« There's No National Security Without A Stable Afghanistan | Main | Just once, the truth? »

September 10, 2006


I agree that it certainly seems that Novak had a source who was "more primary" than Armitage both in the temporal and the importance senses. And it all really revolves around Cheney, because Cheney was incensed that (1) (he thought) Wilson was saying that he (Cheney) had sent him to Niger, (2) Wilson definitely was saying that the Niger info was bogus and (3) Wilson was saying that the Admin knew this and went on touting the Niger intel anyway, especially in the State of the Union, and most importantly, went to war anyway.

So Cheney and his henchmen were the ones who really tried to get this story going, and Rove saw a chance to protect his boss and gave it another shove toward myriad reporters, including Novak. Cheney seems to have a dark view of people and would no doubt be well aware of Armitage's weaknesses, since he had been fighting him for years by 2003. So Cheney to Woodward makes sense.

I'm afraid Fitz isn't really going to take Cheney down, but Cheney seems bent on destroying any credibility he may once have had all by himself.

I hope all roads lead to Cheney. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if Pincus told Woodward. Didn't Woodward claim to have told Pincus something confidential on the subject (at a later date) that Pincus claimed not to have heard?

i don't have enough grasp of details to help you with this hypothesis, but as far as the story (as opposed to the details) goes,

this makes some sense to me. it would explain something that bothers me which is why armitage would do any favors for the white house at all, considering that the boss he was (alleged to be) extremely loyal to (powell) was bypassed on foreign policy, forced to publicly lie to the united nations, and repeatedly crapped on by the white house.

as for woodward being an active player on the white house team, i would not put it past him. whether intentionally or not, he certainly kept his own involvement to himself until just before fitzgerald was about to indict last oct.

maybe (in addition to election season) fitzgerald has been withholding his fire until he gets some of this sorted out.

Has Woodward testified before Fitz?

Me dumb today

Leopold has an article over at truthout that makes some startling allegations as well. He says that Novak spoke to Rove about Plame on July 8. There were published reports that Rove spoke to Novak Jjuly 8, but not specifically about
PLame. How does Leopold know this? If he is correct, it would blow the lid off the whole investigation. The whole thing would be revealed as a massive charade by the pricipals involved.

The CIA denied Plame was an operations officer after she admitted she was one in 'Vanity Fair.' This was later confirmed by Larry Johnson and Jim Warscowki(sp). They went to the farm togther.

The Directorate of Operations has a problem. If she was a CIA operations officer, then it is probable she arranged the trips to use Wilson. If she was'nt then she probably could'nt arrange the trips. It looks like she was a operations officer, so the Directorate now has a problem in the denial.

Plame was probably just a 'date.' She may have moved up a few years after the Aimes thing and moved on to Iraq.

Pincus doesn't have to be the one who told Woodward that Joe Wilson was the anonymous ambassador in his article. Pincus might have told his higher-ups at the WaPo, one of whom passed it along to Woodward. (Heck, maybe Woodward showed up at the office for once and was one of the higher-ups.)

Here's another relevant detail, for the later patsy setup.

Novak called Adam Levine ...


"What do you make of the Wilson thing?"

Levine replied, "I'm not working on that. You've got to talk to Scooter or Karl." (262)

What are the chances that Novak, having learned Libby was one of the two people dealing with "the Wilson thing," wouldn't have tried to call him?

Unless, of course, he had already spoken to him.


I guess that is totally plausible.

OT, two items -

* Noticed this morning that WHIG alumni Cheney and Rice both scapegoat "slam-dunk" Tenet. Such coordination without the behind-the-back pass from Libby to Judy. Impressive. But I wonder what got stuck in their craw? :-)

* Was Cheney serious, after reminding Timmeh of the EO, that he couldn't say whether he has the authority to release the name of a covert operative? I mean he either does or he doesn't, regardless of the Plame case.

Tenet? Woodward apparently had access to most everyone, nearly whenever he wished.

I'm still skeptical of the idea that Armitage was a patsy, but I'm warming to the idea that Libby may have had direct contact with Novak. In any case, given how emphatic Armitage was about not telling Novak the two key items - "Valerie Plame" and "operative" (or under cover, covert, whatever) - and given Novak's completely implausible explanation for those two items, as well as other things we know (such as Miller's own knowledge of the P/Flame name), I'm convinced that Fitzgerald has not gotten to Novak's source(s) for those items.

As a side note, I'm not so sure about the sourcing. In any case, I think those quotations toward the end of the passage on Woodward's testimony come from public sources; at least "casual and offhand" is in Woodward's statement revealing that he'd testified.

I also have to say, I don't quite see how you're getting the idea that Woodward already knew about Wilson from the Hubris passage, though it's completely possible that he did.

It's worth taking a look at this LAT story, which is the best I've seen so far post-Isikoff's confirmation of Armitage's role. One interesting side note on this is that I'm pretty sure Dan French, the lawyer who gives them the key quotation, was Adam Levine's lawyer, though I can't retrieve a source on that at the moment. French has been a source for the LAT before, and I suspect Levine has been too, through French, since the LAT had some of the stuff on Libby and Rove's White House shenanigans that Hubris now has from Levine.


I missed (if that's the word) MTP, but if I'm understanding your description, that's really extraordinary. The way I read it, that may well be Cheney utterly hedging his bets: his final defense if it is revealed that he ordered Libby to blow Plame's cover, I've always thought, would be that he has the authority to declassify that information, so by definition he couldn't violate a crime in that regard (and authorization=declassification, per Addington, remember). But if he were to postively acknowledge on MTP that he believes he has that authority, that's as much as to acknowledge he's given the issue consideration, which I don't imagine he wants to be caught having done.

Of course, the few remaining Cheneyites can say, well, he's just never considered that question, since it's a non-issue.

Here's the WaPo article identifying French as Levine's attorney. I'm skeptical all the prosecutors were interested in when they contacted Levine again in October 2005 was whether Rove did or did not mention Cooper in Rove's July 11 conversation with Levine. But anyway.

Jeff, I was going from memory. What he actually said is here:

MR. RUSSERT: There was a story in the National Journal that Cheney authorized Libby to leak confidential information. Can you confirm or deny that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I have the authority as vice president under executive order issued by the president to classify and declassify information. And everything I’ve done is consistent with those authorities.

MR. RUSSERT: Could you declassify Valerie Plame’s status as an operative?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I’ve said all I’m going to say on the subject, Tim.

He appears to be exercising an abundance of caution.

Speaking of street corners (thanks to ew and the other new book that's out about Rove which describes his Abramoff meeting locations)...

IF we had Armitage's state department private appointment calendar for the week of July 7th (as the AP almost certainly does, in my opinion), we could start to pin down whether Robert Novak was likely to have been strolling down the street near the White House and State Department after his July 8th Armitage appointment, or instead perhaps strolling down the street to or from his street corner appointment with Karl Rove, arranged via a quick exchange of phone calls earlier in the day... [Because Novak was not a part of the CNN Crossfire broadcast on July 8th, per the transcript, and would have had no reason to be strolling down the street toward that destination at about 4 p.m. that afternoon.]

My question about the "patsy" theory: would a patsy (seemingly) go out of his way to excuse the behavior of those who (knowingly or otherwise) suckered him? Armitage wants us all to believe, honestly and truly and with 100% conviction just as he claims he does, that Bob Novak and Bob Woodward both asked their Wilson questions of Armitage in an "offhand manner" - and, in Novak's case, had never heard a whisper of the news before that moment when Armitage conveyed it to him "inadvertently" and casually, and furthermore had heard no significant details about Mrs. Wilson from anyone else except from Armitage (first) and then Rove. Why are you asserting this opinion of yours so strenuously, Mr. Richard (No Conspiracy To See Here, "Inadvertently" Clueless) Armitage?

Also, if, as Armitage asserts, Novak's very last question during their unrecorded conversation was about why the CIA sent Wilson to Niger, and the CIA wife bombshell from Armitage came in reply, surely a follow-up question or questions immediately ensued in return about this heard-for-the-first-time revelation from the astonished, skeptical and not "a thumb-sucking columnist" (as he declared on NBC's MTP) Bob Novak...? [Interesting that Vice President Cheney derided the "thumb-sucker" article in the New York Times about Cheney's allegedly waning influence when Russert asked him about it on NBC's MTP today.]

Does the Page 262 Hubris account of Novak's call to Adam Levine give a time period or date for the call? Especially in relation to Novak's already-allegedly-arranged appointment with Armitage as of late June sometime.

Finally, a slight correction to Jeff's news about the delay in the start of the Libby trial: Ted Wells asked the Judge to compromise on a 1/22 start (instead of 2/12 as he'd first asked), but Judge Walton split the difference another way, and scheduled the start of the Libby trial for January 16, 2007 instead of January 8, 2007, per this 9/8/06 Order:

"ORDERED that jury selection shall begin on January 16, 2007, with the trial commencing immediately thereafter." - Judge Walton

I think old Bob stepped in it.I have followed this case closely. Old Bob was pontiffacting on a lot of shows and knocking Fitz's investtigation with a laugh.Much ado about nothing. When he was called and involved I don't remember him appearing on anyone show.I dropped an email to the Wash. Post asking for a sighting on old Bob and never got an answer.I doubt he has no flip remarks now.


Oooo. I didn't know he talked about declassifying the identity of a covert operative. That is delicious. Hope it's in the clip C&L has up.


Maybe I'm just misreading the passage, but I read the chronology here:

(Walter Pincus's story on the Niger mission had just been published, and Woodward had learned the unnamed envoy was Wilson.)

As setting up two prior conditions to their June 13 conversation. 1) Pincus story had been published, and 2) Woodward had learned Wilson's identity. Though I do think Swopa raises a very possible scenario.

Also, I agree that those last quotes are public quotes. But is there a "everyone knows" that admits that's a Woodward conversation? It's a distinct possibility with the Jeffress statement (though I don't think they use court transcripts in their book). But with the Powell subpoena request, it's not really that clear.

The page 262 Levine comment is implied to take place on July 8, and it appears before the (afternoon) Armitage conversation description. Though Levine describes Karl talking about Wilson that morning. So it may be that that chronology is:

Rove mentions Wilson to Levine (no mention of how Levine learned Novak should talk to Libby)
Novak talks to Levine
Novak talks to Armitage

Dead horse again!

If Novak and Rove did speak about Plame July 8, they are not going to get away with another conveniently forgotten conversation. If they are caught in another lie, the whole conspiracy becomes obvious. They have all been playing the public and the media like an instrument, playing us for fools.

When Dick Cheney was asked if he was a source for Woodward, someone--not Cheney--issued a non-denial denial.

The vice president did not talk with Woodward on the day in question, did not provide the information that's been reported in Woodward's notes and has not had any conversations over the past several weeks about any release for allowing Woodward to testify, said the person, speaking on condition of anonymity.

This is silly. Woodward would have needed a release from Cheney in order to testify? If Woodward was a witness to a crime--which is what this incident is alleged to have been--he would have been obligated to testify before the grand jury, if he had been subpoenaed to do so, whether or not he was a journalist. "Journalists" do not have special dispensation to avoid testifying as to matters to which they are direct witnesses.


I read the transcript, and saw that it's not as I was thinking. It's still pretty amazing, though. It's nice to see not only that Russert is reading Waas, but that even in the wake of the Armitage confirmation, it's not just a few of us in the Plameosphere who are thinking there are still questions to be addressed - and one question regarding Cheney's conduct in particular that remains worth raising and deserves an answer. It's Tim Russert, who may well have his own reasons for displeasure with OVP of course.

pow wow - I'm not seeing the correction. That's what I said, I think.


The "everyone knows" might well be from some source. My guess is they got a confirmation from someone after seeing that court transcript.

I bet lots of people in the White House knew Libby and Rove were the go-to guys on Wilson.

I'm really curious whether Hubris' comment that someone said Rove "probably" learned of Plame from Libby is independent reporting, or just based on some of the past stories, most of which are ambiguous as to whether they're talking pre-Novak or post-, as we know that part of Rove's story was that he thought he got added information from Libby on July 11 (or 10?).

Apologies, Jeff! My mistake, completely. I had January 22nd in my mind somehow as the date you'd told us the trial will start, and didn't doublecheck your entry until now. You're absolutely right - you told us January 16th, and 1/16 it is.

Here's a little more context concerning Mr. Armitage, from the 10 p.m. July 14, 2003 airing of "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren" on Fox TV [the same day Novak's CIA Agent-outing story was published, and the interview that threw Andrea Mitchell into a fury at Armitage for ignoring her/NBC's requests to speak with him while meanwhile appearing on Fox]:

VAN SUSTEREN: What do you make of the controversy that's been going on the last couple days about the statement that the president had in his State of the Union that there -- that Saddam was getting some uranium from Africa, and that that made it into the State of the Union, and apparently, the intelligence community in this country, up until that point, said it was not true?

ARMITAGE: I think Secretary Powell said the other day it's overblown, overdrawn and overwrought. There's quite a frenzy about it, and it's a pretty small item. We didn't go to war because of some report about uranium in Niger. I think at least political Washington is quite shocked that someone like George Tenet, our excellent director of the Central Intelligence Agency, would stand up and actually accept responsibility for this. And they don't know how to deal with it, and so they're gumming it to death.

VAN SUSTEREN: How does a mistake like that happen? Is it the bureaucracy?

ARMITAGE: I think that's exactly -- it's a mistake. It's not good. It was a bad thing, but it was a mistake. And it just happened. Someone took their eye off the ball. George Tenet accepted responsibility, and it's a really stand-up thing to do.

Doesn't it strain credulity to accept that Armitage was just some innocent blabbermouth instead of a compliant tool who had to tapdance rather quickly to avoid an indictment and a possible jail sentence? If the latter, he has every incentive to be the repentant blabbermouth who unwittingly aided and abetted a political intrigue that resulted in the first outing of an operative by her own country's political and administrative leadership.

Emptywheel, thanks for constantly clearing the fogs that threaten to bury this story in the political mists of never-ever land.

Has anybody ever seen the Executive Order which allows Cheney to classify and declassify information on the fly? I'd like to know the exact wording and the date.

Cheney has really been the President with Bush as figurehead, but how often has he claimed authorization after the fact for powers he just assumed as expedient?

Issuing and backdating an EO (as CYA) would cause problems in the numbering sequence. Could an already issued (but extremely highly classified) EO be rewritten to include this power?

Or could Bush have issued a "blanket authority" soon after taking office? I'm thinking of one of the medieval kings heading off to crusade soon after marriage and issuing a letter to his court to obey the word of the Queen as if it were his own during his absence. At least he made the handoff public... and he had a country to return to.


hauk -

Reference to the presumed EO are here.

Or, for a direct link to the text, here.

Here's my theory with no facts to support it, just plain old supposition. I think that when Bush fell choking on his pretzel, he was actually drunk. The whole thing did not fit reality as doctors testified and my own hospital experience tells me. Docs' said that when you choke on a pretzel you go down slowly. You don't go unconcious and then hit the floor. But when you have too much to drink (and I know because i live with an alcoholic...now in recovery) you can just hit the floor and your face. Funny but my husband had an injury much like the pres after a drunken fall. At any rate, where was the secret service?? So, to choke to unconciousness would take several minutes of eratic and panicked arm waving. I think Bushie was drunk. An alcoholic and that is why they gave the V.P that kind of power. I think that he hasn't always been able to function fully. There's no facts, except for what I know as a therapist who works with addicts. People don't just will themselves sober because they found God. It has happened but most folks relapse several times. Also it was his family that asked him to quit drinking...he has never publicly admitted a problem (for good reason, yes), but if the family was asking it means it was BAD. Families can live in denial for a long time.

That's my theory.

There is good development in this thread. It was interesting to take a moment to read some of the background links. Reviewing ew's May 30, 2006 section of the case summary, the one with the grid and timeline, I noticed the Isikoff-Hosenball Newsweek link ew provided there to that October 8, 2003 article ostensibly refuting 1x2x6; but I+H's writing is less precise than a clear disproof, and that was written when much was unknown about the extent of involvement of lots of other people, though the writers parsed Novak's grammar ably. The Woolsey expert opinion of IIPA I+H included was interesting.

And I visited the redshift fas replica of the amendement to the classify-declassify executive order 13292 Bush approved March 25, 2003 adding the VP, whereas its linked parent EO 12958 by Clinton April 17, 1995 had President alone, not VP; however, the amended EO, to my reading, omitted the Insta part, as in InstaDeclassify, though I have to give it time for study.

To counter the whitewashing of the manipulation of the Iraq/Niger uranium claim, and other pre-war intelligence, that Richard Armitage seems prepared to settle for per that 7/14/2003 Fox interview excerpt, here are some very important statements from his former state department colleagues, made this June, about the level of competence and expertise in our federal government's intelligence community, on this 9/11 anniversary:

"...In doing so, the Vice President was using portions of the intelligence documents in ways that the documents themselves did not seem to support, or at least not strongly. Others in the administration were participating in this distortion. The most startling example was the President's State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, which included the now infamous statement about uranium and Niger. The Secretary of State and I, and a host of others in the administration, knew that Iraq's alleged attempt to acquire uranium from Niger, as that attempt was then reported, was highly improbable.

First, the intelligence community is far too big. It is a huge and sclerotic bureaucracy, composed of more than a dozen different entities, ranging from the CIA to the intelligence branches/specialties in the armed forces. It spends over $40 billion dollars per year and that spending has few oversight mechanisms that work... ...

Second, the intelligence community lacks real competition. There are turf battles, to be sure, but in terms of having to fight it out in fierce debates as to what, for example, are the intentions of a particular country's leadership, or even what that country's true capabilities are, there is not much going on. Instead, the DCI is frequently able to impose a sort of groupthink consensus on the entire intelligence community, with any dissent no matter how significant turned into footnotes or annotations in some obscure appendix or annex. I do not see the creation of ONDI as correcting this failing, simply moving it up an echelon.

Language proficiency, cultural and societal knowledge, a real ability to get inside the heads of a country's leadership elite, all are sorely lacking throughout the intelligence community, with the possible exception of State's INR.

The intelligence community as a whole too often applies the military mindset to its analysis, i.e., it performs worst-case analysis rather than most likely case analysis. Perhaps this tendency is understandable when one realizes that more than eighty percent of the intelligence budget is managed by the Department of Defense. There is simply no question that DOD dominates the intelligence business. I am a soldier of three decades experience and am predisposed to DOD, but I still know that such dominance is debilitating if what is required is strategic intelligence for national decision makers... ...

Professionals within the intelligence community are moved around far too much, usually in order to accommodate the threat or crisis of the day... ...

Finally and most significantly in my view, intelligence analysts need to be left alone to do their jobs without inordinate political pressure to produce what is desired rather than what is most likely the truth... ...No matter what analysts may say to the contrary to official commissions and oversight committees, I can tell you from my experience of having been in the arena that it is naive to believe that a President, a Vice President, or a Cabinet principal who visits a particular part of the bureaucracy repeatedly is not bringing his or her influence to bear... ...Such efforts undermine the real intelligence community and do not serve the interests of the American people." - Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson (Ret'd.), June 26, 2006 [Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Department of State]

And at the same hearing, but from the INR Bureau's perspective, to Members of Congress:

"...While I'm on your case, I should touch a bit on your penchant for certainty. It's a useful concept in our criminal justice system, but has no place in analytical judgements. In intelligence there is only uncertainty. Be very wary of anyone who tells you otherwise. You shouldn't be looking for certainty in our answers anyway. We were certain about the aluminum tubes. And, nothing could convince us that "Curveball" wasn't on the level. As you know, in both cases we were flat wrong.

What you need to look for are the evidence and logic behind our claims. All our answers will be guesses - we don't have any other choice. But all guesses are not the same. Sometimes they are based merely on a hunch. In other cases, we may have only bits and pieces of evidence. Even when we have considerable information on a topic, the analyst must invariably rely heavily on inference. There is no connecting of dots in intelligence. There are never enough dots, and any linkages between them are highly ambiguous.

In other words, make us show our work... ...I guarantee you that if you [Congress] demand it we can do better, much better..." - Carl Ford, Jr., June 26, 2006 [Former Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research, U.S. Department of State]


Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage on January 30, 2003:

"..Iraq possesses some 25,000 liters of anthrax. That is, for the record, more than 5 million teaspoons of anthrax. And we have no idea where any of it is. Saddam Hussein has never accounted for one grain of it.

This is a matter of terrible urgency. ...

This situation has just about reached a boiling point, and the entire world is watching. Rightfully so. ...

There are those who say we still need to build our case, and that Secretary Powell will have to present convincing evidence when he appears before the Security Council on February 5th. But this is not about the United States, and what we can prove. This is about Saddam Hussein and what he must prove. He is the one who owes us evidence. ...

There are those who say we need more time for inspections to "work." To this I respond that it is not a matter of how much time to give inspectors but of how much time we have already given Iraq. ...

...Will the world acquiesce and stand down if Iraq refuses to disarm? Will we allow our fear and reluctance to fight drive us into confusion and inaction, even in the face of such a threat? And what will this mean for the future..."

[Excerpted from testimony delivered to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee]

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage on April 30, 2003:

"...We will continue to hunt down the terrorists who have used Iraq as a safe-haven for far too many years and of course, we will continue to seek out Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

I want to be clear here today that I am extraordinarily confident that Iraq had those capabilities. Rarely have the intelligence agencies of this country and our allies been so unified on any subject. ... But I'd like to suggest to you a more frightening reality, and that is that it is far too easy to hide and to move these capabilities, and far too difficult to find them, especially in the face of a determined and practiced effort to conceal them. And the regime of Saddam Hussein was nothing if not practiced... ...

Now, whether it is the mobile labs or weapons disguised as industry, we are finding now that the capabilities were even more dispersed and disguised than we had thought... ... It is going to take us months to find this material, but find it we will. ...

...And that's why I asked Admiral Gaffney to have this opportunity to come to this university today... ...That's why I asked to come here today...

[Excerpted from a speech to Fort McNair's National Defense University]


Jon - your comment really says it all. Richard Armitage was as gung-ho for this illegal invasion as Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, and George Bush - Armitage's vile, calculated, warmongering words speak for themselves.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage on August 13, 2003:

"...Now, I don’t want to leave this podium without addressing something that has aroused a great deal of concern here and in my country, and that is the fact that we have not yet found enough evidence of Saddam Hussein’s programs to develop weapons of mass destruction. We will. I have absolute confidence about that. Indeed, the fact that it has taken us this long to find the evidence is a chilling reminder that these programs are far too easy to move, and I believe far too easy to hide.

Consider, for example, that UNSCOM was only able to confirm the existence of a biological warfare program that Saddam Hussein claimed not to have after years of inspections, because a high level defector walked in and gave them the evidence. Dr David Kay was part of the original UN inspection team, and today he is back in Iraq working for us, continuing the search. He’s making solid progress in finding the evidence of Saddam Hussein’s WMD program. But he’s also finding that deception and concealment were an extensive and embedded part of the program perfected over the course of two decades. It’s going to take some time to find not just the weapons, but the equipment and the people and the materials that made up this program...

...I believe there will be a great continuity in our cause, forged out of the bones of our grandfathers and the blood of our children as we move forward into this millennium. Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you very, very much."

[Excerpts from an Asia Society keynote address he delivered in Sydney, Australia]


Finally, just two weeks before confessing his role in the outing of Mrs. Wilson to the DOJ, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage in a September 18, 2003 interview with CNN's Paula Zahn:

"Earlier, I spoke with Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. I began by noting that President Bush said yesterday that there was no evidence Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. I asked him, why the turnaround?


RICHARD ARMITAGE, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE: I've seen no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. And I never saw the president say that. He did go on to say, however, that there has been involvement of Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

ZAHN: In a "Washington Post" poll, there was an indication that some 70 percent of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. Do you think they got there on their own or do you think it was the result of the message they got from the administration?

ARMITAGE: I think they probably got there because we do believe that Iraq was a terrorist state and we had been victims of a heinous terrorist event. And then they drew the conclusion on their own.

ZAHN: Now no connection to 9/11, no weapons of mass destruction. A lot of people believe the justifications for war are falling by the wayside.

ARMITAGE: There are about 24 million people in Iraq who don't quite agree with that. They're free from fear of a midnight knock on the door and the executions which befell so many of their countrymen.

On the question of weapons of mass destruction, in the not too distant future, David Kay will come back and issue an interim report to the Congress. And I think there will be satisfaction that Saddam Hussein did have a program and he was intent on a program of weapons of mass destruction.

And on the question of terrorism itself, there's no question that this was a terrorist state and did have a tie to al Qaeda, particularly through this fellow Zarqawi.


ZAHN: You also mentioned a little bit earlier on that you were anxiously awaiting the report of David Kay. Where are these weapons of mass destruction? And are you fearful that they're hidden and that represents yet another threat to American soldiers?

ARMITAGE: As we now have liberated the country, I'm much less fearful than I was. I don't know where the weapons are.

We'll let Mr. Kay make his interim report and he can fill us all in. I think the question that you raise about the ability of Saddam Hussein to conceal weapons is a valid one. He had 12 years to practice this. And we found that he was even able to conceal MiG aircraft underground. So hiding weapons wouldn't be a great feat for him..."



Is this story about Armitage and the post 9/11 message he supposedly delivered to Pakistan the latest attempt to smear him?

The narrative of the story, delivered on a Friday, makes Armitage look like a loose cannon and the story will be the inflamatory topic to eat up time on the Sunday talk shows. Even The News Hour threw an Armitage mugshot picture on the screen for their story tonight.

I guess I'll wait to see if any NeoCon hacks attempt to milk the Armitage story this weekend...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad