by emptywheel
Thanks to Jeralyn for posting the most recent Libby filing, in which his team explains they want to show a PowerPoint to exonerate Libby for outing a NOC.
No, seriously, the filing is a list of classified documents they want to introduce at trial, including:
- The PowerPoint
- A range of classified documents (including Libby's notes and Morning Daily Briefings--MDBs) for the periods June 9 to June 14, and July 5 to July 12
- A "representative sample" (other wise known as cherry picked) of classified documents (again, Libby's notes and MDBs) from other periods to corroborate Libby's memory defense
- "Wilson/Niger" documents--including documents Libby created and documents others created
Keep reading for my take on how they plan to use these.
The PowerPoint
One of the arguments Ted Wells made in the May 5 hearing is that the White House had a set of talking points to respond to Wilson's op-ed, Plame is not mentioned in those talking points, therefore we can assume that Libby didn't mention Plame. "What if Libby was rogue?" Walton asked, to which Wells had no good response.
I suspect this PowerPoint may be the set of talking points they used that week.
Classified Documents
Libby's seeking to introduce his notes and the MDBs he observed, and use them to explain his state of mind during the periods in question. There will be a hearsay hurdle before he can introduce these documents--that is, without calling the briefers up to testify, we can't be sure the facts reported in the MDBs are fact (says something about the intell Dick and Libby received, huh?). But I suspect Libby will win this fight--it's the reverse of Walton's restrictions on things that Libby didn't read, which would have no way of influencing him. Because Libby is going to take the stand to explain these, they will be presented as materials that show what affected Libby's state of mind.
But the most interesting thing about the notes is the dates, and what they include and exclude:
June 9 to June 14
Libby's asking to introduce notes from the days when he received information from CIA and Dick on Plame and Wilson. But he excludes the dates when he asks Grossman and the CIA for that information (and remember, Grossman first responded to Libby by phone in May)! He also excludes the days on which, we are led to understand, Pincus first made inquiries at OVP. In other words, Libby is trying to prove that his brain was mush when he received this information, but not when he decided to go track it down, when he was presumably thinking very clearly.
July 5 to July 12
These dates are even more curious. Sure, the span includes the dates of Libby's conversations with Ari, Judy, Russert, Rove, and Cooper. So it gets to the heart of the leak.
But why begin on July 5 (probably when Wilson's op-ed went online)? Is that the day he wrote in his notes, "leak to Judy Miller on July 8"? Had they finalized the smear by then? Did they even know what was going to be in Wilson's op-ed by then? And why exclude July 2, the day Libby testified he was authorized to leak to Judy, and also the day when he had an undisclosed conversation with a journalist? For that matter, why exclude June 23, when Libby leaked to Judy using an earlier set of talking points, and also set up a meeting with Woodward to leak the NIE? And note, Fitzgerald has suggested the NIE leak may have been authorized as early as June 23. Now that'd be worth reviewing the notes for. I actually find this very interesting, since Libby's NIE story relies explicitly on forgetfulness, and if he can't sustain that story, Dick will go to jail. Well, hopefully.
Likewise, Libby chooses a narrow frame on the tail end. Libby doesn't even include his notes from the day of the Novak column, even though he knew it was coming out and has testified that his conversations with Dick only occurred in response to the Novak column. And why not include the day when someone from the CIA told Libby the kind of damage that may have been done, by outing Plame?
Libby's Testimony Days
But the biggest absence here is any mention of the days when Libby actually lied. No dates from October, November 2003. No dates from March 2004. Libby's not showing his state of mind when he actually did the forgetting. He's showing his state of mind from a few select days, the testimony about he'd like to dismiss. But he isn't showing his state of mind on the days when he did the lying (or, in his version, the forgetting).
Perhaps those will be included in the other "representative sample." Or, perhaps they'll simply include Libby's aggrieved response to other news articles noting they had lied about the intelligence.
"Wilson/Niger documents"
Note, first and foremost, what Libby is trying to introduce here. I suspect he is trying to introduce the memo Plame wrote on February 12, 2002, to explain Wilson's qualifications for the trip. And he's definitely trying to introduce the CIA report on Wilson's trip. The latter (and perhaps both) are the documents they tried to declassify during leak week. They have almost no bearing on the case. Though Libby will compare these documents with the notes he made contemporaneously to show that he didn't integrate that information into his campaign. I suspect Libby will lose on these two documents, because they don't show his impression, and they're really an attempt to refight the whole controversy as to who is right, which Walton has so far refused to let Libby do (Libby's lawyers seem to be aware that they're fighting a losing battle on these issues; pity, I'd like to see the CIA report on Wilson).
As to Libby's own notes on Wilson, I hereby announce a pool to guess how many times Libby uses the word, "asshole" in those notes. I look forward to comparing those notes with, say, Dick's own notes, and Novak's column.
Other
And then there are a bunch of other documents, which I'll discuss more in the comments. These include:
- Drafts of Tenet's statement
- Conversations with other governmental officials on how to respond to Wilson
- Emails to CIA employees, including (but not limited to, it appears) Robert Grenier and Craig Schmall
- The INR memo (they assert again that Ari reviewed it, which they need to do to cast doubt on his July 7 conversation)
- Bill Harlow's notes
- Stephen Hadley's notes
- "Certain other documents"
Lots of fun stuff. Libby seems to be looking forward to trial as much as I am.
Three things I'm most intrigued by in the "Other" category.
Harlow's notes: perhaps his notes say CPD, or have notes about Plame's likelihood to travel overseas. But it wouldn't seem that Harlow's testimony directly relates to Libby's unless he's trying to prove that CIA leaked Plame, not him (here's where Novak would lie to help him, I imagine). I expect Maguire to tingle with delight at this (though I also suspect Libby may not get to introduce these, or even call Harlow as a witness, seeing as how he didn't talk to Libby personally).
Hadley's notes. I suspect Hadley's notes include everything kosher about the Plame leak. So he introduces it as a way to corroborate the PowerPoint. But it may be that he's introducing Hadley's note for something further.
Tenet's drafts. I thought Walton had already said no to admitting these drafts. In any case, I wonder if the line, "the trip was recommended by his wife" is in an early draft of the statement?
Posted by: emptywheel | September 23, 2006 at 10:06
This is for Swopa, defending his argument that Ari is Pincus' source, something I don't believe, but anyway...
Libby is obviously going to make the case that Ari saw the INR memo on AF1. (We have reason to believe Ari said he didn't, but never mind). Also obvious, he needs to do this to discount that he told Ari that Plame was covert on July 7.
But Libby only needs to do this if Ari can be shown to have had information about Plame's purported role--otherwise, he could just say the meeting never took place. There'd be no counter-evidence.
So he's doing this to explain away an Ari mention of Plame's role later in the week. That could be just Ari's mention to Dickerson, "go find out who sent Wilson," which certainly seems to have indicated firsthand knowledge of who was purported to have sent Plame.
But Bartlett also used that same line, also with Dickerson. Of course, it may be that Bartlett has testified to seeing the INR memo, and using the information that way. Which would corroborate Libby's argument, to put Bartlett on the stand, saying he made the comment after seeing the INR memo. Though of the depiction of Bartlett's response in Hubris is any indication, he thought the whole Plame smear was wrong and stupid--he's now my favorite choice to be 1 in 1X2X6. If he thought it was stupid, it's more likely he was ordered to use the line (also note, Bartlett was having a conversation with Dickerson about how badly BushCo responded to Wilson, which shows he was skeptical early).
In any case, unless he's got Bartlett lined up to corroborate his story, then it may be that he needs to explain away a stronger use of Plame by Ari. Which, if Ari is Pincus' source, would make sense (Libby has Pincus' testimony, so he would have a good idea who Pincus' sources is).
In other words:
Now, the two biggest reasons I don't think this is possible are:
It's possible those things happened--that Ari didn't confess to leaking to Pincus until after Kessler's testimony in 2004, and then he realized he was screwed, so arranged a plea deal, and 'fessed up to a whole lot more. But that would make him an easily impeachable witness ("But Ari made up that July 7 conversation to minimize his own punishment," Libby's lawyers will say). And given how important Ari's testimony is for this case, that'd be stunning.
Maybe there's something more that we don't know, that makes this all possible (like Ari has notes which haven't shown up in discovery, or Bartlett corroborates Ari's story). Also note, if Ari made a plea deal, he likely has more to offer, like a phone call from Libby on July 12 telling him to leak Plame's role. But again, we haven't seen the evidence of that yet.
Posted by: emptywheel | September 23, 2006 at 10:25
Two more points about the Ari theory (which I still don't believe, though I'm increasingly intrigued):
First, note that Pincus' source didn't say PLame was covert. The INR memo explanation is sufficient for that leak, then (in a way it's not for the Novak leak).
Second, if Ari is Pincus' source, he's got evidence for a conspiracy. He would testify that Libby's testimony on Rove and Kessler was designed to shield him and Rove. He would be able to say that he was ordered (sometime after the AF2 flight) to leak Plame's role to Pincus.
Of course all that's impossible without some reason that Libby's attempts to impeach Ari could be easily disproven. I'm increasingly curious as to whether Bartlett will be called as a witness.
And one more question--how would this relate to the logic of not including Libby's lies about the Kessler conversation? I don't know the answer ... did he leave Kessler off so he could come back and charge the conspiracy to obstruct?
Posted by: emptywheel | September 23, 2006 at 10:41
I have to say that after reading this filing I was somewhat encouraged about the possibility of actually making it to trial. The categories of classified documents are largely stuff I can't see the Bush administration being too concerned about releasing in redacted/summarized form - especially Libby's notes and the Wilson/Niger stuff if Judge Walton lets it through. The PDBs have already been summarized, but they don't seem to comprise as much of the focus for Libby's defense at this stage as I thought they would -- and those are the items I assume it will be hardest to get released by the intelligence community for trial.
I got the same sense about Ari Fleischer's role as a source as you did, ew, with regard to Libby's apparent attempts to impeach him. Note too that by including the now-public-but-redacted INR Memo in this classified batch of documents, Libby is apparently requesting release of redacted portions of that memo, for whatever that's worth.
Posted by: pow wow | September 23, 2006 at 10:56
Fitz wears suspenders and belts, looks both ways on a one-way street. It's going to trial, probably without a jury.
Posted by: Semanticleo | September 23, 2006 at 10:59
pow wow,
Unless those redacted sections address Plame directly, I doubt they'll need the unredacted portion. To use it to impeach Ari, they'd only need to show what has already been revealed.
Also, I'm not sure Libby will be able to introduce it. Ari is not alleged to have seen it by the time of the lunch meeting.
We'll see--maybe Ari said something to someone before he got on AF1 that makes the whole INR meaningless.
Posted by: emptywheel | September 23, 2006 at 11:10
EW,
Why would Libby have/know Pincus's testimony already?
Posted by: Jim E. | September 23, 2006 at 11:21
Jim E
On page 16 of Fitz' March 1 filing, Fitz says he has already given the GJ/deposition transcripts from Kessler, Pincus, and Woodward (there is at least one journalist whose name is redacted; that's probably Novak, less the Armitage testimony). Libby has the entire Kessler and Pincus depositions.
Posted by: emptywheel | September 23, 2006 at 11:33
Jason Leopold was on Pacifica this morning and read from the transcript of Thursday's hearing. Some interesting tidbits that hasn't been reported insofar as I can tell. I found the dialogue between Mr. Wells to be interesting. I am emailing Leopold to request a copy. I shall pass it along if successful
Posted by: norman reichendahl | September 23, 2006 at 11:34
Can you all help me understand why Fitz is first prosecuting Libby instead of charging the whole conspiracy? I know there are legal reasons but I don't understand the progression and why leaving Kessler out, might suggest a later conspiracy charge.
Trying my best to keep up...
Posted by: Katie Jensen | September 23, 2006 at 11:47
Katie
That's what I'm wondering--if he has Ari, then he'd have evidence of a greater conspiracy. It may be that the evidence of the conpiracy is too weak to bring the case. Or it may be that he's trying to accomplish something with Libby's perjury trial to make the conspiracy trial possible.
Posted by: emptywheel | September 23, 2006 at 11:56
ok, thanks.
Posted by: Jim E. | September 23, 2006 at 12:05
Or it may be that he's trying to accomplish something with Libby's perjury trial to make the conspiracy trial possible.
My assumption for eons (or at least months) has been that he needs Libby to flip in order to have a case against Cheney for the conspiracy.
Posted by: Swopa | September 23, 2006 at 12:20
Swopa
No doubt if he got Libby to flip, he'd have the whole fricking government. But I wonder if he can accomplish something else with the trial--perhaps scare others to flip by exposing some of the information. Or perhaps force Cheney to go on the record by testifying (something Walsh tried in Iran-Contra, IIRC).
Imagine, for example, if he got Cheney to testify to having authorized Libby to leak the NIE. But then proved that was a lie. It'd be easier to go after than anything he said in his no oath-sworn testimony in his office.
Posted by: emptywheel | September 23, 2006 at 12:28
Just wondering...does Libby's wishlist include any or all of the "e-mail of the Office of Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 [that was not] preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system" ?
As another matter, could someone explain "graymail" in Libby's case? Which government actors have to refuse to produce material for Libby's game to succeed? I assume if Judge Walton refuses all his requests, the case goes forward and Libby only collects a potential claim for appeal. If Prosecution and CIA allow but WH refuses, does this count? Since the defendant is a former WH senior official it would seem to reflect badly on the insta-declassify-capable WH.
Could allowing just Libby's cherry-picked requests (and not other dates that EW mentions) make it harder for Fitz to prosecute? Or does allowing some of these dates for the Defense enable Fitz to demand more dates to be revealed?
Posted by: pdaly | September 23, 2006 at 12:30
Libby appears to have tried to shield Pincus' leaker by claiming to have told Kessler of the leak
How does claiming to have leaked to Kessler "shield Pincus' leaker"? I can see how it would shield someone else leaking to Kessler, but not Pincus.
Posted by: Swopa | September 23, 2006 at 12:50
Libby has Pincus' testimony, so he would have a good idea who Pincus' sources is
Note that Pincus has said that he did not identify his source in his testimony (this was a key part of his agreeing to testify without a court fight), although Libby may know for other reasons.
... how would this relate to the logic of not including Libby's lies about the Kessler conversation?
The funny thing is, Fitz didn't include Kessler in his list of reporters who had been leaked to before the Novak column. So either Fitz was fibbing, or Libby thought he had to cover for a Kessler leak that didn't really exist...
Posted by: Swopa | September 23, 2006 at 12:57
Swopa
Easy (and precisely parallel to the Cooper case).
Fitz was looking (indeed, according to well-known DOJ guidelines, could only look) at people whom he had good reason to believe received the leak. (This is why all of Maguire's hoardes are nuts when they whine that Woodward was not subpoenaed in the first round, because there was no reason to think Woodward had gotten a leak.)
So Fitz almost certainly looked at all the relevant phone records and found two candidates to be the WaPo leak noted in the October 12 2003 article: A July 12 Libby to Kessler call, and a July 12 someone to Pincus call (it'd be AF1, if it's Ari). At first, Fitz asked to speak to both of them, without a subpoena. Kessler agreed, largely because Libby was being pressured to get his sources to speak. Pincus, didn't speak without a subpoena. Kessler testified that, contrary to what Libby had testified, Libby didn't mention Plame. (Fitzgerald makes it just about clear that Libby had testified to leaking to Kessler in his August 2004 affy, in which he was making the case to subpoena Judy and Pincus.)
Had Kessler never testified, then Fitz would have had Libby, just Libby, as the source of the leak to the WaPo. As, until Cooper testified, he had Libby, just Libby, as the source of the leak to Cooper.
The reason Libby wouldn't be shielding some other Kessler leaker is that (presumably) there is no other phone contact Kessler had with an SAO on July 12. Which mean what he was shielding was the other WaPo call, the Pincus July 12 call.
Posted by: emptywheel | September 23, 2006 at 13:05
The funny thing is, Fitz didn't include Kessler in his list of reporters who had been leaked to before the Novak column. So either Fitz was fibbing, or Libby thought he had to cover for a Kessler leak that didn't really exist...
Right. That's because he wasn't. Fitz said that after receiving Kessler's testimony, in filings to Libby's team this spring. By that point, he had interviewed Kessler, who said clearly that he hadn't received the leak. So he counted Pincus as a recipient, but not Kessler.
One more thing I may not be making clear. Every single subpoena of a journalist before the indictment related either to someone who had published news of a leak (Novak, Cooper, Phelps and Royce published stories with it, and WaPo published the October 12 story) or on something that Libby testified to/had in his notes (Russert and Judy). From that we can assume that Fitz was going after the general category "WaPo leak" based on that October 12 article. He didn't know who had received it, but he narrowed it down to Kessler or Pincus, presumably based on phone records.
Posted by: emptywheel | September 23, 2006 at 13:11
EW, I'm not sure I follow you, since Libby's testimony came well before Fitz began pursuing reporters (and so wouldn't have shaped his testimony based on Fitz's strategy).
Would it be more on target to say that when he testified, Libby knew that someone had leaked to a WaPo reporter (because of the 10/12 article), and assumed that Kessler was the reporter when in fact it was Pincus?
Posted by: Swopa | September 23, 2006 at 13:18
Swopa
Not given the evidence of his Cooper testimony. Best as I can reconstruct, here's the timeline:
Now, by the time Pincus testifies, his source admits a conversation with him. I suppose it's possible that Pincus' source admitted telling Pincus right away (in which case your Ari scenario would make a lot more sense--that he 'fessed up on his own). But there had to be a reason why Fitzgerald distrusted the testimony related to both Kessler and Pincus; after all, he went after both of them before he learned that Libby was not Cooper's source.
FTR, Kessler testified on June 21. Russert testified on August 7--at this point, Fitz would have two pieces of evidence that Libby had lied, Kessler and Russert. He subpoenaed Pincus on August 9. Cooper testified the first time on August 23 (at this point, Fitz would have 3 pieces of evidence that Libby was lying). Then Fitz submitted the affy, including Pincus, on August 27.
For some reason, Fitz still needed--and had reason to require it, under DOJ guidelines, on August 27.
Posted by: emptywheel | September 23, 2006 at 13:51
Wait. Not sure if I explained that right. In the absence of Libby's testimony on Cooper, it might--it'd be one case where Libby assumed he was a source when he wasn't. But there are two cases of that, Cooper and Kessler.
Posted by: emptywheel | September 23, 2006 at 13:57
One more point, Swopa.
Assuming Russert's testimony is correct, and Plame didn't come up, then Libby had to have been relying on the non-testimony of journalists. Once Russert (or Judy, for that matter) testified, Libby would be in trouble. So presumably he made the same assumption about the other journalists, as well.
Posted by: emptywheel | September 23, 2006 at 14:12
Ahh, I think I get it now. The motive for Libby to claim leaking to Cooper is clear -- Cooper had obviously been leaked to, and Libby was covering for Rove.
If the leaker for Pincus was someone else who needed to be concealed (let's say Big Dick for the hell of it), then Libby saying he leaked to Kessler was a way to say, "That covers the 10/12 WaPo story, you don't need to look into that anymore." Yes?
But then, why make up a claim about leaking to Judy (who never wrote about the leak)?
Posted by: Swopa | September 23, 2006 at 14:13
Precisely, yes. Libby seems to have covered for Rove (and in fact bought the Administration enough time to get through 2004). It's not clear whether or who he was trying to cover with the Kessler lie. Maybe he was trying to cover for Ari, who knows? Though it seems a lot less likely he'd perjure himself for Ari, who wasn't an OVP insider and wasn't even still around.
He had to mention the Judy leak for three reasons. One, because of notes--and maybe knowledge that Martin had testified--about the July 12 AF2 strategy session. Two, phone records--he had two calls to Miller on July 12 (though Fitz seems to have only been aware of one for a while). And three, he had the note that he was going to leak something to Judy on July 8.
Posted by: emptywheel | September 23, 2006 at 14:22
One reason he may have protected Ari is because Ari is a witness to the larger conspiracy. That is, it was a tradeoff, Ari doesn't testify in depth, and as a result, the evidence of a larger campaign is suppressed. But that would involve significant cooperation with Ari, who after all wasn't hanging around the WH (though I believe he had one trip to DC that Fall).
Posted by: emptywheel | September 23, 2006 at 14:25
He had to mention the Judy leak for three reasons.
None of these add up to me. Why not just say they were talking about aspens, or about Wilson/Niger without mentioning his wife? (Even in the unlikely circumstance that in Cathie Martin's presence, Libby said, "OK, I'll tell Judy Miller that Joe Wilson's wife works for the CIA," Libby had no problem feigning ignorance of conversations with Addington and several others about Ms. Wilson.)
Posted by: Swopa | September 23, 2006 at 14:50
There's something about his notes on the July 12 meeting that clearly indicated he was strategizing the Plame leak. His story was, originally, that he got back from that flight and called Judy, Cooper, and Kessler to tell them.
But he didn't say he leaked Plame on July 8. He said that had nothing to do with Plame, just the NIE and CIA trip report.
I suspect the main reason he admitted to Judy is because it allowed him to admit the Plame leak, but at a time when it didn't incriminate Dick. He needed to make the July 8 excuse--that it was just the NIE--plausible to protect Dick.
Posted by: emptywheel | September 23, 2006 at 14:55
1. I think the PowerPoint presentation is something created by Libby's defense, not an artifact from 2003. On p. 2, it seems to imply that the PowerPoint presentation itself is not a classified document.
2. My suspicion about not offering the PDB-type materials from the dates of Libby's testimony i that they're going to wait for Fitzgerald to cross-examine him on that, so they get to go through the whole rigamarole of introducing classified documents and potentially mucking things up in the middle of the trial.
3. As a side note to the Pincus question, also recall that Fitzgerald didn't have to actually enforce the subpoena - some time between August 27 (when Fitzgerald submitted the affidavit bearing on Miller and Pincus) and September 9 (when the judge denied Miller's motion to quash), Pincus agreed to testify, and he did so because he had learned (though it's possible he had learned this well before) that his source had gone forward to Fitzgerald, identified him- or herself and seemingly was okay with Pincus testfiying (or something to that effect). Which brings me to:
4. It's possible Libby told the story he did about the 12th mainly just to iron it out and make it all consistent: he talked to three reporters who he told the same thing, more or less, about Plame to. But it must have looked to Fitzgerald like he was covering for Rove when Fitzgerald figured out that Libby was Cooper's confirming source. (Note, however, that there seem to have been suspicions about Cooper-Rove early on - or at least, Rove was specifically asked and denied that he'd talked to Cooper early on in the investigation.) And emptywheel's point about Kessler is an intriguing one, especially since, if I recall, Fitzgerald did want stuff from Libby (his notes?) right up until October 13 - the point being that Libby would have had to have moved fast to cover for Pincus' source, since it wasn't clear that the Post had a reporter with a leak source until October 12 (though it's possible Libby et al would have anticipated the problem). And I would just add, isn't it possible Libby was doing the same thing with Miller, since we know she had other sources whom she has not revealed (though I suppose it's possible they've revealed themselves to Fitzgerald). emptywheel's alternative also makes sense. I'd just add that Fitzgerald didn't know about the 37 minute phone call between Miller and Libby on July 12 until rather late in the game. For instance, he definitely only knew of the 3 minute call that day when he filed the August 27, 2004 affidavit.
With regard to Kessler, the only way I can imagine Libby covering for Fleischer is if it was to cover the conspiracy, as emptywheel suggests, and if perhaps Fleischer could plausibly claim that Libby had screwed him and owed it to him. But the trouble with that scenario is, wouldn't Fleischer have confessed to it by now, and wouldn't Libby be in major trouble for that? The other obvious possibility is Cheney as Pincus' source, but for all sorts of reasons that's just really implausible (though I am repeatedly tempted by the thought). Or Rove. Other than that, i can't imagine Libby covering for someone in that way. So maybe he told his July 12 story about Kessler just to make it sound consistent.
Posted by: Jeff | September 23, 2006 at 15:46
Oh, well if it's THEIR powerpoint, I say, bring it on. PowerPoints would be fun to shred in court, I say.
Jeff, two clarifications.
First, I believe (geez, I hope polly shows up, because I know she has this) both Pincus and Kessler were approached in May-June timeframe. Which means Fitz had Pincus on his radar well before the Cooper conversation (and he did subpoena Pincus before he talked to Cooper).
Also, what's to say Ari DIDN'T confess to the conspiracy? That's my point from earlier--if Ari didn't 'fess up to being the Pincus source (if he is) early on, then Ari is a tainted witness. He can't carry a whole conspiracy indictment on his sayso.
One more point. I think it very plausible that Libby would protect Hadley, too. I think he'd protect any of the main players, in a bid to be the one fall guy for a smear campaign. Of course, I, too, like--love, even--the Dick theory, not least because it would put all the July 12 leakers on AF2, but I can't seen Dick calling Pincus.
Here's one totally wacky theory I don't put much stock in. What if by admitting to the Kessler leak, Libby was covering for someone else he spoke to on July 12? Say, Robert Novak? Ino ther words, he testified to talking to several journalists. What if he named the wrong journalists?
Posted by: emptywheel | September 23, 2006 at 16:06
Oh, well if it's THEIR powerpoint, I say, bring it on.
Yeah. I tremble for Fitzgerald when I think of Team Libby and their PowerPoint skillls. To be sure, though, I've seen some mighty obscurantist bullshit presented as straightforward truth with PowerPoint.
I don't think your first clarification affects what I was saying.
Also, what's to say Ari DIDN'T confess to the conspiracy?
I suppose. But I just don't think Fitzgerald wouldn't have charged it. It's true about Hadley, I guess. But I'm not sure why Libby would protect him. Plus would Libby try to introduce Hadley so emphatically into his defense narrative?
I don't quite see how Kessler would cover for Libby-Novak.
I remain somewhat skeptical of the Libby-Novak connection. However, I am intrigued by the fact that, first, Novak presented some of the key troublesome information in his original column without sourcing, consistent with getting it on double super secret background (for real, not the bs tacit agreement with Armitage); and, second, Levine told Novak that Rove and Libby were the go-to guys for things Wilson. Would Novak really just try to get in touch with Rove, especially when Rove starts ducking the guy?
Posted by: Jeff | September 23, 2006 at 16:28
Admittedly, the Kessler as cover for Novak is kind of, um, sketchy. But I tell you, evidence is piling up.
My only question is, why would Novak be blabbing like he is? Does he believe he won't be cought in a lie--if he is lying.
Or maybe the plan is they declare war on Iran and pardon Libby because they need him for the war effort. It has nothing to do with protecting Dick, but everything to do with extending the empire.
Posted by: emptywheel | September 23, 2006 at 16:46
Well, reading these posts was absolutely delicious until that last line about attacking Iran, and pardons. Holy cow, way to ruin a saturday afternoon fantasizing about the downfall of the evil empire. But fascinating conversation between those in the know...thanks.
Posted by: Katie Jensen | September 23, 2006 at 17:19
My only question is, why would Novak be blabbing like he is? Does he believe he won't be cought in a lie--if he is lying.
Obviously, maybe he's not lying; he's not blabbing about Rove and maybe that's where the main lie is; he's not blabbing about anything regarding Libby; I figure most of these characters have a fair degree of sangfroid, including Novak who's been around forever. I mean, I think it's fairly clear that Armitage went on national television, under enormous pressure, and with great credibility told a story that is at least importantly misleading and probably in certain key respects completely full of it. That takes some major cold blood and living beyond good and evil.
Posted by: Jeff | September 23, 2006 at 17:52
As for Iran, Libby is superfluous, as Iran seems completely straightforward to me. The right's pump is already primed, the military plan is already in place, and all that's needed is for Bush to ramp things up rhetorically, maybe put some ships in place to make sure the oil keeps flowing (whatever), and bomb the shit out of them. Then we can sit back and wait - depending on your perspective - for the Iranian people to welcome the bombing, see that it exposes the military and moral hollowness of their government by mullahs, and rise up and overthrow them, inaugurating an America-friendly democracy, thereby obviating the need for boots on the ground or worry about retaliation; or for reality.
Posted by: Jeff | September 23, 2006 at 17:57
norman - What show was it?
Posted by: Jeff | September 23, 2006 at 18:20
Jeff
The ships are already on their way. So that part's taken care of.
Yes, you're right, Novak isn't blabbing about Rove, and Armitage certainly underplayed the information he gave Novak.
Argh.
Posted by: emptywheel | September 23, 2006 at 18:58
I remain amazed at the command of details you all show. Hoping this site sees many more eyeballs before Nov 2006.
In the meantime, I found a quaint website called The Household Cyclopedia. It reproduces the contents of a book by that title, a book of general knowledge printed in 1881. It was scanned into electronic form by Matthew Spong in 1998. The book's original authors covered all sorts of topics related to farming and home life "compiled under the feeling, that if all other books of Science in the world were destroyed, this single volume would be found to embody the results of the useful experience, observations, and discoveries of mankind during the past ages of the world."
All the chapters are interesting (veterinary and medicine remedies come with modern warnings, however), but I find the chapter on INKS particularly appealing and topical. If the National Archives approves, perhaps we could use the following instructions to restore the legibility to our fading Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, and Bill of Rights:
To Restore Decayed Writings.
1. Cover the letters with solution of ferrocyanide of potassium, with the addition of a diluted mineral acid; upon the application of which, the letters change very speedily to a deep blue color, of great beauty and intensity. To prevent the spreading of the color, which, by blotting the parchment, detracts greatly from the legibility, the ferrocyanide should be put on first, and the diluted acid added upon it. The method found to answer best has been to spread the ferrocyanide thin with a feather or a bit of stick cut to a blunt point. Though the ferrocyanide should occasion no sensible change of color, yet the moment the acid comes upon it, every trace of a letter turns at once to a fine blue, which soon acquires its full intensity, and is beyond comparison stronger than the color of the original trace. If, then, the corner of a bit of blotting-paper be carefully and dexterously applied near the letters, so as to imbibe the superfluous liquor, the staining of the parchment may be in a great measure avoided; for it is this superfluous liquor which, absorbing part of the coloring matters from the letters, becomes a dye to whatever it touches. Care must be taken not to bring the blotting-paper in contact with the letters, because the coloring matter is soft whilst wet, and may easily be rubbed off. The acid chiefly employed is the muriatic; but both the sulphuric and nitric succeed very well. They should be so far diluted as not to be liable to corrode the parchment, after which the degree of strength does not seem to be a matter of much nicety.
2. Morid's Process. - The paper or parchment written on is first left for some time in contact with distilled water. It is then placed for 5 seconds in a solution of oxalic acid (1 of acid to 100 of water); next, after washing it, it is put in a vessel containing a solution of gallic acid (10 grs. of acid to 300 of distilled water); and finally washed again and dried. The process should be carried forward with care and promptness, that any accidental discoloration of the paper may be avoided.
-Household Cyclopedia 1881
Posted by: pdaly | September 23, 2006 at 19:16
As to Iran ???
bilmon has a post describing the down side of bush's plan
$200 a barrel oil doesn't help the bush cronies if they can't get any oil to sell
$200 a barrel oil sure helps Iran and Venezuala though
Hugo can supply China and India for the short period that Iran is off-line
I'm not saying that jeff is wrong. I'm just saying that george is a lot stupider than anybody thinks
we may have misoverestimated the presnit
unless george is trying to destroy America
Posted by: freepatriot | September 23, 2006 at 19:25
free
They haven't thought that far (or, my least favorite likely outcome, that Chavez will CUT OFF oil after Iran closes the Straits, giving us a short amount of time to wage our war).
Remember, this crowd only thinks in terms of positive outcomes when it does this stuff.
Posted by: emptywheel | September 23, 2006 at 19:36
Fitz was looking (indeed, according to well-known DOJ guidelines, could only look) at people whom he had good reason to believe received the leak. (This is why all of Maguire's hoardes are nuts when they whine that Woodward was not subpoenaed in the first round, because there was no reason to think Woodward had gotten a leak.)
Well, yes and no. Maguire's "hoardes" are really whining because Fitzgerald didn't investigate Armitage enough- and Armitage wasn't forthcoming enough- for Fitzgerald to know that there was a Woodward situation.
The problem really is that there is no reason to think Armitage might not have leaked to others, and there was no reason to investigate the WH more thoroughly than the known leaker (who only appeared to be forthcoming). Fitzgerald could have found out about Woodward the same way he found out about Miller. That didn't happen.
Posted by: MayBee | September 23, 2006 at 21:11
Can anyone explain the Democrats, the Great Vacume there, is it "asleep at the wheel" all over again re:Iran and re: the elections? Are they as fogged and confused by Rove's dark conjurers as the WaPost journalists?
Posted by: kim | September 23, 2006 at 22:05
I hope polly shows up, because I know she has this
It's likely that Cooper and Russert were subpoenaed on May 21, 2003. NBC definitely was.
It was reported 5/24/04 that a journalist from Time (probably Cooper) and Russert had been subpoenaed.
Miller doesn't show up in the public record as having any contact with Fitzgerald until August 2004.
Posted by: Pollyusa | September 23, 2006 at 23:24
Sorry should be "It's likely that Cooper and Russert were subpoenaed on May 21, 2004. NBC definitely was."
Posted by: Pollyusa | September 23, 2006 at 23:25
pdaly - The fewer classified documents Judge Walton rules "relevant" and admissible for use at trial, the easier the way forward to (and through) trial for Fitzgerald. The more accurately and fairly Judge Walton decides the relevancy issue for classified documents in the weeks ahead, the smaller the opening for a successful appeal by Libby in the future. I don't know if the most accurate and fair ruling would result in admitting just a few classified documents requested by Libby, or a good number of documents, or most documents. This is a major-league balancing act, with political characters in the White House of questionable good faith situated in positions that enable them to potentially interfere with the production of admissible classified documents.
One thing that won't happen is a mid-trial re-emergence of the graymail threat, though, as Jeff worries. The whole issue is being decided now, pre-trial. The Judge will be ruling on every classified document in Libby's (non-public) CIPA Section 5 filing in the weeks ahead. And after he rules, the intelligence community will vet/redact the admissible documents, presumably in good faith, and as far as I can tell the final say-so will go via DCI Negroponte directly to Bush/Cheney at the White House for final review and release (or not) to Fitzgerald [a final release to Fitzgerald is effectively a release for (public) trial]. For purposes of discovery production to Libby, this process - with tremendous effort and assistance provided to Fitzgerald by the CIA on the PDBs - has worked very well and successfully avoided any graymail obstacles to date.
I'm sure Libby has his testimony date notes and PDBs included around the fringes of his Sec. 5 filing somewhere. My assumption is that the PowerPoint presentation is where Libby plans to use the PDB summaries (if cleared) to try to wow the jury with the overwhelming "doomsday aura" and sensitivity of his former position in the White House (although it was a sensitive position where an allegedly lousy, distracted memory was no big deal, under a boss and public office-holder whose duties are largely self-created and self-defined).
Posted by: pow wow | September 24, 2006 at 00:33
Damn, polly, awesome as ever. Now here's the question. Why did Fitzgerald have Pincus on his radar that early? Specifically, had Pincus' source already identified him- or herself to Pincus? Pincus sometimes makes it sound like his discovery that Fitzgerald already knew his source was a latebreaking development in the midst of his effort to quash Fitzgerald's subpoena on him. But it's perfectly possible that Pincus just saw which way the judicial wind was blowing and decided to cooperate in order to avoid setting a precedent (which was the probably wise WaPo strategy on the whole, it seems).
whining because Fitzgerald didn't investigate Armitage enough- and Armitage wasn't forthcoming enough- for Fitzgerald to know that there was a Woodward situation.
Taking up the emptywheel position here, the view around here is that if Armitage had been forthcoming, Rove almost certainly would have gotten indicted.
As for Fitzgerald, it remains unclear what he was supposed to do, and i think there's a misconception in the claim that
Fitzgerald could have found out about Woodward the same way he found out about Miller.
Libby himself testified that he'd told Miller about Plame. Did Fitzgerald go after reporters Libby had talked with and whom Libby did not claim he had told about Plame?
Posted by: Jeff | September 24, 2006 at 00:36
I still have Rove, Hadley, Fleischer, Bartlett, and Miller on my list of suspects for the Pincus source. In that order.
On 7/12/03 the Pincus source wanted to know why Pincus was still writing about Wilson.
According to Hubris
Pincus published a story on 7/13/03 entitled " CIA Got Uranium Reference Cut in Oct" that was pointing directly at Hadley.
Pincus was writing that Hadley was told by Tenet not to use the Niger uranium allegation in the October 2002 speech. I'm sure he asked Hadley for comment and since Pincus doesn't say Hadley had no comment nor does he attribite any quote to Hadley, it's likely Hadley did talk to Pincus and is probably one of the anonymous sources in the Pincus article.
Pincus attributes one quote to Bartlett in the article. Here are the other quotes which likely come from the WH.
I don't think Bartlett would be considered "senior".
Rove and/or Libby could be one of the "Senior Bush aides", it sounds like them. they both like to point to "lower levels of the government."
Posted by: pollyusa | September 24, 2006 at 00:52
MayBee
No, the problem is that you're all looking at this with hindsight, ignoring the lapses Rove and Libby made when they didn't mention earlier conversations (Libby with his July 2 conversation and his June 23 converstaion, Rove with his Cooper conversation) and claiming that Armitage got special treatment. That's utter BS, completely refuted by the facts. Fitz didn't even find out about conversations with people who HAD demonstrably received the leak until over a year into the process.
Want to whine about Fitzgerald, whine about the fact that he didn't discover the Cooper conversation for over a year. Want to speculate wildly that someone told other people, speculate about Rove, who appears to have not only lied about his Cooper conversation, but eliminated the records of it.
Fitzgerald applied the very same limited search techniques with all three of these men. It was limited in time and in the people he would search after. And it impaired his ability to get info from Rove, Libby, and Armitage.
Posted by: emptywheel | September 24, 2006 at 07:20
pow wow
I actually think the biggest graymail threat, right now, may relate to the CIA report on Wilson's trip. That's the one thing CIA didn't declassify when BushCo tried to do it in July 2003, so they may really want to keep it classified. Particularly if it completely mis-represents Wilson's trip (which the two briefers who wrote the first draft of the report might be able to attest to).
Man, polly, you're a gem. Thanks. I'm making note of that May 15 date right now, so I don't have to ask again.
FWIW, I think Pincus could have been identified by phone records. The same-day interview requests suggest that at that time, Fitz had no reason to think one was more or less likely than the other. Which if (say) Ari testified to one conversation, might make sense. But Fitz still must have been suspicious about Pincus' source--he didn't insist on interviewing Phelps and Royce, who had demonstrably gotten the NOC leak. Why, then, did he insist on interviewing Pincus? Because he didn't know if he got the NOC leak or not? Or because Pincus' source hadn't been totally forthcoming, and Libby had apparently tried to hide the Pincus conversation.
FWIW, I do think Bartlett would count as Senior (and this whole process assumes that Ari was senior, too, which would almost certainly mean Bartlett was too). And Bartlett would definitely count as a "senior aide." So Bartlett is a possibility, but remember, he hated that leak. Bartlett's presence in the conversation also attests to his (and therefore, presumably Ari's) accessibility that week, though I'd guess the Bartlett quote was from Milbank (who the article notes was in Africa) or Allen (for whom Bartlett appears to be a regular source).
Though I think Tenet needs to be reconsidered for this leak. Unlikely--why would he out his own NOC? But possible, particularly since he was so pressured that week he was thinking of resigning.
Posted by: emptywheel | September 24, 2006 at 07:53
polly
I stronly suspect that most of those anonymous quotes Pincus was using on July 13 were from Bartlett. He was playing a key PR role in this, and said very similar things at this background press conference on July 18, which was the big released of the NIE, and some of which had to be quickly walked back on July 22 when the CIA struck back. But the danger in making the connection I am is that it may underestimate the extent to which there was a script (talking points) the White House was working off, so it may be perfectly plausible that Rove or whoever would be saying on July 12 things extremely similar to what Bartlett was saying at a press conference on July 18.
I think you mean Martin and not Miller on your list of suspects. I think you've got the main ones, though I have no idea on the order. And it's worth keeping Cheney on the list, I think,if only way way at the bottom.
Posted by: Jeff | September 24, 2006 at 08:17
emptywheel - One quick note: it has not bearing on the larger point, but I'm not convinced that Libby didn't testify to the July 2 conversation, although it is almost certainly the case that if he did testify to it, it wasn't with Miller, since Fitzgerald would presumably have included that date in her subpoena. I still think there's a decent possibility that the July 2 conversation was with Sanger.
Posted by: Jeff | September 24, 2006 at 08:21
EW
Though I think Tenet needs to be reconsidered for this leak.
I think you're refering to the Pincus leak here. Tenet can't be the leaker, Pincus has said his source was in the WH.
Jeff,
You are right, I did mean Martin. BTW I wanted to say I read your comments in this JOM thread on the issue of Plame's status under the IIPA, and I think you did an exceptional job laying out Fitzgerald's position (from his affadavit) on the issue of IIPA compliance in the Plame case.
I was coming back to add more on Bartlett, but TypePad was down. I also think it likely that Millbank interviewed Bartlett in Africa, which would reduce the possibility that Bartlett spoke to Pincus.
This from Hubris on Bartlett
Posted by: pollyusa | September 24, 2006 at 11:18
Oh yeah. Not WH.
Yeah, that was the quote I was thinking of (which also makes Bartlett a top candidate to be 1, IMO). Though it seems like Bartlett is a good source of Allen's (who is also bylined on the article). It's possible Allen got Bartlett, and Milbank's reporting just covered the Bush speech in the middle of the article.
FWIW, though, I think Hadley had as much influence on the SOTU as Bartlett. And he got dragged into the presser where they admitted Tenet had cut off a Niger claim once in the past. So much of this is probably Hadley.
Posted by: emptywheel | September 24, 2006 at 11:28
Regarding "senior"
Unfortunately the press has never published the magic code in place which determines who is considered "senior". Here is one attempt to crack the code from early October 2003. Bartlett makes the list as "senior".
Posted by: Pollyusa | September 24, 2006 at 11:55
Hadley is in the top paragraph on the 7/13/03 article, Pincus would have called him for comment. It's unususal that Pincus doesn't mention Hadley again in the article.. along the lines of Hadley was not available for comment or a quote from Hadley or his office.
All of which makes me think Hadley may be one of the anonymous sources quoted in the article and therefore a major contender in the Pincus source speculation.
Posted by: Pollyusa | September 24, 2006 at 12:18
Regarding Bartlett as 1 in the 1x2x6. Swopa has Bartlett as a top contender on 9/30/03.
In looking through early Swopa posts on Plame I thought this observation was particularly prescient.
Posted by: pollyusa | September 24, 2006 at 13:02
Forgot the link to Swopa 10/8/03
Posted by: pollyusa | September 24, 2006 at 13:03
EW and All, And let's not forget about Bob Woodward's notes and tapes from "Bush at War"...talk about copious evidence.
Woodward is known for detailed notes and his tapes-ask the Nixon boys...same team, different misleader.
Polly said So much of this is probably Hadley. Yes indeed. Don't forget about Hadley's 1.1 million insurance fraud conviction in the 1980's-he is a rather experienced player- as one former fed prosecutor put it " they have committed fraud against the United States"
Posted by: Prissy Patriot | September 24, 2006 at 13:32
polly
Thanks.
It was also that 7-13-03 WaPo article that originally made me put Hadley and Bartlett at the top of the list for Pincus' sources. I do in fact think that Bartlett is the source for the majority of those anonymous quotations; he was leading the charge at that point in publicly trying to get the White House past the 16 words controversy, and was saying very similar things on the record (though again they had their script, so others would be saying the same things). And given the likelihood that Allen or Milbank was talking to Bartlett, that would reduce the likelihood that Bartlett was Pincus' source. Was Hadley the source for the White House's version stated in the first sentence of the second paragraph, or Bartlett? Just as an aside, I love that second paragraph, it's vintage Pincus, as it's not even obvious that it's airing a major dispute, though it is, and it would play out over the course of the following ten days, to the disadvantage of the White House.
I do think there can be no question that Bartlett and Hadley would both count as senior White House officials and senior administration officials. But would Martin?
Posted by: Jeff | September 24, 2006 at 13:46
I think that second paragraph is first Hadley (the single source) then Tenet (the documents underlying the claim). Bartlett wasn't privy to those discussions, and this is precisely the part of the Niger discussion that Hadley had to deal with in the big presser at the end of the month.
There is, of course, the possibility that Rove is in here somewhere. Though I think Hadley is more likely, given the topic (and that Pincus has first billing--I can't see Rove being a big source for Pincus).
I doubt Martin generally counts, particularly since there was so much turnover at that position.
Posted by: emptywheel | September 24, 2006 at 14:06
I think that second paragraph is first Hadley (the single source) then Tenet (the documents underlying the claim). Bartlett wasn't privy to those discussions, and this is precisely the part of the Niger discussion that Hadley had to deal with in the big presser at the end of the month.
In fact, Bartlett was making almost exactly the argument from the first sentence in that second paragraph of the 7-13-03 WaPo article at his big (background) press conference on July 18. For instance:
But what it said in Cincinnati was, over 500 tons of uranium, which is very specific to a specific intelligence report, foreign-based, single-sourced intelligence source. And that's why the CIA raised the question, that said, we don't want to cite specifics here because it's based on a single source. That's why that information was shared with the NSC, and was immediately removed. As we've said all along, any time that that happens, we follow their request.
And that's why -- it's a critical distinction between the two, because as you can see, there's a body of evidence -- and there's even more evidence with the British government, as the Prime Minister said yesterday -- there is a body of evidence talking about Africa. But there's a very specific instance with regards to Niger. And that's the difference that's been outlined for you. And that's why there was not the same type of concerns, in my opinion, that was raised here.
Q But if the information was so flawed that it was prudent to remove it from the Cincinnati speech --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I need to correct you there. I did not say at that time that it was flawed. That was later known by the forged document. It was a single source on a foreign government. And what Director Tenet has said is that in those instances he'd be more comfortable for the President not to cite a single source. It's not because it was flawed, and that's a critical difference. So the reason there was because it was a single source, not because it was flawed.
Again, that doesn't mean it was Bartlett for the WaPo article, since that was just the White House line. But he was leading the public charge on it. My sense is that the White House hoped to turn the corner with the release of the NIE on July 18 and Bartlett's press conference. Trouble was, of course, that the White House included (or had to include thanks to the declassification by the CIA?) all the dissenting bits from INR and others in the release of the NIE, and it seems to have been in (large?) part in response to Bartlett's presser on the 18th that the CIA struck back with the documentation of their intervention before the Cincinnati speech (though to be fair it's possible that speechwriter Gerson genuinely just found the documents faxed from the CIA over that following weekend), leading to the shamefaced press conference of July 22 with Bartlett and Hadley, with Hadley falling on his sword for the sake of Bush and also Rice - who technically speaking was supposedly taking responsibility, only she couldn't do it in person because she happened to be traveling, leading to the widespread perception that it was Hadley who ultimately took final responsibility.
Posted by: Jeff | September 24, 2006 at 14:19
Lemme see if I can close those italics. Sorry.
Posted by: Jeff | September 24, 2006 at 14:20
Check it out...fresh Scooter fodder. "GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO ADMIT EXPERT TESTIMONY"
http://cryptome.org/libby-139.pdf
Posted by: Prissy Patriot | September 24, 2006 at 14:26
Right, but if you look at that July 22 presser, Bartlett says the single source argument comes from Hadley's recollection as he introduces Hadley, then Hadley addresses it at length.
As I said in the briefing on Friday, that the recollection -- and Steve Hadley is here to talk at more length about this -- that his own recollection of the conversation we reported between himself and Director Tenet was focused on the fact of the single sourcing of the 550 tons of uranium from Africa, which was Niger, and that there was a concern about the sourcing, the single sourcing in a speech like this. And that's what I explained then; it's what other administration officials explained.
Not that it matters, at all--I think it's clear that both are quoted heavily in here.
Posted by: emptywheel | September 24, 2006 at 14:38
I found a nice article discussing Gerson's hiring at WaPo. That's a complex news organization, so, likely efficiently compartmentalized; yet, I would wonder how much access in his new post he might have to knowledge or records that might help refine the PPoint visuals.
Miscellany file: Wilson in October to give 3-hour lecture at a college.
In appreciation of NYTSelect's reported $6M revenue after its first year in existence, WaPo has adopted a similar new 60-day free archive policy; this notice appears behind a paywall here.
And at NPR, PBC, the news this week the the Commerce Committee had eliminated Warren Bell from consideration for a board post on PBC, for now.
Posted by: JohnLopresti | September 24, 2006 at 14:54
I didn't know Gerson was now writing for the WaPo. He could be the among the "Officials involved in preparing the speech" in the Pincus article.
I also found something else on Gerson in Hubris.
Why was Gerson looking through his files "Late that previous friday evening"?
Hubris implies that the WH "discovered" the October 5 memo and immediately told the CIA about it. No mention of the Pincus article. I don't buy it.
A more likely explaination of the "set of facts" laid out in Hubris, would have the WH looking for the October 2002 memos, because Pincus had called asking for comment on what would be his 7/13/03 WaPo article.
Posted by: Pollyusa | September 24, 2006 at 19:55
And here is another thing I don't buy.
Hadley said, that at the time of the 1/03 SOTU, he had forgotten about the October 5 & 6 th 2002 memos from the CIA and the personal phone call from Tenet to tell him to get the Niger references out of the 10/02 Cincinnati speech. I don't believe him.
You've got to wonder about the brainpower of the people running this country. Hadley, Rice, Gerson, and the other speechwriters all forgot.
Add Libby to the list since he apparently can't remember that 7 members of the administration told him about Plame.
And Rove, said to have a mind like a steel trap, somehow can't remember that he leaked to Cooper about Plame. Right.
Posted by: pollyusa | September 24, 2006 at 20:33
Thanks for this mention, Polly -- it's a minor point of pride at best, but I do believe I was the first person to suss that out.
Regarding the 7/13/03 WaPo article -- thanks for finding something new to dig into after all this time! I'll note that since Bartlett was with Ari Fleischer on Air Force One on July 12, they're essentially interchangeable for the purposes of my 1x2x6 theory. (There is a scrap of evidence that Pincus's source might specifically have been Fleischer, which Polly might be aware of already.)
Is it really likely that Hadley was a source for the article, since it basically uses him to point the finger without any denial or explanation from his perspective? (Similarly, I doubt that Tenet is a direct source; that's what deputies are for.) It is very interesting, though, that the story was co-written with Mike Allen... would Pincus have told him, either on July 12 or after Novak's column, that he was leaked to about Wilson's wife?
Posted by: Swopa | September 24, 2006 at 20:39
Swopa
Well, yes, according to normal rules of anonymous sourcing, it is likely that Hadley is a source--usually when you see a person named in an article in which he'd be a likely anonymous source, he's an anonymous source. Either there are two Comm people (Bartlett and Rove, perhaps), or Bartlett and Hadley figure centrally in this article (to say nothing of Pincus' beat, which is security, not fluffy people who tell lies--Bartlett, and Rove, wouldn't normally be candidates. This may have been an extraordinary day (so I wouldn't rule out Rove or FLeischer) but it would be exceptional.
Also--if he mentioned it, Allen didn't mention it in 1X2X6, until Pincus told him on 10/12.
Posted by: emptywheel | September 24, 2006 at 20:54
More on Bartlett... as I told EW by email, an extremely amusing possibility is that Bartlett could be both "1" in 1x2x6 and one of the "2" -- in other words, he told Mike Allen that he and Fleischer made the calls, but had himself artfully described as a third party to divert suspicion.
There are some plausibility issues, but it does seem to fit the explicit evidence (including all of the variations in Allen's attributions, and the quotes in the WaPo stories). And it would be entertaining as hell if it turned out to be true.
Posted by: Swopa | September 24, 2006 at 20:58
Allen didn't mention it in 1X2X6, until Pincus told him on 10/12.
Actually, I believe Pincus is one of the "sources" cited in the 1x2x6 article ("Sources familiar with the conversations said the leakers were seeking to undercut Wilson's credibility.")
Posted by: Swopa | September 24, 2006 at 21:02
pow wow - thanks for the analysis. I think Libby puts himself in a tight spot with a possible Powerpoint presentation. If he wows the crowd (I mean jury) with too good a presentation he undermines his 'I don't remember the details' claim. Hoping Fitz's well constructed indictment that "Libby lied" keeps Libby's graymail options to a minimum.
emptywheel-I was curious by your suggestion that the nondeclassified CIA report of Wilson's trip may be the document most sought by Libby.
I attempted to figure out why for myself (used Technorati Blog search to revisit TNH archives). Not sure I succeeded, but I was reminded that Wilson never wrote a report (verbal report during debrief only) but the CIA did.
Looking at Ari's July 12, 2003 press gaggle and comparing it to CIA Director Tenet's July 11, 2003 mea culpa, I realized that Ari (and not Tenet) gets this detail wrong. Ari implies the WH has read his report. Tenet's mea culpa refers to Wilson's trip information with the vague words "this report" but never to "Wilson's report." Or is this nit picky reason off the mark?
And this blog in 2005 already discussed that Ari definitely attempted during this 7/12/03 gaggle to conflate Wilson's mention of former Niger officials brushing off Iraqi overtures to talk with the erroneous impression that Wilson was the Niger/Iraq go-between to discuss uranium sales. Wondering if Fitzgerald subpoenaed for this reason the transcript of this press gaggle (in addition to the reason mentioned that the WH had removed the transcript from its website). Ari's 'accidental' conflation as an example of "Get Wilson."
As further proof, one can see Ari misses a talking point designed to belittle Wilson but he backs up to hit it: "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" ...
Then I read Tenet's Mea Culpa from the previous day. I know Tenet's mea culpa has reportedly had numerous hands involved in its making but after rereading Tenet's official 7/11/03 mea culpa I was struck by the idea Tenet was parsing his words and letting us know CIA was NOT responsible:
"From what we know now, Agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct -- i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa."
Note the parsing of Tenet’s words 'in the end.' (He certainly didn't write 'from the beginning'!). CIA merely agreed “the British government report said” is a factually correct statement without weighing in on the correctness of the dubious British intelligence. Even in his mea culpa, Tenet is telling us CIA did NOT put the 16 words ("The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.") into the SOTU speech nor was the CIA was agreeing with the British conclusion.
I have to admit, however, it is hard to get that parsing from the SOTU text which purposely implies the ‘seeking’ was a fact and not merely a claim in a British report. Obviously Bush subsequently awarded Tenet a Medal of Honor, so either I'm mistaken or Bush was pleased enough with the performance. Tenet's statement covered (all?) the points the WH wished to make to distance themselves from Wilson's claims:
"Because this report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the President, Vice-President or other senior Administration officials. We also had to consider that the former Nigerien officials knew that what they were saying would reach the U.S. government and that this might have influenced what they said." -Tenet's mea culpa 7/11/03
My summary of WH talking points in Tenet's mea culpa: Wilson's information was not helpful. Even so, we the WH did not receive a briefing. And even though we the WH didn’t receive a briefing, Wilson's contacts cannot be trusted to be telling the truth.
The WH seems positively allergic to all things Wilson and it tries to put as much distance between Wilson and itself. What I STILL cannot figure out, however, is why the WH would care now (unless to get PLAME) since VP Cheney merely waved off ElBaradei blunt announcement March 7, 2003 (just 12 days before the invasion of Iraq) that the Niger documents purportedly showing Iraq seeking yellow cake were crude forgeries.
What else do Plame and Wilson know? Or more accurately, what else do BUSH/CHENEY think they know?
Posted by: pdaly | September 24, 2006 at 21:10
polly
That's a great point. I had always suspected Gerson got a phone call from someone at the CIA basically telling him to remember what he had in his files. But your alternative is a great explanation. I still think, however, that the CIA was striking back; and that's how it's presented in Suskind's new book.
That book also makes very clear what was already clear: Hadley must have been simply lying when he said he didn't remember about the Cincinnati speech when it came time to coordinate for the SOTU in January 2003. Gerson too. It's harder to say with Rice.
Posted by: Jeff | September 24, 2006 at 21:13
"according to normal rules of anonymous sourcing, it is likely that Hadley is a source--usually when you see a person named in an article in which he'd be a likely anonymous source, he's an anonymous source"
Several years ago I heard Ben Bradlee say on a C-SPAN show with Woodward that Deep Throat could be identified this way.
Posted by: kim | September 24, 2006 at 21:58
extremely amusing possibility is that Bartlett could be both "1" in 1x2x6 and one of the "2"
I went there for a couple of minutes earlier today, but my head exploded.
they're essentially interchangeable for the purposes of my 1x2x6 theory
I agree, they're proabably essentailly interchangeable for most purposes.
Swopa,
I think this is probably the reference you were thinking of when you said you thought you had seen somewhere that Rove was not the Pincus source.
It reads to me that Jehl is following this logic; He was told Rove and Libby did not "volunteer" the leak to reporters and Pincus's source did therefore neither Rove or Libby can be the Pincus source. The problem is his sources about Rove and Libby's actions were not telling the truth.
Here is another observation on Pincus. I could be wrong, but I think the first public reference to Pincus as the post reporter who received the leak as reported in the 10/12/03 WaPO is not until September 2004.
The 8/10/04 WaPo only has the reason Pincus is being supoenaed as "Pincus co-wrote a story last October that said an administration official gave similar information to a Post reporter on July 12". They never say Pincus was the reporter who received the leak.
The first account with details about Pincus's conversation with his source is Waas's 4/22/05 article. Waas interviewed Pincus.
Posted by: pollyusa | September 24, 2006 at 22:13
Kim,
several years ago I heard Ben Bradlee say on a C-SPAN show with Woodward
I saw that program. Bradlee was talking about a course he teaches on reading a news article. He did say most reporters will try to name the anonymous source in somewhere in the article with an on the record quote.
Posted by: pollyusa | September 24, 2006 at 22:16
Here is another quote on the 1x2x6 Allen wrote the next day
and this from the original Allen / Priest article
So Allen was told who the leakers were and the 1 of the 1x2x6 did not name the reporters.
Posted by: pollyusa | September 24, 2006 at 22:27
... usually when you see a person named in an article in which he'd be a likely anonymous source, he's an anonymous source.
Um, isn't this circular reasoning? Especially if your reason for thinking he's a likely anonymous source is that he was named in the article?
I agree, they're probably essentailly interchangeable for most purposes.
Ain't that the truth. :) BTW, the 7/29/05 NYT story isn't the one I was thinking of, but you're in the right neighborhood.
Posted by: Swopa | September 24, 2006 at 22:46
Fineman backs up the WaPO 1x2x6 story here with his own sources. He seems to be emphasizing that the leakers were "inside the White House leaking, inside the White House complex".
Oh and check out Matthews, of all people, knocking down the idea that Rove could be one of the leakers.
Posted by: pollyusa | September 24, 2006 at 22:58
Jeff,
I still think, however, that the CIA was striking back; and that's how it's presented in Suskind's new book.
I also think the CIA was striking back and I think the first shot was the leak to Pincus about Tenet telling Hadley to back off the Niger claims.
It the book worth buying?
Posted by: pollyusa | September 24, 2006 at 23:02
It the book worth buying?
Without any doubt. It's an excellent, intelligent and humane book. The central thesis is overblown, but in the right neighborhood: there is no one percent doctrine - according to if there's a one percent chance of a high impact event, it has to be treated as a certainty - but there does look to be something like a Cheney doctrine, which says that low probability high impact events feed the idea that what matters is our action, not analysis. The opportunities for wishful thinking and rationalized bad, unthoughtful choices are thereby multipled, as we've seen. There's lots of news, including on the prewar intel, the Niger story and the 16 words.
That Fineman thing, which I've seen you quote before, is really interesting. I wonder if his source, like Hubris' and seemingly like the LAT's, was Adam Levine.
As for Rove and Pincus, it sort of depends on when the NYT had spoken with the people close to Rove, because I don't think they would have asserted that about Rove if he were Pincus' source after Pincus had testified. That is, Pincus' source evidently went forward to Fitzgerald, identified him- or herself and must have acknowledged that s/he brought up Plame unsolicited. If Rove had done this, I don't think his people would be flat-out denying it. (I know about Cooper, but the point is that at that point Cooper had not testified, and Rove had been fuzzy at best about it.) Plus, when would Rove have acknowledged being Pincus' source? Unless there is an appearance or interview with Fitzgerald we don't know about, Rove testified twice in February 2004 and then not again until October 2004, after Pincus' deposition. So I lean against Rove on these grounds still.
I saw that program.
Too funny.
Posted by: Jeff | September 24, 2006 at 23:45
I guess my big problem with Rove as the source for Pincus is the obvious one -- why go through all the trouble to hide leaking to Cooper, if he admitted leaking to Pincus the next day?
Posted by: Swopa | September 24, 2006 at 23:55
Swopa
It may be circular reasoning (I disagree, but I can see why someone might think so), but it's also a well-known journalistic practice. And it often holds up with what we discover when we learn the sources that go into stories. The explanation given is usually two-fold--first, journalists just don't get that many sources for a story. If they get a source on the record or clarify his role in something, then they will often get OTR information that is pertinent to the same story. So it's natural to assume that a person named or quoted in a story may also have provided OTR information in the same story. But (some) journalists often do it for just the purpose we're using it--so those who know how to read anonymous stories will know who their sources are. Now, both Rove (who is known to launder his OTR information through a third source) and Libby (who always refused to be named anywhere in a story, with the rare exception of Cooper's, which is an example that proves this point perfectly--Libby was quoted and OTR) are exceptions to this. So if they're in the Pincus story, we wouldn't expect them to be named. And Pincus often, though not always, hides his sources better than that, so this may not be the case on this story (except for the Bartlett stuff, bc I think Allen often does do this). Nevertheless, it's a rule often used to decipher things like this.
polly
Matthews had a bit of incentive to distract from Rove. He probably knew his "fair game" comment was going to come up (though he had told Wilson he could share the info), so he either wouldn't want attention paid to him, Matthews or was trying to avoid being subpoenaed.
Posted by: emptywheel | September 25, 2006 at 08:54
Pincus' source evidently went forward to Fitzgerald, identified him- or herself and must have acknowledged that s/he brought up Plame unsolicited.
Do we know this? We know the source said he was the source, but do we know how much the source admitted to? When Pincus uses source it's sometimes amorphous. So I've never been sure how much Pincus is claiming the source admitted to.
Posted by: emptywheel | September 25, 2006 at 08:57
So it's natural to assume that a person named or quoted in a story may also have provided OTR information in the same story.
If the person is quoted, sure. But just because he or she is named? That seems unjustified.
Hadley is named in the context of an accusation by Tenet's allies, and his role is never again mentioned in the story. If he was indeed a source, one would expect to see information from his perspective (e.g., how he reacted to Tenet's argument, why he didn't remember it in January). Since that information isn't there, it seems more likely that Pincus/Allen weren't able to get in touch with Hadley.
Posted by: Swopa | September 25, 2006 at 10:23
Do we know this?
Perhaps not. I suppose I was thinking about the hypothesis of Rove as Pincus' source, and I think the point holds for Rove: if Rove were Pincus' source, I really doubt that Rove testified that he did not volunteer the information to Pincus, for the simple reason that if he had, Rove would not have escaped indictment. So I don't think Rove would have had people close to him telling reporters (at least after his own and Pincus' testimony) that he had not volunteered information to reporters. Assuming, then, that the 7/29/05 NYT story was not basing itself on what those close to Rove had told reporters almost a year previously but rather on more recent statements, I think it makes it unlikely that Rove was Pincus' source. (The fact that what those close to Rove were telling reporters contradicts the facts of the Rove-Cooper conversation as we know them isn't inconsistent with my argument here, since Rove's consistent story - at the time and seemingly even up to the present - is that he has no recollection of having volunteered the Plame information to Cooper. So of course that's what those close to him would be saying to reporters even given the Cooper conversation.)
Posted by: Jeff | September 25, 2006 at 11:35
Swopa
Well, yeah, frequently, yes. Justified or not, that's the way things work.
But look at the paragraph in question:
According to Bartlett and Hadley, the "single source" comes from Hadley but, as Jeff rightly points out, Bartlett was the first to go public with this detail (though it wasn't until Hadley went public that Bartlett made the connection). Now, assuming Pincus' grammar faithfully separates the information from one and another source (which may not be the case), then the White House source is the one who names Hadley, not the CIA source. That sentence is there because the White House is trying to refute the underlying problems with the intell allegation from CIA.
Now, Pincus may not have been so tidy with his grammar, but if he was and Bartlett is the source, then the article 1) starts with a revelation from, we presume, the second-named byline on the article, Allen, and 2) has Bartlett outing Hadley as the one involved in the negotiations.
Now look at this claim which, again, is something that Hadley is known to have first-hand knowledge of; Bartlett has never been reported to have been involved in the vetting of the security information for the SOTU.
Again, it may be Bartlett passing on the information using the royal we, or Gerson (named later in the article) speaking firsthand, or it may be Hadley reporting directly. It's worth noting, of course, that Fitzgerald lists Hadley as the person driving the NIE declassification effort that week. Resorting back to the NIE as justification for the SOTU was something Hadley was actively involved in that week.
Finally, this sentence must come from two WH sources--this is clearly not a Tenet quote.
One of the sources is clearly Bartlett, no question about it (reinforced by the fact that he said something similar to Dickerson that week). But that leaves another WH source making that comment, too. Maybe it's someone like Levine, or Gerson. But if the article relied entirely on communications staffers in the WH--not exactly Pincus' beat--it would raise the question why this article gave Pincus primary billing, when all but one claim would then have come from, we presume, Allen's reporting. Or maybe Bartlett is Pincus' source. Then the question becomes, why did Allen share the byline at all?
I'm not saying I know that Hadley is a source. But I am saying that Hadley is the known ultimate source for one of these assertions, and a very likely source for another. That, plus the fact that Pincus receives top billing on this article, suggests Hadley ought to be considered a likely source for the article. Not definite. But certainly not one that can be ruled out.
Posted by: emptywheel | September 25, 2006 at 12:14
Bartlett has never been reported to have been involved in the vetting of the security information for the SOTU.
But note, Bartlett was basically in charge of coordinating the SOTU. From his July 18 press conference:
Q Were you the senior staffer involved in the coordination for the preparation of the speech? In other words, were you in charge of the speech operation here?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The speech operation does fall under my purview.
I am also almost positive I've seen Bartlett (or one of the communications folks) making the very same claim about following the NIE, hoping there was more to it, and backing off from specifics when none was forthcoming, though I can't find it at the moment.
Posted by: Jeff | September 25, 2006 at 13:26
That Bartlett claim is clear parsing. He pointedly avoids answering "yes" to the question! That, to me, is a fairly good indication that Bartlett was unwilling to claim first-hand involvement in the SOTU, not proof he was. He was asked a very specific yes or no question, and he chose not to answer it.
Yes, SOTU generally falls under "Communications." But every detailed description of the process describes Gerson taking the lead on writing with a few other speechwriters, and Hadley at NSC overseeing the technical content, with Joseph engaging in the negotiations on the Niger point. Karen Hughes is supposed to have participated, as is Libby. I, at least, have never seen a description of Bartlett participating in it directly, and he doesn't say he was in response to that question.
Posted by: emptywheel | September 25, 2006 at 13:57
Tenet argued personally to White House officials, including deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley, that the allegation should not be used because it came from only a single source, according to one senior official. [senior official representing the White House version]
I believe you're misinterpreting this. Just because the WH clung to "single source" as a defense several days later doesn't mean they were the first ones to tell the press -- I think the entire second paragraph comes from CIA sources, with Hadley named as the highest-ranking person to whom Tenet communicated. The purpose of the last sentence is to say that from the CIA's point of view, the "single source" argument was a polite way of conveying their lack of confidence in the uranium intelligence.
In other words, the article presents the two sentences as complementary pieces of a single accusation, rather than a contradiction. As evidence of this, look at the third paragraph, which simply refers to "The new disclosure..." rather than any dispute over what Tenet actually said.
Faced with this accusation, the WH tried to cling to the narrow facts of the first sentence and deny the implications of the second. If the sentence naming Hadley had in fact been a WH response to the CIA version, more of the WH spin about the "critical difference" between the versions ("It's not because it was flawed, and that's a critical difference.") would have been represented in the article.
Posted by: Swopa | September 25, 2006 at 14:00
The follow-up to that q+a from Bartlett seems to indicate he had a direct role in the SOTU, though not in writing the speech and also not necessarily at the expense of Hadley's role. He also seems to indicate more particularly that he was involved in the group discussion that changed the formulation for the African uranium claim:
Q And what role, if any, did Karen Hughes play in this? We know that she was involved --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: She plays an important role in speechwriting process. She continues to be, thankfully, an advisor to the President, and contributes on speeches and in other formats, and she contributed heavily to the State of the Union address. So she was very much involved, as well.
Q And who -- one more question. Who decided that you were going to attribute these various bullet points? Was that you or was that a collective staff decision?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, that's what I was saying. We don't make those decisions; that the speechwriters are given these facts -- we don't sit there and say, use this, don't use that.
Q You changed the wording from, we believe, to attribution. Who said, change it?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That was a group discussion. I'm not going to go into naming specific people, but it was a group discussion.
Q Were you involved in that?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes.
For what it's worth, I think the Pincus article's second paragraph is presenting to alternative accounts of the reasons for Tenet's intervention with Hadley over the Cincinnati speech, and the new disclosure referred to in the third paragraph is simply the fact of that intervention, whatever the rationale for it. So I think the first sentence (the single source explanation) was coming from the White House. It could've been Hadley or Bartlett; and I think most of the rest of the White House stuff in the article can plausibly be attributed to Bartlett or Fleischer, but Hadley could still have been a source.
Posted by: Jeff | September 25, 2006 at 14:20
Swopa
Let's just say we interpret it differently, then. There are several reasons I disagree with your interpretation. First, if both sources were CIA sources, I believe Pincus would name them as intelligence sources. Further, if the White House were not given any response on such an inflammatory allegation, I think Pincus would have said, "the White House was not available for comment." (Which would of course be bogus, since Bartlett is on the record in the story.) As polly has argued, the absence of the standard "no comment" is strong suggestion that someone involved commented. Pincus is too professional a journalist--and too well connected--not to get an inside source on this. And finally, if the White House were going to retreat to the "One source" defense on July 22, they wouldn't do it by reinforcing the point made here--that Hadley was the one involved in the negotiation.
IMO, those are dramatically different statements (see also Jeff's point above about how classically Pincus this is--he does this all the time, report a bombshell disagreement as if it were a three point stock market rise). One shields the White House from their greatest fear--to admit the forgeries were known in October. The other attacks them squarely on that charge. (One other possibility, for Tom Maguire's basis, is that this is the judgment of a third entity, perhaps someone like Richard Armitage, who was fed up with the propaganda ... not that I believe it.)
And the single "disclosure" is a clear reference to the news that Tenet got the Niger allegation removed--the lede of the story and the headline of the article. Not why.
Again, I'm not arguing that I know Hadley was a source. I'm saying we can't rule him out. There's a claim made in this story that Hadley takes clear ownership of 10 days later. That, by itself, should mean you don't rule Hadley out.
Posted by: emptywheel | September 25, 2006 at 14:32
Jeff
Agree--also notes he switches from speaking of "speechwriters and fact-checkers" in the part related to using the NIE to "we" in the part where they attribute this to a group decision.
Though one more point--remember there is a radically different version of that attribution. Foley said the first version said Niger and included amounts (a claim Condi also accidentally supported). And, in his negotiation with Joseph Foley told him to attribute it to the Brits. Further, there's the argument about whether he conceded to the Brits reference out of concerns for sources and methods, quoting from classified documents, or because he knew the intell was shitty. So it's possible the "we changed the attribution" was just a way to pretend the WH, and not CIA (as Foley testified), decided to change the attribution.
Posted by: emptywheel | September 25, 2006 at 14:38
emptywheel
Yes, it's hard to know how to fit the Foley-Joseph negotiation (whatever the reason behind it) in chronologically, and hence substantively, with Barlett's description of the attribution process. I have pretty much given up on trying to decide whether Foley really did confuse the SOTU with the Cincinnati speech or whether Foley just stopped insisting on his version, knowing he was fighting a losing battle against the White House, though I think I actually incline toward the former.
Of course, what I really want to hear from Foley about is whether the NIC memo dismissing the Niger story with whose author he took issue was the January 2003 memo by the NIO for Africa, or some other early (but possibly post-SOTU) 2003 memo inexplicably authored by Fulton Armstrong, the NIO for Latin America, as he testified he recalled it at his interview during the Bolton hearings.
But somehow, I doubt we're going to get much in the way of answers on either issue.
Posted by: Jeff | September 25, 2006 at 15:00
EW, of course Pincus/Allen got a WH response for the article, but the "single source" line isn't exclusively WH spin -- it's the fact of what Tenet communicated to Hadley, which could have been conveyed to the WaPo by Hadley, by Tenet's allies... or by an independent source, per the Hubris excerpt Polly posted above:
Note that a later line in the WaPo story includes a source who know's what is in Mike Gerson's head ("A senior administration official said Bush's chief speechwriter, Michael J. Gerson, does not remember who wrote the line that has wound up causing the White House so much grief."). If Gerson shared the memo with Pincus/Allen, they don't need a comment from Hadley -- they've got his involvement confirmed in black and white.
The WH spin that you're attributing to Hadley isn't really that Tenet used the single-source rationale; it's that there's a "critical difference" between a single-source objection and saying the intelligence was flawed. That spin doesn't show up in the WaPo article.
Posted by: Swopa | September 25, 2006 at 15:06
Jeff
Is there a source besides Bartlett, when he gets confused in that briefing, that alleges Foley was involved in the Fall discussion? SSCI says it was Associate Deputy Director for Intelligence for Strategic Programs, not Foley (Foley is described elsewhere in SSCI as Director of WINPAC).
If it were just Foley who had asserted the Niger 500 tons claim, I would question it. But Condi does too. And her "Cincinatti excuse"--that the claim was adjusted to take out that information--is impossible (this comes from a WaPo story, maybe even Pincus). The entire Niger claim was removed from Cincinnati. Therefore, it's impossible that the speech in which the amount and place were rmeoved but the claim retained is Cincinnati.
Swopa
Did you notice I brought up Gerson first, several posts up? Yes, I'm aware Gerson is a possible source for this.
But my point about why Hadley is also a possible source (in addition to about 20 other reasons, including Pincus' beat) is that a known Hadley comment is in there, and Hadley is named. That may indicate Pincus talked to Hadley, it may not.
By your logic, though, you shouldn't assume Gerson is a possible source, because he's not quoted directly. If Gerson is a possible source (I think he is--I was the one who raised his name), then by the same logic, so is Hadley, based on precisely the same evidence (named in the article, known to be involved in this process). Your logic on Hadley (which I disagree with) rules out Gerson.
The WH spin that you're attributing to Hadley isn't really that Tenet used the single-source rationale; it's that there's a "critical difference" between a single-source objection and saying the intelligence was flawed. That spin doesn't show up in the WaPo article.
I may be misunderstanding you here, because I think you're ascribing a claim to me I never made. I'm not saying Hadley is saying there's a critical difference. I'm saying Hadley is saying (or is reported as saying, if Bartlett/Gerson is the source) that Tenet's substantive disagreement had to do with single source issues, not with the fact that the CIA already knew the intelligence was bogus.
I'm the one who is saying it's a critical difference, because, well, it is (and is consistent with the rest of the way WH tried to hide their use of the Niger claims). Look at this claim:
I'm not sure how you interpret that. To me, it says The CIA said it objected to the Cincinnati reference because it knew the SISMI cables were wrong. That's tantamount to saying CIA already knew the Niger claim was bogus, possibly even knew it was based on forgeries (though that's not the CIA's public position at that point). Now, obviously, that was precisely the allegation the WH was trying to refute. If the CIA came out publicly and said that, then it wouldn't matter who Joe Wilson was married to--it would be proven that the WH had used the claim 4 months after CIA told them it was bogus. So offering something else as a possibility is a big difference. Once you've decided the claim is bogus, it doesn't matter whether you've got one or three or twelve sources--the substance of your disagreement would be the bogosity, not the number of sources.
When the WH was trying to refute the Foley story on early drafts, they didn't call attention to the difference in the stories, they just insisted on Josephs story over and over again. By the same logic, I doubt they'd call attention to the difference in stories (which you say they would do), because it'd call attention to those differences, give the other view credence. I think they'd do what they do--just present their own version, period. That's not to say I know Hadley is the one who did so. It's to say there are reasons to believe it's possible.
Posted by: emptywheel | September 25, 2006 at 15:58
Look at this claim:
I'm not sure how you interpret that. To me, it says The CIA said it objected to the Cincinnati reference because it knew the SISMI cables were wrong.
The line says the CIA had doubts about the accuracy of the SISMI cables. It doesn't say that they expressed those doubts. That's the key difference between this sentence and the one before it, and why the WH seized on that difference in its spin a few days later.
Posted by: Swopa | September 25, 2006 at 16:53
Oh, I see your reading now. I think I still disagree with it. But at least I see what you're saying.
I still think Hadley wasn't going to take credit for anything that he didn't do--particularly since the single source theory is not what the SSCI says (that is, that's not, in fact, what the CIA thought). Here's the SSCI version of the story:
Tenet testified between the Pincus story and the first Bartlett briefing that he said "the reporting was weak" (that is, that the report was bogus and that he had said so to Hadley). None of the CIA's version here mentions the single source theory--it all has to do with more substantive disagreements (which Hadley and/or Gerson would have known when they talked to Pincus, having just re-read the note from DDCI). Hadley and/or Gerson were specifically trying to avoid admitting they had been told those things--things like "the Brits have exaggerated this issue." The single source issue was a convenient alterante story, one which doesn't appear to have been the truth, and one which covers over the fact that they HAD been informed this intell was BS.
Posted by: emptywheel | September 25, 2006 at 17:15
One more point.
The ADDI note specifically addresses more than one source--the Congo (flooded mine) one, as well as the Niger one. Obviously, that's not a direct reference to the 500 ton Niger allegation. But the ADDI's note clearly assumes her readers know of more than one source for Africa allegations.
Posted by: emptywheel | September 25, 2006 at 17:24
... "the reporting was weak" (that is, that the report was bogus and that he had said so to Hadley)
Or, he told Hadley that "the reporting was weak" because it was based on a single source. :-)
I'll bet you that the single-source rationale is all that was mentioned in the memo that Gerson had (& which I suspect was shared with Pincus/Allen). So that was treated in the article as an established fact.
Intentionally or not, the follow-up memo wasn't shared with Pincus/Allen, so the "CIA also had doubts about the intel" was sourced separately without explicitly saying it was communicated to the WH.
Posted by: Swopa | September 25, 2006 at 17:33