in light of all of this. And I believe him now.

[sultan]

another thing. Why does David Corn suddenly sound like an apologist? Is he too trying to say that this leak wasn't really a big deal? I don't understand this. Can someone explain his column on his website davidcorn.com?

So if this is the way it unfolded why has this investigation gone on for three years?

[larry j]

I agree with sultan. Leopold was closer to the truth than anyone. shame he got maligned by the blogosphere and the media. seems that isikoff kept all of this information to himself for a long time and decided to disclose it just so he can sell books. not true journalism as far as i am concerned. this will only help the white house come november.

[kim]

If I run into my US next door neighbor in Italy, I don't blame the Freemasons or Bilderburgs. If I run into my boss in the supermarket I don't think he's following me. If I see a house I think a person built it, if I see a tree I think evolution built that. If I look at the night sky I think it's beautiful, I try to learn what science knows about it, but I don't fill in the unknowns with my favorite myth. Probablilty can be a valuable measure or a comfortable alternative to randomness.

[tnhblog]

I look at the night sky I think it's beautiful, I try to learn what science knows about it, but I don't fill in the unknowns with my favorite myth. Probablilty can be a valuable measure or a comfortable alternative to randomness.

You don't fill in unknowns with myths when it comes to probabilities, you draw logical conclusions from them.

[larry j]

kim, what are you talking about? you lost me

[larry j]

what is the deal with murray waas? why has he been so quiet. remember his article about rove and novak coordinating their testimnony? was that bs? how does that factor into this? or his other stories?

[kim]

I was arguing that the occasion of Novak meeting Wilson's friend was random, tnhblog thinks it was significant. We made a side trip into what I think are mis-applications of "probability," and tnhblog disagrees. Ok.

[kim]

"I stand by my point that no one has demonstrated that Rove (or Libby, or Cheney, or Armitage) knew that Ms. Plame's status was classified prior to the Novak column."

That's a great challenge TM, I'll be thinking about it.

[pollyusa]

The memo included information on Valerie Wilson's role in a meeting at the CIA that led to her husband's trip. This critical memo was--as Hubris discloses--based on notes that were not accurate. (You're going to have to read the book for more on this.)
Corn 8/27/06

[kim]

Poolym my memory is that this is the Plame "authorized" detail, that became a way to trace the leak? Also a reason why Novak broke his silence a year ago to say he never meant "authorized?"

[kim]

Sorry Polly, bad editing there! :-)

[mickey]

What does it all mean? I think we all have to think about this one for a bit. I sure do. At this point, all I know to say is that this is a government that was filled with factions - a government working against itself. The legitimate question to ask at this point is, "Where were the grown-ups?"

The "right wing blogs/media" is interpreting all of this as evidence that the whole Plame Scandal was a trumped up thing. Innocent stuff, blown out of proportion.

The "left wing blogs/media" see it as another factoid in the unfolding drama of the Plame Scandal.

How about another symptom of the insanity of the Bush Administration - bringing incompetence, paranoia, and palace intrigue to a situation where none was needed.

[prostratedragon]

One more for the "Armitage might have been the set-up guy" party (though I would note explicitly that the set-up guy does not have to be privately unwitting in order to serve that function) and its "Armitage is not a guy they'd risk much to protect" caucus, and for the "this story is basically disinformation" party. I've long been in the "INR memo is a red herring" party, since it's only function has been to deflect suspicion toward those whose names come up in no other context. Agree with WO, shame on the reporters, who I think must know better.

Intrigued, though, that the one thing the Newsweek story might do is strengthen the notion that either telling Novak might not be the primary act Fitz/grand jury would have liked to charge, or that this primary act has been obscured by a fabrication. Either way there might still be a set of conspiracy or obstruction charges coming later.

Boy are we all starving for Leakgate news.

[Jeff]

So far I haven't caught anything in the news either from Isikoff or Corn that makes me change the big-picture theory I've been working with for months, since recognizing that Armitage was Novak's source: there was basically the effort to get the Wilsons being run out of the White House, and mainly OVP, which included an effort by Libby, probably at the direction of Cheney (at least post-July 6 - it's less clear with regard to June 23 whether Libby was acting on his own or at Cheney's direction), to get Judith Miller in particular to figure out and publish Wilson's wife's CIA employment. Then there was Armitage's conduct which was basically independent of what OVP was doing, though the efforts to some degree or other intersected in the person of Robert Novak. In other words, you have OVP coordinated effort targeting Miller for the Plame info plus Armitage's conduct. As for Rove, it's hard to know whether his confirmation of the info on Plame to Novak was planned or if he just couldn't pass up what seemed like a great opportunity; same goes for his blurting the info out unsolicited to Cooper on July 11, though that may have been colored by his knowledge that Novak was going to be publishing, the cat was out of the bag, so why not spread it around.

The fact of Armitage's efforts and OVP's being relatively separate, and the fact that the leak Armitage started saw the light of printed day whereas the almost certainly more malign leak started by Libby to MIller did not, give a certain irony, or even a certain comedy of errors quality, to the whole thing.

I will add a couple of things on Armitage. I don't believe him any more than I believe Rove when they say that they didn't even realize they had been sources for Novak until fall of 2003. BS. I also remain puzzled, quite frankly, as to why Fitzgerald, who Corn reports aggressively investigated Armitage not just for the original leak but also for his failure to tell Fitzgerald about blowing Plame's cover to Woodward, did not charge Armitage for obstruction-type offenses.

But I will say I find it more and more likely that Armitage saw the June version of the INR memo, or had its contents briefed to him by Grossman or someone, since there is no way he could have escaped charges if he had originally told Fitzgerald that he learned of Plame from the July version of the INR memo, only to have it revealed that he had known and was telling Woodward about Plame back on June 13.

Finally (for the moment), Maguire is speculating again that Armitage was a source for yet other reporters, and Judith Miller in particular. I do think he's either got to fudge some dates or come out clearly accusing Miller of lying or badly misremembering, since Miller, though she professes not to remember who her other sources were or when she talked to them, has said several things about learning Plame stuff for the first time from Libby. But that said, it would be mighty easy for Miller, whom I take to be more loyal to Team Cheney than to Team Powell, to suddenly discover a note to herself to the effect of, "Armitage told me about Plame, love, Judy," or whatever.

[pollyusa]

Here are the accounts in the press regarding the INR analyst.

The NYT has it this way

The memorandum was prepared at the State Department, relying on notes by an analyst who was involved in meetings in early 2002
NYT 7/16/05

Pincus has it this way in his 7/21/05 article, maybe at this point Pincus was only hearing about the body of the INR memo and not the attached analyst's notes.

The material in the memo about Wilson's wife was based on notes taken by an INR analyst who attended a Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA where Wilson's intelligence-gathering trip to Niger was discussed.
WaPo 7/21/05

The LA Times article

After a June 12 Washington Post story made reference to the Niger uranium inquiry, Armitage asked intelligence officers in the State Department for more information. He was forwarded a copy of a memo classified "Secret" that included a description of Wilson's trip for the CIA, his findings, a brief description of the origin of the trip and a reference to "Wilson's wife."

The memo was kept in a safe at the State Department along with notes from an analyst who attended the CIA meeting at which Wilson was suggested for the Niger assignment.
LA Times 8/25/05

WaPo again VandeHei and Pincus.

Attached to the letter were the notes from the INR analyst who had attended the session, but they were written well after the event occurred and contained mistakes about who was there and what was said, according to a former intelligence official who reviewed the document in the summer of 2003.
WaPo 10/18/05

Hard to say who actually wrote the document Notes - Niger/Iraq uranium Meeting CIA, 2/19/06 that was attached to the INR memo.

The NY Sun says Douglas Rohn authored the INR Memo attachment entitled Notes - Niger/Iraq uranium Meeting CIA, 2/19/06.

Still a question how the NY Sun got Rohn's name...it's not on the memo or the notes.

The analyst notes, Notes - Niger/Iraq uranium Meeting CIA, 2/19/02, attached to the INR memo were probably written 17 months after the 2/19/02 meeting the document is meant to detail. The notes detailing the meeting were probably written in the same time period as the INR memo [June 2003].

Ford, the author of the INR Memo, qualifies the INR memo as follows;

we are confident that these records and but the two INR staff members who were most involved are not here (one has been reassigned to [redated] the other is on leave) to guide us through the files and emails.
INR Memo 6/10/03

It would appear there are additional documents (emails & files).

[pollyusa]

I will add a couple of things on Armitage. I don't believe him any more than I believe Rove when they say that they didn't even realize they had been sources for Novak until fall of 2003. BS

Indeed

[pollyusa]

Armitage according to TWN has testified 3 times before the grand jury.

Another well-placed insider who has interacted directly with many of the key personalities involved in the investigation wrote this to me:

I'm sure Inman is wrong on Armitage. But I am also sure we'll hear more about Armitage's direct involvement. I am additionally sure we will hear about Armitage as a witness against Rove if he is indicted.

[...]

According to this source, the information provided by Richard Armitage is -- more than any other information -- what has put Karl Rove at major risk of indictment.
TWN 5/19/06

I don't have any idea how Armitage's grand jury testimony conflicts with Rove, but one of my sources speculates that Armitage's testimony compelled Robert Luskin to initiate the process of getting Rove to adjust testimony he previously provided. Note that this is speculation -- and not confirmed
Steve Clemons in the comments

What does Armitage have on Rove?

Two sources familiar with the case said Armitage, Rove and Libby all had contacts with the press about Plame. Unlike Rove and Libby, Armitage appears to have tried to dissuade reporters from writing about her.
NY Daily News May 20, 2006

[Jeff]

Still a question how the NY Sun got Rohn's name...it's not on the memo or the notes.

In fact, his name is handwritten at the top of the Notes - Niger/Iraq uranium Meeting CIA, 2/19/02 that is attached to the 6-10-03 version of the INR memo, which the NYSun published, apparently in error, and quickly withdrew and substituted the 7-7-03 version, without the analyst's notes attached. But the point is, Rohn's name is right up there at the top.

I'm not that confident that the notes were actually written up so long after the fact; I think some of the reporting before we had actually seen the INR memo was not crystal clear on keeping distinct the INR memo from Ford and the notes from Rohn.

With the INR memo in the news again, I'll mention again the extraordinary fact, in light of what became of it, that the memo itself takes the analyst's notes saying the meeting was apparently convened by Valerie Wilson and converts it into a simple assertion, dropping the "apparently." And don't get me started on the fact that the SSCI report simply and maliciously misquotes the bit about Valerie Wilson's role in the meeting.

Back on Armitage: he is a very impressive guy - he said some of the smartest things I've ever heard on all number of foreign policy topics in that Charlie Rose interview - but he really doesn't look good in this whole matter. I will add that Maguire floats an idea that he finds laughable but that actually jibes quite well with my sense of Armitage, his loyalties, and why this info hadn't come out:

And in defense of Armitage - it may be that Bush was apprised of his role but did not see hwo he could cut him loose without also sacking Karl. And he may have worried that, if Armitage went public, the pressure for the other leakers to go public would be irresistible, which would be tough for Rove.

I of course don't see that as much of a defense of Armitage. But it does strike me as a plausible explanation for the somewhat surprising fact that the Bush administration did not get the information about Armitage out. On the other hand, Isikoff and Corn make it sound like Bush may really not have known. For what it's worth, I find that hard to believe.

[Jeff]

What does Armitage have on Rove?

polly

Evidently, not enough. Frankly, I think those quotes from Clemons and NYDN from obviously close allies of Armitage was just an effort to push back effectively against what Inman said, to an audience that would be receptive to the idea that Armitage was helping to nail Rove. I am curious to see if we hear anything about Armitage's purported efforts to get reporters to not write about Plame. I doubt it, because I doubt it happened. Though I will note that it would bolster Armitage's seemingly lame story that he only realized he was a source for Novak in October 2003 if he had told Novak about Plame but also told him this was not to be published, he shouldn't publish, and so on.

The main way I could imagine Armitage having anything on Rove would be if Armitage persuasively testified that he told Novak so much and no more about Plame, in such a way that Novak must have gotten some, damaging more from Rove, who - in this scenario - would not have acknowledged it. But that is all apparently not the case, not only for the obvious reason that Rove wasn't indicted, but also because Novak is backing up Rove's story fully enough that it would be hard to use Armitage against Rove unless you could really show, as investigators initially suspected, that Rove and Novak concocted a cover story about their interaction. And that is virtually impossible without one of the two interlocutors cracking, which hasn't happened.

So all in all, I don't put much credence in those reports about the heroic role Armitage has played in the investigation.

[Jeff]

On the question of what Bush knew, I just realized there's probably good reason to think he knew about Armitage early on, since we know that Ashcroft received all manner of briefings and updates on the investigation in fall 2003, so it seems likely that he was told about Armitage's confessions. And I would think it's pretty safe to think that Ashcroft would not have kept such an important piece of information from the political folks in the Bush administration and/or the President himself.

[pow wow]

"So all in all, I don't put much credence in those reports about the heroic role Armitage has played in the investigation."

-- Posted by: Jeff | August 28, 2006 at 00:01

Indeed, because if this was in fact a 'parallel track' leaking situation, what could Armitage possibly really have on Rove, Libby, Cheney et al? [Armitage was 'innocent as the driven snow' save for his big mouth (twice) at key moments - he never heard a word about others blabbing to the media the way he was, etc., etc.]

Mind you, I don't buy the parallel track story. WAY too much of a coincidence, without further evidence of Armitage's innocence [he needs a better alibi]. And the no-lawyer story for Armitage does not compute for me, if Armitage was indeed facing off against the Cheney/Libby/Rove gang in this race to get off the hook for blowing a CIA spy's cover before the other guy(s). Armitage just figured he could afford to wing it, with nothing but maybe the state department's lawyer's advice the first year, and then no help at all after Baker Botts, Ted Wells, Bob Luskin, their defense funds, and on and on entered the picture...?

Did everyone catch the excellent eyewitness account of Bob Novak visiting Richard Armitage at the State Department (Sixth Floor) on July 8, 2003? Laura Rozen had it on her blog Sunday from a reader, and Corinne thankfully captured it for FDL - because Laura has since pulled it from her site. See Comment #150 in Christy's Something's Missing post on Sunday. Now all we need to know is what time Novak visited [come on AP, you can release the rest of those calendars at long last - who cares if Judy Miller and others show up on them too], and whether or not he was spotted carrying a tape recorder...

Theory: That October 1, 2003 piece was carefully planned with Novak's sources. "Offhand" became the talking point about the leak (including for Woodward later). Armitage may have known the story was coming that day, and have had his "innocent realization" response planned in advance. This article probably followed up on the discussions between Novak and Rove about how to align their testimony prior to being interviewed by the FBI and DOJ. Novak asserts in that article that Armitage told him Mrs. Wilson worked in the counterproliferation section of the CIA (is that in the INR Memo?).

And of course, two days later, on October 3rd, Novak finishes sinking the ship, by blurting out the information about Brewster-Jennings on CNN [alleging later that he independently obtained this information by researching Mrs. Wilson's campaign contributions to Gore and noting the details -- yet by this time, Novak knew damn well that her unveiling "endangered" people and national security, as would releasing further information about her cover. But he didn't give a damn. Or rather, that was his very agenda, shared with those controlling him].

[Tom Maguire]

In fact, his name is handwritten at the top of the Notes - Niger/Iraq uranium Meeting CIA, 2/19/02 that is attached to the 6-10-03 version of the INR memo, which the NYSun published, apparently in error, and quickly withdrew and substituted the 7-7-03 version, without the analyst's notes attached.

Those in the know can shine a light where the Sun shines - rather than withdraw the June memo, the Sun simply took down the link. But it is still there, and yes, I see Rohm's name as advertised.

I also remain puzzled, quite frankly, as to why Fitzgerald, who Corn reports aggressively investigated Armitage not just for the original leak but also for his failure to tell Fitzgerald about blowing Plame's cover to Woodward, did not charge Armitage for obstruction-type offenses.

I agree, but... let's not underestimate the power of a good first impression. Coming in under his own power to 'fess up to Novak apparently gained Armitage a lot of cred with the DoJ. Maybe Armitage *is* as savvy as everyone says - conceding the stuff you are going to lose anyway and holding onto the rest is a good strategy.

Finally (for the moment), Maguire is speculating again that Armitage was a source for yet other reporters, and Judith Miller in particular. I do think he's either got to fudge some dates or come out clearly accusing Miller of lying or badly misremembering, since Miller, though she professes not to remember who her other sources were or when she talked to them, has said several things about learning Plame stuff for the first time from Libby.

Don't spoil my fun - Judy could easily have talked to Armitage after her June 23 meeting with Libby; Armitage's loose lips spanned the period from June 13 (Woodward) to July 8 (Novak), so why not?

We do both seem to recall that Judy claimed her June 23 Libby chat was her first glimmer of Plame. But who gave her "Valerie Flame"?

Frankly, I think those quotes from Clemons and NYDN from obviously close allies of Armitage was just an effort to push back effectively against what Inman said, to an audience that would be receptive to the idea that Armitage was helping to nail Rove. I am curious to see if we hear anything about Armitage's purported efforts to get reporters to not write about Plame. I doubt it, because I doubt it happened.

I agree again.

Other things we may not hear much about - per Novak's recent tell-all,

In my sworn testimony, I said what I have contended in my columns and on television: Joe Wilson's wife's role in instituting her husband's mission was revealed to me in the middle of a long interview with an official who I have previously said was not a political gunslinger. **After the federal investigation was announced, he told me through a third party that the disclosure was inadvertent on his part**.

And that is not witness tampering because...? Who knows - obviously, Fitzgerald didn't care about that, either.

[pdaly]

Here's a hypothetical:

Let's say it's past hunting season, but you have a pesky doe that keeps checking out your garden patch. You let fly a silent arrow in her direction, and to your surprise a stray buckshot from a barrel-chested nearby hunter takes down your doe right before your arrow hits its target. Seeing an oppurtunity, you run over and retract your WH email (err, I mean 'arrow'). When the game warden comes a callin' you pretend like nothing happened.

You had motive, oppurtunity and you acted. Have you committed a crime? If you cover up your involvement, lie about what you did, is that a separate crime, irrespective of your involvement in the doe's demise?

What if that barrel-chested hunter was not acting independently of you?

[pdaly]

opportunity. (not using spellcheck)

[MayBee]

as he found that Dick and Libby did know Plame was covert.

TM has already asked about this, even bringing up doubt they knew here position was classified. But even Fitzgerald himself refuses to assert Valerie *was* covert. So I certainly don't think he's asserted Libby OR Dick knew she was covert.

TNH- I'm with you on the odd timing of the friend on the street. It could easily be coincidence. If not, I would point out that if that was the day Armitage talked to Novak, there could easily have been Wilson contacts at State to let Wilson know they'd talked. Grossman we know was a friend of Wilson's. We don't know who else was, but we know Wilson had been calling state to get attention paid to his story.

If Valerie was transitioning to State, isn't it entirely possible there were quite a few people at State that knew about Valerie?

Jeff -
On the question of what Bush knew, I just realized there's probably good reason to think he knew about Armitage early on, since we know that Ashcroft received all manner of briefings and updates on the investigation in fall 2003, so it seems likely that he was told about Armitage's confessions

The story is that Armitage confessed after Ashcroft was off the case, and State's lawyers only told Gonzales they had talked to investigators. I think they hid this from Bush, and I think that's why Armitage and Powell were gone even though they'd offered to stay on for a few more months.

It's a shame, because I've been a big fan of Powell.

Finally, I don't know if Armitage talked to Judy, but she says she's talked to other sources. Fitzgerald was incurious who they might have been.

[MayBee]

Oh wait. I'm wrong obviously about Ashcroft recusing himself before Armitage spoke to the FBI. Of course I have no idea whether he would have been briefed on Armitage or not.
There would be good reason for Bush not to want Armitage and Powell out before the election, and Armitage hadn't committed a crime.
As time went on, however, it is quite clear Armitage sat idly by as this did damage to Bush. I still believe it's one reason Powell and Armitage were allowed to exit so quickly.

[emptywheel]

polly

Corn is not going to tell us much we don't know about the INR Memo. The Rohn notes makes total sense, since he was the Africa guy at INR. Rohn, btw, probably wrote the notes slightly earlier, since he was already reassigned to Pakistan by June 2003; if it was too difficult to get his input for the memo because he was in Pakistan, it was probably too difficult to get his input for the notes.

But we do have a pretty good idea of who authored the memo (and it's not Ford)--because both memos have a cover letter that says, "Drafted: INR/SPM: Neil Silver" and "Cleared: INR/SPM Beth Frisa." Which I assume means that Neil Silver drafted the memo, and one of the supervisors who reported to him, Beth Frisa, vouched for the info in some way. I maintain that Beth Frisa is key in this. She has on at least two occasions conveniently forgotten key bits of testimony (one of them--why the folks at CIA didn't pick up the forgeries on October 16, 2002). And she has also refused to say things damning of Bolton.

The emails and files may refer to nothing more than the meeting notes, and emails from the INR nuclear analyst; the memo cites (incorrectly) from the notes and cites one of the INR nuclear analyst's emails, but it suppresses the other known INR nuclear analyst email, which identifies the forgeries as such in October 2002 (the INR memo suggests he didn't do so until January 2003).

As to what Armitage has on Rove--simple. He knows that he didn't say Plame was an operative. Therefore, if there really are only two sources (which I don't believe to be the case), that means Novak's other source told him Plame was covert. I think Armitage, like several others, took Novak at his word in his 10/1 column.

I agree with Jeff that Armitage oversold the value of his information (particularly if Fitz has reason to doubt there were just two sources). Plus, if Novak and Rove hold to their story, given Armitage is a less credible source after the Woodward revelation, it just doesn't matter.

Tom

Let me put this simply for you. You have always argued that Libby might not have know, when he was told that Plame worked in the Directorate of Operations that she was covert. But it would be a lot harder for you to argue that learning she was in the Directorate of Operations didn't tell Libby she was an operative, which is the point. What Armitage appears to have done is mistakenly inform Novak she was in the analytical side of the house. Libby knew she wasn't.

[Jeff]

Tom

rather than withdraw the June memo, the Sun simply took down the link.

whatev.

Judy could easily have talked to Armitage after her June 23 meeting with Libby

True, I was unfairly making the assumption, since you are a rightie and many righties have convinced themselves that Rove was not a source for Novak just because Armitage talked to Novak before Rove (as far as anyone is likely to establish, anyway), that you were asserting that Armitage might have been a source for Miller before Libby began his effort to get Miller to out Plame publicly.

I do think emptywheel puts the point against your case for moral equivalence between Armitage and Libby quite well. It may well be that Fitzgerald cannot prove that Libby knew she was classified or covered. But it is silly to assert there is no evidence, when there is actually a pretty strong circumstantial case. And of course if that were not the case, Fitzgerald wouldn't even assert that Libby either knew or should have known; he would have just said that Libby should have known.

More generally, as I've said, Armitage doesn't come out of this thing looking good. But even if you think, as I do, that Armitage may have been following the general tenor of the INR memo in seeking to distance State from Wilson's trip, he still appears to be doing something different from what Libby was up to.

MayBee

For a second there, I thought you might be getting your information on the case from Captain Ed! I think there can be little doubt that Ashcroft knew of Armitage's role, since he was receiving regular updates on the investigation through fall 2003. There is more doubt as to whether he would have informed Bush or informed someone who would have informed Bush.

And just as a reminder on emptywheel's suggestion that Armitage and Rove were not the only administration sources for Novak (and I am not counting Harlow here), there may well be someone else, but as of Ferbuary 16, 2006, Fitzgerald did not know about it, as he was still referring to Novak's two sources.

[William Ockham]

Here's a speculative scenario for folks. Let's assume that the INR memo makes it seem like Plame was an analyst (I think that's a bit questionable, but everybody else seems to buy it). Let's assume further that the CIA fax to Libby et. al. (you remember those documents from the indictment, don't you) correctly identify Plame as a (former?) covert operative. Now, imagine that you're Dick Cheney. It's mid-June 2003, and the two things uppermost in your mind are blaming someone else for the "16 words" and making sure nobody thinks that you sent Joe Wilson.

You know that if Karl Rove thought that Wilson's wife was an analyst and she sent him, he would be all over that smear. You also know that Armitage will swing in to action to protect State from your minions. You also know that Tenet will be running away from Wilson as fast as he can. So, you have Libby talk to Judy Miller, but she can't get anything in the paper. But the pressure on Wilson is enough to make him go public. Then your plan really goes into action.

You maneuver Tenet in to leaking that covert operatives sent Wilson. You have Rove telling reporters that Wilson's wife sent him. You have the White House press folks (Fleischer, Bartlett, et.al.) telling people to look in to who sent Wilson. The only problem is that Libby goes a little overboard (not to mention putting everything in his notes).

I want to note that I'm not buying into the speculation that Robert Novak "put two and two together". Somebody told him that Plame was covert. The whole Brewster-Jennings episode is proof of that.

[Cecil Turner]

But it would be a lot harder for you to argue that learning she was in the Directorate of Operations didn't tell Libby she was an operative, which is the point.

Two objections:

1. "Operative" is not a term-of-art. The term for a CIA officer is "officer." If one wanted to describe someone in the Operations Directorate, it might be "operator" (as opposed to "analyst" or something similar), but "operative" is neither descriptive nor appropriate. It's hard to tell what Novak meant by it, but it's unlikely he got that term from a professional, who would almost certainly consider it an insult.

2. Libby may not have known Plame worked in the DO. He admitted VP Cheney told him she worked in "the CIA’s counterproliferation division," but apparently told Miller "Wife works at Winpac." Considering WINPAC was the lead agency on the subject (and author of the report responding to the VP's initial question and most of the subsequent updates), it wouldn't be at all surprising for Libby to assume that's where she worked.

   (I'm sure Jeff considers "Winpac" additional evidence Libby was muddying the waters to conceal his nefarious intent, but hopefully will allow the possibility of a simpler explanation: Libby conflated the less well-known organization with its DI counterpart).

[Jeff]

Cecil

I will allow the possibility. But since CPD stands for Counterproliferation Division, and since Cheney and Libby are knowledgeable guys about the government, I'm somewhat skeptical that CPD was "less well-known" to Libby that Winpac.

[Cecil Turner]

I'm somewhat skeptical that CPD was "less well-known" to Libby that Winpac.

Not sure why. As the SSCI report makes clear, the majority of the interactions from policymakers were with DI (as one would expect), and WINPAC in particular. The WINPAC Director was apparently the last word on WMD-related issues and had significant input on speeches and statements. Heck, they even have their own web site. DO, by contrast, doesn't advertise.

Further, even if one were to specify "counterproliferation division," it's plausible that the listener might mistake it as a reference to: "Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control." Though whether Libby made the mistaken reference, or Miller made the mistake in copying to her notes is a matter of conjecture.

[William Ockham]

This is becoming very amusing. We might as well debate the meaning of the word "is". Cecil would have us believe that a guy who got a daily briefing from the CIA, who was deeply involved in analyzing the intelligence leading up to the Iraq war, who made personal visits to the CIA to get what he wanted from them, and who was the Assistant to the President of the United States, Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States, and Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs, did not understand the basic structure of the CIA. Ok, sure.

[Jeff]

DO, by contrast, doesn't advertise.

Yeah, but Cheney and Libby are not ordinary old citizens of the republic. You're just explaining how CPD would be less well-known to members of the public, not to seasoned government hands, who moreover care deeply about intelligence, like Libby and Cheney.

So, yes, in the abstract, it's plausible that the listener might mistake CPD's name for Winpac's. But it's much more plausible that Miller would than that Libby or Cheney would.

[Jeff]

I endorse William Ockham's more elaborate, and funny, explanation.

[Cecil Turner]

I find the fact that Mr Ockham's explanation is more elaborate even funnier. Razor, anyone?

[emptywheel]

Cecil

Sorry, both your arguments are ridiculous. First, whether or not "operative" is a term of art (I disagree strenuously that you'd call an operative an operator, but maybe you just don't read much intell stuff), a simple Lexis Nexis search makes it crystal clear how Novak uses it And contrary to what Novak says, he uses when he speaks of a covert intelligence operative. It really doesn't matter how you'd use the word--the record shows how Novak uses the word, and that's to refer to a covert intelligence person.

And secondly, you don't seem to understand the relationship within the CIA leading up the Iraq War. WINPAC was the propaganda department (they're responsible for stovepiping both the aluminum tubes and the Curveball claims). CPD was the place where people were pushing back and still trying to prevent proliferation. And no one with any understanding of the CIA's organization would mistake CPD for WINPAC. Maybe you're arguing that Libby is stupider than we give him credit for being? And Novak too, since he has been parsing the difference?

[William Ockham]

Cecil,

I don't come here to employ my razor. I chose the pseudonym because I admire the man's effort to combine faith and reason, nothing more. That being said, I don't think you want to go down the route of explaining Mr. Libby's actions using Occam's razor. If you do, answer these questions:

When Libby called up the State Department, why did he call Grossman rather Armitage? Armitage was the obvious person to call (he was in charge of the INR and Libby would have known that the unnamed Ambassador would have talked to them).

When Libby met with Armitage in early June, why didn't he mention the issue? Libby was getting frequent updates from Grossman at the time, updates that clearly came from INR (and I'll remind everybody once again INR did not report to Grossman, they reported to Armitage).

When Armitage 'fessed up to the FBI, why didn't he want to tell the White House about it?

It seems to me that Armitage and Libby might not have liked each other much. Bob Woodward certainly leaves that impression in his books.

[Cecil Turner]

(I disagree strenuously that you'd call an operative an operator, but maybe you just don't read much intell stuff . . .

I worked in an operations directorate for a few years (admittedly military, not CIA--though we occasionally worked with some spooky types) and would beg to differ. "Operator" is acceptable, "operative" is not. And I hope we're not going to descend to the level of "you can't read."

And contrary to what Novak says, he uses when he speaks of a covert intelligence operative.

He certainly didn't get that from "I heard that, too." He may well have summarized Harlow's description that way, or possibly be referring to Plame and Wilson's partisan political activities. (By far his most common use of the word is to denote political apparatchiks, though admittedly not in an intel setting.) Regardless, the contention someone else must have provided the word is an assumption . . . though certainly possible.

And no one with any understanding of the CIA's organization would mistake CPD for WINPAC.

You have no idea how the information was presented to Libby, but it seems unlikely the VP told him: "the Directorate of Operations, CounterProliferation Division." The INR guy (Rohm), undoubtedly much more attuned to intel structure than anyone in the White House, referred to her as "a CIA WMD managerial type." The idea that it's hard to conflate that with WINPAC is simply wrong. Add in the reference in Judith Miller's notes, and it's the odds-on favorite of what Libby told her, and hence, what was probably in his head.

[QuickSilver]

Cecil Turner, I realize that ignorance and incompetence are handy alibis for the Bush Administration, but ignorance and incompetence do not explain a systematic smear against Joseph Wilson. Ignorance and incompetence do not explain Cheney's notes on Wilson's July 6th editorial; nor do they explain Libby meeting with Miller on July 8th; nor do they explain Novak's anger on the street when he met with Wilson's friend later on July 8th, having been innocently (yeah, right!) handed the button by Armitage earlier that day.

Ignorance and incompetence do, however, explain the effort to drive the knife in further, which is how I interpret Novak's October 1st column and his subsequent dig at Brewster-Jennings. That entire crowd -- Armitage included -- felt a keen affront to their sense of entitlement and privilege merely for being questioned about Plame's exposure. It wasn't enough to simply cover for the leak; they felt they had to lash out, and for that (I predict) they will meet their comeuppance. I base that on no more thank an inkling, an intuition, but it's a strong one. It was the cover-up, the lashing out, which incontrovertibly established their motive for the original leak. Whatever Luskin says, the investigation isn't over.

[emptywheel]

Cecil,

Well, seeing as how my understanding of the use of the word "operative" also comes from (CIA) spooky types, we will have to agree to disagree there.

But I'd love to see your proof for the fact that Novak uses operative more frequently to refer to apartchik. Marshall has made the case Novak doesn't, using actual examples. I've never seen anyone disprove him. Or even attempt the same, easy project--to look at how he uses operative, count the instances, and describe what he's doing. But by all means, if Marshall's careful count of Novak's usage of the term is wrong, I think you ought to point it out. But until you show the proof, I'll take Marshall's proof as uncontested.

Finally, your case about Libby is still risible. You're saying the Rohn, who didn't have a need to know Plame's ID (and in fact worked on a different area of intelligence before he got his promotion), would get better information than the Vice President, for whom the whole "need to know" criteria really doesn't exist? Are you really making that argument? Wow. Just ... wow.

[Cecil Turner]

EW:
Marshall has made the case Novak doesn't, using actual examples.

Might want to recheck that, because Marshall doesn't make that case. Dan Kennedy said it checked:

I took the challenge, and found that he has used the word about 200 times over the past 10 years. So score one for the Prince of Darkness.

Josh Marshall (defensibly, to my mind) says we ought to focus on intelligence references ("CIA operative" or "agency operative"), and so he limited his search to those terms. And apparently in those cases, Novak exclusively meant "clandestine." But it's worth noting he's working with a very small sample of Novak's "operative" usage:

This was a quick search. But I came up with six examples. And in each case Novak used the phrase to refer to someone working in a clandestine capacity.

And my point is not that he's wrong, necessarily, but that in this case the subject might legitimately be viewed as political, wherein Novak's usage of the word is far less precise.

Are you really making that argument? Wow. Just ... wow.

If you're seriously contending the VP would have better intel information than someone working in the intel field, we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one as well. No sweat . . . it happens.

QS:
Ignorance and incompetence do not explain Cheney's notes on Wilson's July 6th editorial;

Obviously we view this differently, because they appear to me to be perfectly appropriate questions for a very hinky assignment.

nor do they explain Novak's anger on the street when he met with Wilson's friend later on July 8th,

Sorry, but I'm unwilling to accept Wilson's unsupported word on this, or any other meeting.

I base that on no more thank an inkling, an intuition, but it's a strong one.

That, Sir, is apparent. And I believe we've also reached the point at which we can agree to disagree (genially, I hope).

[emptywheel]

Cecil

The whole point of this leak, if you remember, is that Plame's identity was protected. So you just didn't share it with analysts who came in from other agencies. It seems that Rohn knew Wilson via his time in Africa. But that wouldn't mean he would know of Plame's identity--or be told it, seeing as how his area of expertise didn't overlap with Plame's.

So you're suggesting that someone who attended a meeting at which Plame--someone whose identity was classified (if not covert) and worked in an entirely different area of intelligence--introduced Wilson and then left would have a better sense of Plame's identity than what the Vice President of the United States would get in response to a pointed question. You're suggesting, of course, that the water cooler information floating around the entire intelligence community is better than what Dick gets when he asks for it directly. No wonder Dick is so fucking incomptent.

And while you're calling Wilson's a hinky assignment, care to explain who else was more qualified to answer a question involving Niger, Iraq, and uranium sales than a guy who had worked with the military leaders who ruled Niger during the alleged uranium sale, worked with Saddam, and conducted a similar mission on Niger's uranium industry in 1999?

[Cecil Turner]

The whole point of this leak, if you remember, is that Plame's identity was protected. So you just didn't share it with analysts who came in from other agencies.

If it were in fact protected, it shouldn't have been shared. But then, neither should she work at Langley, nor introduce her husband at an analyst meeting. (And it now appears that last was what actually blew her cover.)

So you're suggesting that someone who attended a meeting at which Plame--someone whose identity was classified (if not covert) and worked in an entirely different area of intelligence--introduced Wilson and then left would have a better sense of Plame's identity than what the Vice President of the United States would get in response to a pointed question.

Actually I was suggesting someone who worked as an analyst in the WMD field would have a better idea of the relevant CPD/WINPAC structure and functions than anyone who worked at the White House. But yes, it's also obvious they knew more about Plame, and earlier, than anyone in the White House did. (Even assuming he ever asked a direct question about her identity, which is not in evidence AFAICT.)

And while you're calling Wilson's a hinky assignment, care to explain who else was more qualified . . .

I share the State view that the then-current ambassador was eminently qualified to handle any such inquiries. But in any event, what I meant by "hinky" was more in the nature of no non-disclosure agreement, pro-bono, and sending a former ambassador when there was already one there . . . just as Cheney's notes indicate were his questions.

[Jeff]

Sorry, but I'm unwilling to accept Wilson's unsupported word on this, or any other meeting.

Maybe it's time to reassess. Here's Novak being responding to a question from Foxnews watcher/reader Judy (of all things!):

Can you explain the incident involving Mr. Wilson’s "friend" that happened to run into you on the street. What did you and him discuss? What is your impression of the situation? I appreciate the way you have handled yourself through this whole ordeal. You are a true journalist! — JUDY

ROBERT NOVAK: I foolishly answered questions about the case by a stranger who stopped me on the streets of Washington. He turned out to be a friend of Wilson who immediately went to Wilson's office to report after our conversation. Some people think this was set up by Wilson, but I have no evidence of this. Thanks for the compliment.

[QuickSilver]

Cecil Turner

I share the State view that the then-current ambassador was eminently qualified to handle any such inquiries.

Indeed, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick (Ambassador to Niger since 1999) was eminently qualified to handle this, and she had already debunked the uranium claims to the best of her ability before Wilson's February 2002 trip. It was apparently because Cheney and the OVP would not accept her conclusions (among those offered by a number of experts) that the CIA chose to send Wilson. And the White House ignored him, too.

[QuickSilver]

Cecil Turner

I share the State view that the then-current ambassador was eminently qualified to handle any such inquiries.

Indeed, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick (Ambassador to Niger since 1999) was eminently qualified to handle this, and she had already debunked the uranium claims to the best of her ability before Wilson's February 2002 trip. It was apparently because Cheney and the OVP would not accept her conclusions (among those offered by a number of experts) that the CIA chose to send Wilson. And the White House ignored him, too.

[Cecil Turner]

Maybe it's time to reassess.

Thanks, I hadn't seen that one. But it still doesn't validate the particulars of the meeting as reported by Wilson (except, of course, that it happened). Basing theories on Novak's "anger," for example, remains single-sourced to a not particularly reliable source.

Indeed, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick (Ambassador to Niger since 1999) was eminently qualified to handle this, and she had already debunked the uranium claims to the best of her ability before Wilson's February 2002 trip.

Well, actually her information was disseminated in a report during Wilson's trip (March 1, 2002--Niger: Sale of Uranium to Iraq Is Unlikely). Which probably explains why Wilson's less definitive report several days later didn't receive much attention. And leaves open the question of why the former ambassador was sent in the first place, under an arrangement that conveniently allowed him to author a NY Times editorial on the mission later.

And the White House ignored him, too.

If they ever heard from him, which is dubious. More to the point, he failed to convince CIA analysts, who reported the fictitious arrangement months later in the NIE:

A foreign government service reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of "pure uranium" (probably yellowcake) to Iraq.

INR, probably due to Owens-Kirkpatrick's efforts, was persuaded:

. . . the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious.

[Jeff]

But it still doesn't validate the particulars of the meeting as reported by Wilson (except, of course, that it happened).

Oh please, you think that if it were substantially or even substantively different from Wilson's version that Novak would have given that response? Don't you think Novak would have said, "I didn't call Wilson an obscenity," or "I didn't identify his wife as CIA," or "I didn't say his wife had sent him," or "I didn't name his wife"? If Novak is acknowledging that he called Wilson an asshole, would that persuade you that he was angry? Does anyone ever call anyone else an asshole without doing so angrily or with some amount of some closely related emotion?

[MayBee]

I have referred to other people as assholes with absolutely no anger, and sometimes absolute bemusement. Their traits often have no bearing on my emotions whatsoever.

To answer your question, Novak is very short and relatively non-specific throughout that entire Q&A. I don't think the absence of point by point rebuttals to Wilson's version of events means anything, and in fact Novak may not even know what Wilson's version is. Did he slip in the name Valerie? Or do we imagine that a friend like oh say...Larry Johnson...might have added a little literary flair to the story?

As long as we're using that Novak interview however:
[Q]Did Aldrich Ames, the famous double agent, out Valerie in the early 1990's to the Russians? — BRIAN (Springfield, IL)

ROBERT NOVAK: Yes, that is my information.

[Q]Was it ever disclosed whether Valerie Plame's capacity with the CIA was clerical or in covert operations that may endanger her life? — NORM (Cornelia, GA)

ROBERT NOVAK: For some years, she had been a desk-bound analyst, facing no physical threat.
----

So there you go. Robert Novak says she was an analyst.

[Jeff]

I have referred to other people as assholes with absolutely no anger, and sometimes absolute bemusement. Their traits often have no bearing on my emotions whatsoever.

There must be a philosophy of language, and a psychology of humanity, that could back those claims up somehow . . . somehow.

Anyway, speaking of unpersuasive literal-mindedness, in your view all that Novak's acknowledgment means is that he met the stranger who turned out to be Wilson's friend on the street, but for all we know they talked about the weather? Is that right? I would be willing to bet, by the way, that Novak was asked under oath about that meeting.

I will admit that I am not shocked that on other matters, Novak is happy to share in the standard rightwing talking points. Especially when they are completely self-justifying.

[MayBee]

There must be a philosophy of language, and a psychology of humanity, that could back those claims up somehow . . . somehow.
Hmmm. Maybe some people are just angrier than others. Me, I'm easily bemused.

in your view all that Novak's acknowledgment means is that he met the stranger who turned out to be Wilson's friend on the street, but for all we know they talked about the weather? Is that right? I would be willing to bet, by the way, that Novak was asked under oath about that meeting.

No, in fact he actually says he answered questions about the case to the friend. I said he didn't get into specifics, and I meant he didn't get into specifics. You seemed to be saying that by not specifically denying details that Wilson has written about that encounter, he was agreeing with Wilson's version. Well, that is a relatively brief Q&A and if we're going buy into the idea that everything Novak *didn't* specifically deny he must be acknowledging to be true seems a bit of a stretch.

Sure, Novak may well have had to detail the conversation with friendy under oath. Has the friend? Has Wilson?

[MayBee]

And wait. Don't you think he was probably asked under oath if he understood Valerie to be covert? Why he used the word operative and who "fed" that to him? Apparently his answers satisfied Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald won't even call her covert. Those that have, haven't been under oath. Correct?

[emptywheel]

Cecil,

Perhaps you might appreciate some details you are apparently unaware of.

First, Douglas Rohn was not in non-proliferation. He was then an African analyst at INR--a completely different department at the INR from the one that works on proliferation issues (AA versus SPM). While Rohn might know a little about the uranium market (Congo, Niger, and S Africa having significant stakes in it), that didn't make him a proliferation specialist, nor would it give him any normal interaction with Plame.

Second, the report,Niger: Sale of Uranium Unlikely was not Owens-Kirkpatrick's document. It derived from AA in INR--and that particularly piece of analysis likely also came from Rohn. You can refer to the list of attachments in the INR memo to see that Owens-Kirkpatrick's cables are distinct from this report. Her cable describing her meeting with General Fulford came while Wilson was traveling to Niger.

And in one respect, Owens-Kirkpatick was NOT as qualified as Wilson to answer the question at hand--and they pursued the matter differently. Owens-Kirkpatrick only ever spoke to serving Nigerien officials about the question. Wilson spoke to the members of the military government who, with Wilson's guidance in 1999, ceded power to a civilian government (these are the guys who would have actually signed the deal, of course). Speaking to ousted leaders is generally not in the portfolio of an Ambassador. And in any case, having developed their trust before, Wilson had a better relationship with these guys.

And while the SSCI is unclear, the most up-to-date report from Niger before Wilson's trip was Owens-Kirkpatrick's cable (February 18, the day before the Wilson meeting) agreeing that the new Niger allegations merited further investigation. The Fulford meeting which happened while Wilson was traveling was her own doing. Which says she advocated some investigation, and that investigation ended up being the Wilson trip.

So right now, the only hinkiness you're left with is the fact that Joe Wilson was patriotic enough to do the trip pro bono. I know Republicans don't often put their nation before their pocketbook--but there are still those of us who cherish our country enough to do so.

[Jeff]

Has the friend?

According to a published report citing Wilson, yes. Let me try to put it this way, if Novak had a major beef with the friend's version, I think he would have said, Yes, but the friend got it importantly wrong. I will agree, however, that that does not mean Novak would acquiesce in each and every detail of the friend's version. Maybe Novak called him a wanker, not an asshole.

[Jeff]

MayBee

Yes, I believe Novak lied under oath, such as about why he used the word "operative." Fitzgerald is done with Novak, apparently. I really don't believe Fitzgerald would indict one of the reporters; I'm not willing to go much further than that.

Fitzgerald won't even call her covert.

If you think that means anything, that's just silly. Fitzgerald has gone out of his way to explain he's not touching that issue with a ten foot pole, not asserting she was not, not asserting that she was. If she were covert, that is, he still wouldn't have asserted it in any of the contexts where it has come up. Furthermore, my understanding is that the whole category of covert, at least as it has been relevant in the case, derives from the IIPA statute, and so wouldn't simply map onto a really existing category within the CIA. It would have to be a subject of proof at trial; and since he obviously has no need to prove that in order to make his case against Libby, it would be utterly foolish for him to allege it.

To make something other of it would be foolish hackery.

A stunning prediction: Vandehei will have an article on Armitage in tomorrow's Post.

[emptywheel]

Wait, I'll make a correction before Cecil and Maybee do--Owens-Kirkpatrick spoke to serving Nigerien officials and consortium members. But still--not the guys alleged to have arranged the sale.

[emptywheel]

Nope, Jeff, it's Jeffrey Smith. In a sense, we Plameologists have been saved from VandeHei--he's been taken off the beat. But now he's doing shitty reporting on the mid-term elections.

[Jeff]

I was wrong. Smith wrote the article. Assuming for the moment we can credit its precision, here are a few interesting new details:

1. The story is more assertive that Armitage's remark to Novak was based on a classified report he had read, presumably the INR memo, which pretty much means Armitage got the June 10 version of the INR memo.

2. According to the former colleague the whole story is sourced to

Fitzgerald told Armitage in February that he would not be charged with a crime.

3. The source appears to suggest that Armitage was reminded of the Woodward conversation by Woodward in October 2005. Hard to believe, but presumably that was Armitage's out from indictment on obstruction-type charges. What about the conversations across 2004 and 2005 Woodward mentions, during which Armitage's earlier mention of Plame appears (though this is not certain) to have come up?

I will add that there is this little piece of bogus-ness from Smith:

But Armitage, the source Novak had described obliquely as someone who is "not a political gunslinger," was by all accounts hardly a tool of White House political operatives. As the No. 2 official at the State Department from March 2001 to February 2005, Armitage was a prominent Republican appointee. But he also privately disagreed with the tone and style of White House policymaking on Iraq and other matters.

This is a piece of bogus-ness that Novak started which hides a problem for him. Novak's original comment was not, of course, that his first source was not a political gunslinger, but rather that he was not a partisan gunslinger. I'm not sure when Novak changed his characterization, but the first I noticed it was when he misquoted himself during his recent round of self-justification. And it makes perfect sense that he would misquote himself, since, as Smith makes perfectly clear and explicit here, Armitage was a prominent Republican appointee, that is, he was a partisan. But now Novak is pretending that his point was to distinguish his first source simply from a political operative like Rove. Of course, a major part of his point in using the term was to distract attention from Rove, who could never be someone who was not a partisan gunslinger. But Novak was flatout misleading with regard to Armitage as well.

It is of course perfectly sensible for Novak to lie in order to make himself look less bad. It makes no sense for the Post to let him get away with it.

[Jeff]

we Plameologists have been saved from VandeHei

I still like Vandehei's reporting. And he did a good job on getting Rove's goofy story right - without thereby endorsing it. You know where he's well sourced, and just like all reporters it's not everywhere, but he's not uncritical.

[Jim E.]

"Novak's original comment was not, of course, that his first source was not a political gunslinger, but rather that he was not a partisan gunslinger."

Awesome point.

[Jeff]

One inference: if Armitage was told in Ferbuary that he would not be charged with a crime, then his comment to Charlie Rose that he didn't want to talk about it because, in effect, he hadn't gotten word from Fitzgerald that he was free to do so was either 1)total bullshit just to avert having to actually talk about such an awkward subject; 2)there is still something going on in the investigation that Armitage's testimony is relevant to - unlike, say, Novak, who got the all-clear from Fitzgerald to talk. 1) seems like the more likely scenario, though I will add that 2) doesn't necessarily mean there is any real expectation on Fitzgerald's part of going anywhere further with this, it might just mean he thinks it is still possible.

[MayBee]

To make something other of it would be foolish hackery

Well, you know that I think parsing imprecise words to find precise meaning would be foolish hackery. If we're talking about the word covert in particular here, I will remind you I came into this thread asking about this line " Fitz would have found it--as he found that Dick and Libby did know Plame was covert."

As to the partisan/poltical switch..well, you know what I would say in general. It's hard to imagine anyone that has a political position to be described as not political, so that is silly. Not partisan seems a better hint.

if Novak had a major beef with the friend's version, I think he would have said, Yes, but the friend got it importantly wrong.
Well, perhaps he didn't have a major beef with it, but the details you are looking for are unimportant to him. Perhaps the thought the friend was an a**hole too (I mean...we've seen LJ in action haven't we?), and didn't like being approached by him. Perhaps he doesn't know you think he was angry, and therefore couldn't rebut that contention. :-)