News Breaking: Armitage's admission to outing Valerie Plame
Richard Armitage, a well-known gossip who loves to dish and receive juicy tidbits about Washington characters, apparently hadn't thought through the possible implications of telling Novak about Plame's identity.
"I'm afraid I may be the guy that caused this whole thing," he later told Carl Ford Jr., State's intelligence chief. Ford says Armitage admitted to him that he had "slipped up" and told Novak more than he should have.
"He was basically beside himself that he was the guy that f---ed up. My sense from Rich is that it was just chitchat," Ford recalls in "Hubris," to be published next week by Crown and co-written by the author of this article and David Corn, Washington editor of The Nation magazine. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek /
5. This sounds like a pretty piece of propaganda. How is David
Edited on Sun Aug-27-06 01:07 PM by higher class
Corn involved in this? Isikoff is a major player elf. He gave elves a bad name. What is the elf connection? Impeachment of President Clinton. Lawyers and newspeople operating legally and illegally for Starr and friends.
9. The whitewash cleansing of the holy bush administration just in time......
for the elections. Sounds like a f--king miracle to me? Who would like to fall on their sword next, I'm sure they will be rewarded with 20 virgins and a new idenity and join Ken Lay in bushco's paradise.
14. IIRC, didn't Fitz refer to Novak's first source as the "innocent accused?"
Fitz knew from early on the identity of Novak's source. The source cooperated with the investigation.
Not impossible that Armitage was a gossip and blabbed. State had info and presumably the Cheney/Libby gang's intense interest in Wilson and info gathering from State (going back at least to May if not earlier) had not escaped his attention.
However, he doesn't appear to have been a part of the "get Wilson" campaign of Libby and Cheney, which if I recall correctly Fitz referred to as a concerted effort against Wilson. Armitage was not one of their buds, which is why they've been quite happy to direct attention to him and State (see some of Libby's court motions).
Armitage may have been gossiping, Libby & Rove were not. Recall that Libby was chatting up Judy Miller about Wilson and the CIA on June 23 and July 8. Rove chatted up Cooper before Novak's column. And they both lied about their activities and involvement.
And, if reports are correct, Novak's original source and Armitage came forward and cooperated with the investigation. Libby and Rove didn't, they lied and covered up. Libby certainly knew that Plame's CIA status was sensitive, to the point that he wouldn't speak of her to another Administration official on a unsecured phone. Yet then he's talking to Miller about Wilson's wife working for the CIA, incorrectly stating that she worked as an analyst at WINPAC when he knew she worked in Operations, and asking her to report her source as a "former Hill staffer."
Even if Armitage did blab, that doesn't take the onus off Libby, Rove and the WH cabal for intentionally leaking, covering up and lying about their involvement.
16. Utter, total, complete, unmitigated, mind-boggling, SIXTH HAND
Rumsfeld to Cheney to Libby to Rove to Novak to the Enemies of the Republic (via Novak's newspaper column), to Armitage to Ford Jr., to come back round to supposedly be from Armitage to Rumsfeld, Cheney, Libby and Rove FROM NOVAK.
Who got Armitage to say this? Top of the loop: Rumsfeld or Cheney.
Cover up of a cover up of a cover up. What really happened July 14-22, 2003:
July 14, 2003: Plame outed (by Novak).
July 18, 2003: David Kelly (Brits chief WMD expert, who had been whistleblowing anonymously to the BBC, about the "sexed up" pre-war WMD intel, as of May 22) found dead, under highly suspicious circumstances; his office and computers were searched.
July 22, 2003: The entire WMD counter-proliferation program headed by Plame--Brewster-Jennings--outed (also by Novak), putting all of its covert agents/contacts at risk of getting killed, and disabling all WMD counter-proliferation projects.
Why? My guess: Bushite/Blairite plot to PLANT nukes in Iraq, to be "found" by the US troops who were "hunting" for the WMDs that everybody knew weren't there (accompanied by Judith Miller, friend of David Kelly--to whom Kelly wrote one of his last emails, on the day he died, in which he expressed concern about the "many dark actors playing games.") The plot was foiled by someone in the BJ network. Kelly found out about it (or aided the foiling in some way). It changed his mind about the war (which he had supported), and he started whistleblowing. He was assassinated (very likely not suicide) because of what he knew and had not yet told the public. Blair advised of this July 7, a day before Wilson's article was published (July 6). Hutton report says Blair told on July 7 (as the result of interrogations of Kelly at a "safe house") that Kelly "could say some uncomfortable things." Not had said. COULD say.
There were TWO outings, not just one. The first, of Plame, four days before Kelly's death; the second, of Brewster-Jennings, four days after his death. If hostile governments had not connected the dots between Plame and the CIA covert agents/contacts monitoring WMDs within their borders by the Plame outing, they were surely apprised of it by the Brewster-Jennings outing, and could more easily identify and target anyone who had dealt with B/J. Kelly may have BEEN one of those agents/contacts. (He spent considerable time in the US with a Pentagon spy named Mai Pederson. He was also an experienced hand at Iraq WMDs, and a highly reputed scientist and "tough guy" WMD negotiator--in an excellent position to have uncovered such a Bushite WMD plot.)
A theory, yes. But a pretty good one. Good working hypothesis. Holds up well as new facts emerge. IF Armitage said this--that he disclosed Plame's identity to Novak, inadvertently, as gossip (bearing in mind that it's hearsay), then he, too, may be involved in the bad, bad shit that is being covered up, re: the Plame/BJ outings. Treason and murder. It is the BREWSTER-JENNINGS outing that is the important one, in unraveling this snakepit. Novak was told by the CIA NOT to disclose Plame's identity. He did it anyway. Then he WENT ON to out the entire front company and network! Why? Who told him to do that, and who told him that he could get away with it?
And I don't think it was Karl Rove. Rove would not take on the CIA on his own initiative--too cowardly--and he did not have the authority anyway. This had to have come from Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld. Fitzgerald seems to think it was Cheney, although my money's on Rumsfeld. Rove may have spoken to Novak, but he cannot have been the mastermind. And Novak wouldn't have done it without protection either--protection that Rove was not capable of providing on his own. Armitage may have been a conduit, like Libby, Rove and Novak--backfilling now with yet another cover up tale--all guilty, but not the mastermind, the one with the biggest interest in destroying the CIA's counter-proliferation program. Take your pick: Cheney or Rumsfeld. Or maybe both. I tend to think that Cheney's scribblings on the Wilson article news clipping were after-the-fact, and part of the cover up--to make it look more like political revenge against Wilson, and less like treason.
By revealing Brewster-Jennings, an act of Treason was committed. The outing of V. Plame is almost understandable if one views this as an attempt to discredit Joe Wilson's mission to Niger but revealing Brewster-Jennings goes way beyond merely the smear of Joe Wilson.
29. When Plame/Wilson's employment with the CIA was blown, so was
Brewster-Jennings. No separate revelation of Brewster-Jennings was necessary, as some have claimed citing Novak's subsequent column mentioning B-J as the moment of B-J's "outing." Her connection with Brewster-Jennings was a matter of public record. For example, Plame/Wilson's campaign contributions which cited B-J as her employer.
What is not publicly known is her other "employers," legit companies not CIA fronts like B-J, that provided Plame cover when she was overseas. They likely also were revealed to foreign intel agencies that would be tracking Plame's activities after her CIA identity was publicly blown. Likely the most sensitive operations would have been conducted under cover of legit companies, not the front company whose cover wouldn't stand up to much scrutiny.
24. Hardly, IMO. The article clearly distinguishes between Armitage's reported
involvement (and early cooperation with and disclosure to DOJ investigators) and the coordinated effort by the WH/Cheney/Libby to discredit Wilson, out his wife, and then cover it up by lying to investigators for years.
This article doesn't absolve the WH gang of anything. (Although they'll certainly try to spin it that way, as Libby already has in his motions with earlier reports regarding Armitage.)
If anything, one might suspect the cooperation of former State officials (who were not part of the Cheney/WH gang) with the article/book is a strike back at the Cheneyites. Libby wanted to make a big deal of State/Armitage (ignoring the fact that Libby wasn't charged with leaking but lying) to muddy the waters and try to direct attention away from himself and his bosses.
Arguably, the cooperation of former State officials with this article/book and going public could be a way of undercutting this part of Libby's strategy and striking back. Armitage may have blabbed on his own, but it was WH staff that was directing the press to investigate the origin of Wilson's trip and Wilson's wife, well before Novak's column. Libby, Rove with their chats with journos, and Fleischer (who reportedly cooperated with Fitz) on the Bush African trip. That was coordinated and there's no evidence that Armitage was a part of that.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.