1. Anonymous says:

    Oh, one more bit. Grossman was able to respond to Libby, preliminarily, within two days. Does that mean he had already reviewed the circumstances surrounding the trip?

  2. Anonymous says:

    â€Okay, now I’ve got myself into a full-blown obsess, and I’ll never get around to billing hours this weekend.â€

    We like it when you get yourself into full-blown obsess and we share your problem of having fewer billable hours lately. LOL

  3. Anonymous says:

    I can’t follow you all the way down the rabbit hole, but I think that:

    There was a CIA report in Feb or March 2002, and it got back at least to Libby, and they have lied about this.

    The CIA report did not mention Wilson by name, and it included the views of CIA people who gave more credence to the Niger info than Wilson. That’s why Libby wasn’t terribly excited about it in March 2002–with his blinkers on, he read it as a confirmation of his views.

    He asked Stste for info about the envoy in 2003 because he knew Grossman could get it for him via Bolton/Fleitz/Wurmser. He may have asked the CIA too, and they were just slow in getting back to him,. It happens a lot in government, believe me. But he knew State could tell him. Besides, formally asking Grossman gave cover for calls from Bolton’s office with the info.

    He finally got the faxed stuff from CIA on June 9, which would have included not only the CIA report, but Wilson’s back-up materials, maybe something from other agencies too. Note this did not mention Wilosn by name, let alone his wife, or a smoking authorizatuion form of some sort, which must have been a disappointment to Libby.

    Para 7 says that 2 days later (June 11) Libby finally got to someone at CIA who told him (or confirmed) Wilson’s name and the fact that his wife woronked at CIA, which Libby had presumably also found out from State.

    After the New Republic article, Libby (and Rove) wanted to release the original (equivocal) CIA report to show that Wilson hadn’t said what Kristoff’s article said (which was true–Wilson couldn’t have seen the actual forgeries in Feb 2002, because the Italians still hadn’t given them over) and the CIA was less definitive than Kristoff’s caricature. Except that CIA wouldn’t agree, and by then, when everyone knew they were crude forgeries, it just made everyone seem inept. Besides, the original CIA report didn’t have Wilson’s name or anything about his wife.

    But also by then (after the Wilson op-ed) the need to distance himself (and the VP) from the request that sent Wilson to Niger must have been fierce, so he called in Rove and the rest is history.

    Now that we know there was gossip at state and calls from Bolton’s office to Libby, I think the INR memo is much less important to the actual leak.

  4. Anonymous says:

    A fair summary, Mimikatz. Not much I disagree with there.

    Btw, I’m guessing (with some reason to believe it’s a good guess) that the CIA Officer was Alan Foley, then head of WINPAC. Who in his Bolton testimony appears to be either senile or a willful liar. And has, at other times, been a witness that said what the Neocons wanted said.

    The SSCI doesn’t say one way or another, btw, what names were used on Plame’s memo to Deputy Chief of CPD explaining his qualifications for the trip. Several possibilities. That she didn’t use Wilson’s name (that it was being kept compartmentalized, as it later was on the report from his trip), in which case it might have been included in the fax from CIA. It’s also unclear whether that memo would have had the Valerie P, Valerie W, or no name at all associated with it.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Foley does seem like a hack. There was a lot of difference of opinion at CIA, as well as differences in character and skills, I’d say.

    On your Timmy theory, don’t miss Laura Rozen’s story about that.

  6. Anonymous says:

    I’m not a lawyer or expert on the US gov’t so faorgive my naivete. One thing that struck me is that Libby is the only one identified by name as a leaker, member of WHIG and the OVP (talk about bad things happening in three’s.) Of course Fitzgerald may know that someone else who was in WHIG and OVP was the one who talked to Novak, but we don’t. So is Fitzgerald looking primarily at WHIG or the OVP as the locus of the campaign against Wilson? I ask because the possibility that Rove is negotiating with Fitzgerald seems to suggest that Fitzgerald is concerned with the obstruction of the leak and the cover up of the leak, while the references to Air Force 2 and the OVP suggests a degree of interest in Cheney’s role in the plot against Wilson (as opposed to the cover up).

  7. Anonymous says:

    great analysis. i’ve always felt it unlikely cheney would request info about what could be a homerun nugget of info regarding saddam and uranium then not follow up. i think they were disappointed with wilson and started preparing to discredit him–if neccesary–the moment they learned what he didn’t find in africa.

    it’s hard to not assume the worst about this administration. in all things they do, their utter corruption is the only thing that logically explains their actions…

    great thanks for all your efforts…

  8. Anonymous says:


    I actually think Fitz’ primary focus is on OVP and those people in Get Wilson meetings, my last post notwithstanding. OVP was the focus of the attack on Wilson, whatever Rove’s involvement. Which makes OVP closer to the central question here, who outed Plame.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Btw, I’m guessing (with some reason to believe it’s a good guess) that the CIA Officer was Alan Foley, then head of WINPAC.

    Most interesting. That would give some explanation for why Judy Miller thought (incorrectly, it turns out) that Plame worked for WINPAC.

  10. Anonymous says:


    I’m still not sure we do know Judy was incorrect with the WINPAC reference. I’ve never found a detailed description of the organization beyond Foley’s, which makes it sound like an umbrella organization rather than an exclusive assignment. Without such a description, there are more credible sources who say she WAS WINPAC than the GOPUSA sources who say she wasn’t.

    We know, definitively, that she was in the Counter-Proliferation group of DO. What we don’t know is if she ALSO had an affiliation with WINPAC.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Perhaps Libby went to the State department because he knew the guy who went to Niger was a former Ambassador, i.e., a State Department employee.

  12. Anonymous says:


    I’ve been thinking about that one all day. I suppose if he wanted to get employment information, he would do that.

    But he knew who they had asked for more information because he was probably the one who did the asking. CIA. So why go to State?