Now THIS Is a Scoop
David Corn has posted the scoop that should have been the first teaser from his and Isikoff’s Hubris–a post detailing Valerie Plame’s role in the CIA. It turns out Plame managed the group tasked with studying Iraq’s WMDs, the Joint Iraq Task Force.
Though Cheney was already looking toward war, the officers of theagency’s Joint Task Force on Iraq–part of the CounterproliferationDivision of the agency’s clandestine Directorate of Operations–werefrantically toiling away in the basement, mounting espionage operationsto gather information on the WMD programs Iraq might have. The JTFI wastrying to find evidence that would back up the White House’s assertionthat Iraq was a WMD danger. Its chief of operations was a careerundercover officer named Valerie Wilson.
[snip]
In 1997 she returned to CIA headquarters and joined theCounterproliferation Division. (About this time, she moved in withJoseph Wilson; they later married.) She was eventually given a choice:North Korea or Iraq. She selected the latter. Come the spring of 2001,she was in the CPD’s modest Iraq branch. But that summer–before9/11–word came down from the brass: We’re ramping up on Iraq. Her unitwas expanded and renamed the Joint Task Force on Iraq. Within months of9/11, the JTFI grew to fifty or so employees. Valerie Wilson was placedin charge of its operations group.
Valerie Plame, Corn says, was in charge of the group that tried to develop assets who could tell them about Saddam’s WMD program.
I'm Not Surprised
I’m not surprised by several things in the WaPo’s disingenuous editorial on the Plame Affair today. For example, I’m not surprised it relies on the word, "primary."
But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of thenot-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspapercolumn in which Ms. Plame’s cover as an agent was purportedly blown in2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage. [my emphasis]
It’s a word Novak conjured up when he went clean last month, and it seems designed to cast the majority of the blame on Armitage and away from Rove. Yet it relates solely to Plame’s purported role in Wilson’s trip to Niger; Novak never says that Armitage was his source for Plame’s classified identity or name (he reverts to much less convincing stories to explain away his use of the word "operative," "Plame," none of which come from Armitage but which are more important to the story than Plame’s general role). And the word "primary" might be taken to mean "first," particularly if you’re the NYT, even though English speakers and smart doggies know there’s a difference.
I suspect if I rifled through Fred Hiatt’s, Chris Hitchens’, and Byron York’s trash, I’d find a little talking points document stressing the importance of this word "primary," which seems to suggest so much, but more likely obscures the entire story.
Rove's Silence Amid the Din
The credulous journalists are making quite the racket, with everyone reading NYT’s "lawyer involved in the case" to be Armitage’s lawyer, admitting that Armitage was Novak’s first and primary source–something that Armitage has no direct way of knowing (Fitzgerald may have told him, but Novak apparently hasn’t spoken to him since the leak conversation, so Armitage could only go by Novak’s public comments). There are even wingnuts complaining the lefty blogosphere is silent about Armitage’s involvement, in spite of the fact that we’ve been talking about Armitage’s involvement since March. And, here I am, no doubt boring my readers with one after another post on the Isikoff-Corn "scoop."
Correct me if I’m wrong. But the real silence isn’t coming from the lefty blogosphere. The real silence is coming from Karl Rove.
Primary Source
As part of my new practice of reminding journalists that even my dog–McCaffrey the MilleniaLab–knows more than them about the Valerie Plame leak, here he is, ready to walk a journalist or two around the block.
For example, McCaffrey knows that Marc Grossman did not write the famous INR memo. Rather, someone in INR did. According to the memo’s cover sheet, Neil Silver drafted the memo and Beth Frisa
cleared it. But the NYT’s Neil Lewis has either forgotten the difference between the words "for" and "by," or he doesn’t know much about this case.
In the accounts by the lawyer and associates, Mr. Armitage disclosedcasually to Mr. Novak that Ms. Wilson worked for the C.I.A. at the endof an interview in his State Department office. Mr. Armitage knew that,the accounts continue, because he had seen a written memorandum byUnder Secretary of State Marc Grossman. [my emphasis]
Similarly, McCaffrey knows that the INR memo, dated June 10, was not written in response to a Libby inquiry, which was in turn a response to Pincus’ article, dated June 12. Rather, McCaffrey would point out, Libby’s inquiry came in response to Pincus’ reporting on the article (and two earlier articles), as the dates would suggest, rather than the article itself. Lewis, however, fails to make the distinction that would explain away his chronological magic.
One-by-Two-by-Timing
I mentioned the other day the story Armitage’s colleagues told Corn and Isikoff raises interesting questions for the 1X2X6 story; I’d like to explain why. First, let’s review the timing:
September 26: DOJ launches an investigation into the Plame leak
September 28: Priest and Allen publish the 1X2X6 article
September 29: Novak and Rove speak about the leak–Novak assures Rove he will protect him
September 29 (evening): DOJ officially notifies the White House of the investigation
September (unknown date): Colin Powell, in a meeting in the Situation Room, declares that "everyone knows it" with regards to the Plame affair–it is disputed whether he referred to Wilson’s identity, or Plame’s
October 1: In response to the 1X2X6 article, Novak publishes his "partisan gunslinger" column
October 1: According to Isikoff and Corn, in response to Novak’s column, Armitage first tells Powell of his conversation with Novak–Powell informs Abu Gonzales, but doesn’t provide details
October 12: 1X2X6 source reiterates claims
Now, we can’t be sure, because there are a few claims that are suspect in this timeframe (the meaning of Powell’s comment, the timing of Armitage’s "realization" that he was Novak’s source, and the veracity of a claim Jeffress later made about Libby’s knowledge of Novak’s source), but this raises several interesting questions.