Excellent analysis. I think most of the Armitage theorists overlook the institutional dynamics of the â€mushroom cloud†battle within the administration. The most important split was between true believers and careerists. You just have to look at what Larry Wilkerson is saying now to understand the depth of the breach. The State Department tends toward careerism top to bottom (Bolton and his cronies were notable exceptions). This WH is much more â€true believer†than either the Clinton or Bush I White Houses. The CIA is fairly careerist and by July 2003 many mid-level employees were starting to think that Tenet had sold them out. Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson were clearly in the careerist camp. I don’t think there is any way Armitage would leak her status to anybody including Woodward.

Another possible involvement of Armitage would be Pincus. Pincus testified that he didn’t write a article about â€Wilson’s wife†because he thought the story was bullshit. Now, of course, we know that Pincus was talking to Wilson, and Wilson would have told Pincus the story was ridiculous — but its also possible that Pincus would give Armitage a call.

….and BTW, I still think that Woodward’s leaker is Hadley, and Hadley certainly fits the bill for Novak’s leaker (not a â€partisan gunslingerâ€, and if you want someone with a motive to discredit Joe Wilson’s story AFTER July 6, well, Wilson focussed on the 16 words in the SOTU, and Hadley was the guy who made sure that those words were in that speech— and was getting heat for them being there.

Where, btw, is the email that Rove would have sent Hadley regarding his conversation with Novak? Doesn’t it seem odd to you that he would send Hadley an email about â€not talking the bait†from Cooper, unless there had been some discussion of Rove â€taking the bait†from Novak already?

William

Well-stated. Wilkerson is a pretty good indication of how bad things got.

umzuzu

It’s close, I just have to write an ending.

p luk

I thought hard about Pincus, but I actually think he supports the Hadley theory much better than this Armitage theory. Here’s what Pincus said about his source:

On July 12, 2003, an administration official, who was talking to me confidentially about a matter involving alleged Iraqi nuclear activities, veered off the precise matter we were discussing and told me that the White House had not paid attention to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s CIA-sponsored February 2002 trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction.

I didn’t write about that information at that time because I did not believe it true that she had arranged his Niger trip.

[snip]

I wrote my October story because I did not think the person who spoke to me was committing a criminal act, but only practicing damage control by trying to get me to stop writing about Wilson.

[snip]

It turned out that my source, whom I still cannot identify publicly, had in fact disclosed to the prosecutor that he was my source, and he talked to the prosecutor about our conversation.

Whoever Pincus’ source is, he wanted to STOP Pincus from his line of reporting, which was to question the credibility of the Niger claims. It doesn’t strike me that Armitage would be much interested in damage control over the Niger story. And I’d doubt he’d parrot the boondoggle line.

Hadley, on the other hand, would have a great incentive to stop Pincus’ reporting.

But that suggests Hadley (if he is Pincus’ source) was being more forthcoming than Libby and Novak in 2004, admitting this conversation, at least. Does that mean he also revealed he was Novak’s source? Even if he was the IIPA leaker to Novak?

And if he was forthcoming abotu the Novak source, why not about the Woodward source?

EW…

I wasn’t thinking about Armitage as Pincus’s original source, but as someone Pincus would have called subsequently that lead Pincus to say â€I did not believe it true that she had arranged his Niger trip.â€

This suggests that Pincus did think that â€she†was working for the CIA, but was not responsible for arranging the trip.

In other words, in deny the â€arrangement†story, Armitage may have inadvertently confirmed the fact that Plame was CIA.

(this is pure speculation — I just think its another angle to consider when thinking about potential â€armitage†involvement in the story.)

p luk-
where’s your GUT?

Hadley might have told Fitz about Woodward but might have said the conversation happened after Novak’s column. So when Woodward rang X and told him about having the date of their conversation wrong, Hadley might have called Fitz then.
There is another way of looking at this though. Hannah and Wurmser are the only other people seemingly being threatened with indictment. That gives Hannah, Wurmser, Hadley, Rove, and Libby. So if Hannah and Wurmser are threatened they must be threatened about something he did. This is likely to be either leaking, perjury, or obstruction.
So if we have a missing source and Hannah and Wurmer being threatened then one or both are likely the missing source for Novak. And if Novak is right then one of them is X.
If Ari, Armitage, etc were provably involved then it is likely they would be known to be in trouble with Fitz.
Woodward said he received 3 waivers to testify about Plame. So that sounds like one leaker and 2 sources confirming it. Or it might be 3 leakers rang him, which argues against the idea they were coordinating their calls. Assume that Rove and Libby would have mentioned Woodward earlier so as not to get in even more trouble. That would leave Hadley, Wurmser, and Hannah as Woodward’s sources for the waiver with one or more being X.

more wapo absurdity.

if â€I’m confident the president knows who the source is, I’d be amazed if he doesn’t. So I say, don’t bug me. Don’t bug Bob Woodward. Bug the president as to whether he should reveal who the source is†constitutes the extent of novak’s â€suggestion†that he and woodward shared the same source, then someone should immediately test carol leonnig (and her editors) for basic english comprehension. posthaste.

next, whether armitage is woodward’s source or not, this is our last comment on armitage for the simple, obvious reason that such speculation does serve the ends of sadistic administration hardliners.

to wit, if armitage is woodward’s source: 1) malice is not required if innocently discussing plame’s employment with someone already bound by mutual confidentiality; 2) direct or even indirect access to classified documentation is not required to hear or overhear information concerning plame’s employment; 3) there is no â€betrayal†of his â€side†if citing plame’s employment to illustrate a suspicion that the â€other†side may be planning to â€get wilsonâ€; 4) woodward would be more likely to twice request a release of confidentiality from someone he no longer needed than some he still needs — e.g., after â€plan of attack,†â€bush at war,†followed by powell’s resignation, woodward was done with armitage (and many others), though armitage (or others) may have still covet confidentiality; however, with books-in-progress, woodward would never be â€done†with a prized goose that still lays golden eggs, i.e., mother rove, 24k white house access, unless and until fitz turned karl into pâté.

we’d agree it would help to know the exact nature of the â€pledge†from which woodward twice requested his release. a â€casual†conversation with a source in which plame was casually mentioned does not, to us, sound like the *basis* for woodward’s pledge; suggesting instead, a confidentiality agreement that predates the event of plame’s disclosure in july 2003.

fwiw, we’ve no idea how much woodward’s source really matters unless it’s someone within the white house connected to a broader â€conspiracy†of intentional leakers. hadley could be important; armitage would not. rove? merry fitzmas!

Tom Maguire, the most respectable blogosphere purveyor of the Armitage theory…

Damn, now that’s insulting. I feel like I just lost a beauty contest to a hippopotamus.

No offense Swopa. But you, to my knowledge, have never even tried to come up with a motive, you’re still working on the â€oops†theory. Which, as I point out, isn’t really credible, given that State already knew Wilson was working their side. At least TM has recognized his theory was falling flat without some attempt to explain why this is credible.

Your quote â€But in fact, the White House had already shown an interest in Wilson; Grossman was first asked about the trip in May, and he briefed at the White House (probably to some NSC staffers or WHIG) on this on June 11 or 12–obviously not in response to an article published June 12.â€

It seems likely that their interest was raised following Nicholas Kristof’s article of May 6, 2003 NYT. Strange to hear so little about this important public announcement of trouble with the Niger cover story.

I do somewhat disagree with the logic that says Grossman briefed the WH June 11 or 12 obviously not in response to a June 12 Pincus article. Actually, the WH could have been well aware this article was coming out, and wanted to stay a half step ahead of the news.

One more question about the Armitage speculation. If he’s the leaker, why would Armitage not release Woodward from confidentiality and, then, not deny he’s the leaker? It seems to me that Woodward’s source believes there’s value in not admitting publicly that he (or she) is the leaker. If the source thinks they’ll never be indicted or named as an unindicted co-conspirator, the source is correct. If the source fears indictment or being identified in a future indictment of someone else, the only advantage to not ’fessing up now is a short-term political gain.

I’ve wondered that myself, William. For the record, I think Armitage would arguably fit into your second category–that he knows he won’t be indicted but doesn’t want to antagonize Fitz by denying he is Woodward’s source.

But I’ve not really looked into the denial because I think there are so many reasons not to worry about it. THere are Hadley’s non-denial denial, Cheney’s denial issued by someone who seems closer to Woodward than Cheney, and Laura Rozen’s best source (who I suspect would be Waas) who says Woodward’s source DID deny being his source.

TM has an ideological reason why Armitage would be a great leaker. So his effort to make the facts fit the theory has been heroic.

Hmm. Dare I wonder if anyone has an ideological reason to believe All Things Evil of Rove and Libby?

On the Woodward-Armitage connection – your view is that Armitage would not leak a Wilson basher to Woodward because State and CIA were allies of convenience.

But Armitage was speaking to history, or at least Woodward’s future book, not an article that would run next week. And, per Woodward, â€I testified that the reference seemed to me to be casual and offhand, and that it did not appear to me to be either classified or sensitive.â€

I could see Armitage wanting the record to be clear that, on balance, the CIA messed up horribly on the Niger investigation while State were geniuses.

Sending someone’s spouse because there are no obvious experts in-house falls under the heading of â€Not Quite The A-Teamâ€. And, as is noted in the SSCI, the INR was skeptical of the whole trip anyway, figuring it would duplicate the two other recent trips there and be inconclusive.

As to the notion that Armitage may not have seen the INR memo, that is refuted (or made irrelevant) by your very cogent point that the whole topic had been kicked around for a year.

Finally, by mid-June Cheney and Tenet were in the know – wouldn’t Armitage want to be up to speed as well?

Not addressed – Len Downie, Woodward’s editor, said the leak came from a big contributor to Woodward’s book. Armitage is not the only fit, obviously, but he is a good one.

On the Novak-Armitage connection – Novak was also against the war, and not a friend of the neocons.

However, check Novak’s archives (easy for me to say, I have Rush’s pharmacist) – Novak L-U-V-S Armitage, and sends him lots of valentines – I found roughly nine name mentions of Armitage by Novak from Jan 1, 2001 to July 1, 2003, all favorable (except the ones that were wildly favorable).

For contrast, Hadley gets zero mentions.

My theory (to which I am far from wedded) – Armitage would have no problem engaging in a bit of CIA bashing with old friends, of which criticism of the Wilson trip would be a part. The motive would not be to bash Wilson (although some people have a partisan motive for insisting that is the only possible motive for a Plame leak) but to point out the absurdity of the Wilson trip.

Both Novak and Woodward say the Plame leak was a casual part of a broader conversation – there may not have been a plan.

I do have a problem with Armitage being the source for both Novak and Woodward, but one is fine.

Oh, Cooper’s mystery source – although he hinted around like Secret Agent Man with Tim Russert, I think his source was good old Bill Harlow of the CIA press office (or one of Bill’s colleagues). If Novak can call the CIA, why can’t TIME?

That would explain the absence of any court tussle over the disclosure of the source.

OK, I can quit any time. But one more:

Novak, it appears, was told Plame was an operative and was given her maiden name.

Appearances may deceive – CIA sources were using the word â€operative†to describe the people who originated the Wilson trip, if we can believe our good friend Andrea Mitchell (July 8, 2003):

MITCHELL: Well, people at the CIA say that it’s not going to be George Tenet; and, in fact, that high-level people at the CIA did not really know that it was false, never even looked at Joe Wilson’s verbal report or notes from that report, didn’t even know that it was he who had made this report, because he was sent over by some of the covert operatives in the CIA at a very low level, not, in fact, tasked by the vice president.

Here is Novak’s *FIRST* paragraph from the fateful column. One might think he was using a trancript of Mitchell:

WASHINGTON — The CIA’s decision to send retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson to Africa in February 2002 to investigate possible Iraqi purchases of uranium was made routinely at a low level without Director George Tenet’s knowledge. Remarkably, this produced a political firestorm that has not yet subsided.

Maybe Novak got the same CIA leak about â€covert operatives†instigating the Wilson trip.

Anyway, the â€outing†paragraph is a jumble of sources, as you know – Novak may have learned from Armitage/Rove that the wife was involved in sending him, from the CIA that it was operatives who sent him and concluded she was an operative. A syllogism from Novak.

TM

Or let me put this another way, since we’re trading accusaions of partisanship.

I don’t think you’re adequately accounting for how opposed State was to OVP. Looked at from one perspective, you could say State’s awareness that Wilson was going to come forward with these claims supports the notion–advanced by Rove and Libby–that they just had to do all they could to defend the President’s policies. I honestly think that argument is defensible (although I’d still say it’s wrong, and dangerous for the country). But the cutthroat battle between State and OVP was long-standing … and Wilson was a longstanding member of State.

On a new front – set against the suggestion that we can overlook these charges about Armitage as a typical neocon diversion is the fact that Isikoff in Newsweek and the NY Times pointed to Armitage. How far does the neocon grip extend?!?

Secondly, I continue to dispute the notion that iron message discipline would have kept Armitage away from this, especially with Woodward.

First, he could easily present the Wilson and wife connection as an example of sloppy practice by the CIA, rather than suggest Wilson is not competent or qualified.

Second, it could not have been a secret that the INR had never been backers of the Wilson trip.

SO why couldn’t he say, â€Look, the CIA was schizo on the Iraq-uranium-Niger question – half of them were kissing up to Cheney, half were trying to do a job with limited resources (mention Wilson here, or not). They put together a trip that was bound to be inconclusive, and it was.

Meanwhile, our guys at INR had it all buttoned down, but the CIA couldn’t even get our dissent into the National Intelligence Estimate in the right section.â€

Bash the WH, bash the CIA, boost State – why not? Especially for the history books.

Bomus evidence – here is the lead from the famous Pincus article, June 12, 2003 – he describes a battle between the WH and the CIA, and senior intel officials are quite caustic about the CIA – where did they come from? Probably not DIA; probably not CIA.

A key component of President Bush’s claim in his State of the Union address last January that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program — its alleged attempt to buy uranium in Niger — was disputed by a CIA-directed mission to the central African nation in early 2002, according to senior administration officials and a former government official. But the CIA did not pass on the detailed results of its investigation to the White House or other government agencies, the officials said.

The CIA’s failure to share what it knew, which has not been disclosed previously, was one of a number of steps in the Bush administration that helped keep the uranium story alive until the eve of the war in Iraq, when the United Nations’ chief nuclear inspector told the Security Council that the claim was based on fabricated evidence.

A senior intelligence official said the CIA’s action was the result of â€extremely sloppy†handling of a central piece of evidence in the administration’s case against then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. But, the official added, â€It is only one fact and not the reason we went to war. There was a lot more.â€

As an aside, if that is Mr. Ockham’s email, I will zip off a transcript (or two) to him. I need to get to the right machine first.

TM

Wow! I didn’t know anyone who had been following this story would every believe what Isikoff writes on this. Isikoff’s Armitage story, to me, has always been better evidence that Rove is Woodward’s source than that Armitage is. Or have you not noticed that, if Rove wants to spin something in the Plame Affair, he has made Isikoff a standard stop? I mean Rove even had Isikoff spouting the cover-up lies he fed to Novak in October 2003. And at a number of other key points, Isikoff has dutifully printed what served Rove’s interests, no matter whether they made logical sense or not. Honest, citing Isikoff doesn’t help your case.

I also notice in your latest attempt to rationalize what Armitage was doing, you don’t even get Armitage to the point where he outs Plame. That’s the point. Let me put it this way. If you were the publicist for a speaker, would you call up a potential placement and say, â€I’ve got this great speaker. Oh, but by the way, some people question whether he is qualified to make the speech.†Nope, you wouldn’t; even if you discredited the point immediately, you’d be a complete idiot for suggesting there was any question about your speaker’s credibility. Nor would Armitage. His feeling about CIA is irrelevent (and, in the specific matter of those at CPD associated with sending Wilson to Niger, I think it’s a mischaracterization of how Armitage would feel–remember the CIA is not a monolith). It’s his feeling about Wilson–and what Wilson can do for Powell’s bureaucratic battles, that are going to be foremost.

And finally, I have always assumed the senior intelligence official in Pincus’ speech was someone at CIA (like Tenet, perhaps) who was willing to admit CIA fucked up to make Bush look good. The statement is not very different from what Tenet said a month later. I can tell you this, though, Carl Ford would certainly not have said â€It is only one fact and not the reason we went to war. There was a lot more.†Nor would anyone else at INR. It wasn’t just the Niger stuff they disputed. Also, you might ask whether this SIO is the same as the SIO cited later. â€This gent made a visit to the region and chatted up his friends,†a senior intelligence official said, describing the agency’s view of the mission. â€He relayed back to us that they said it was not true and that he believed them.†This second person is clearly CIA, since he says Wilson â€relayed back to us†the information. It may not be the same person, but it may well be.

EW: I x-posted to Left Coaster too:

Been pondering the motivation for outing Plame: seems almost gratuitous if it was just retaliation for the Niger report. A different motivation might be that the Niger visit unearthed the ACTUAL ORIGIN of the forgeries. I don’t mean SISMI who may have been the hand that did it, but who was the brain? Did Wilson, along with Plame’s CIA unit (the â€brain-findersâ€), uncover the actual brain via some sort of paper trail? (Could this brain have been that stupid?). If so, the motivation for the brain to out Plame would the certain destruction of the brain-finders.

Speculation: let us argue that the brain was Cheney (or Bush or WHIG or Bolton or Santa). The brain-finders were Plame’s outfit: her covert CIA organization. Clearly, they could not publish under national security. But they could preserve the info. And a later administration could publish it. By blowing the organization to bits, it also blew the information apart. Pretty neat speculation, huh?