The Valerie Plame Affair (Highly political)

[R. Richard]

This should end the "White House Conspiracy Theory" regarding Valerie Plame. For those who do not know, Richard Armitage was and is a critic of the war in Iraq. There is no way that Richard Armitage worked with or for the White House to "get" Valerie Plame. Now, the Valerie Plame affair winds down to a matter of recollections of what Scooter Libby thinks he said and what reporters think he said. The question is, "Why did Fitzgerald not indict Richard Armitage, who admitted to Fitzgerald that he was the one who 'outed' Valerie Plame?" Comments?

Armitage says he was source in CIA leak

WASHINGTON - The former No. 2 State Department official said Thursday he inadvertently disclosed the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame in conversations with two reporters in 2003.

Confirming that he was the source of a leak that triggered a federal investigation, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said he never intended to reveal Plame's identity. He apologized for his conversations with syndicated columnist Robert Novak and Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward.

For almost three years, an investigation led by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has tried to determine whether Bush administration officials intentionally revealed Plame's identity as covert operative as a way to punish her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, for criticizing the Bush administration's march to war with Iraq.

"I made a terrible mistake, not maliciously, but I made a terrible mistake," Armitage said in a telephone interview from his home Thursday night.

He said he did not realize Plame's job was covert.

Armitage's admission suggested that the leak did not originate at the White House as retribution for Wilson's comments about the Iraq war. Wilson, a former ambassador, discounted reports that then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger to make a nuclear weapon — claims that wound up in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address.

Armitage said he was not a part of a conspiracy to reveal Plame's identity and did not know whether one existed.

He described his June 2003 conversation with Woodward as an afterthought at the end of a lengthy interview.

"He said, 'Hey, what's the deal with Wilson?' and I said, 'I think his wife works out there,'" Armitage recalled.

He described a more direct conversation with Novak, who was the first to report on the issue: "He said to me, 'Why did the CIA send Ambassador Wilson to Niger?' I said, as I remember, 'I don't know, but his wife works out there.'"

Armitage, whose admission was first reported by CBS News Thursday, said he cooperated fully with Fitzgerald's investigation. He was never a target of the investigation and did not hire a lawyer. He agreed to speak to reporters after Fitzgerald released him from a promise of confidentiality.

Armitage said he considered coming forward late last month when a flurry of news reports identified him as the leak. But he said he did not want to be accused of trying to get the story out during the summer's slow news cycle.

"I did what I did," Armitage said. "I embarrassed my president, my secretary, my department, my family and I embarrassed the Wilsons. And for that I'm very sorry."

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, is the only administration official charged in the CIA leak case. He faces trial in January on charges he lied to authorities about conversations he had with reporters about Plame.

Armitage said he assumed Plame's job was not a secret because it was included in a State Department memo.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

There's an ugly new trend in governmental abuse: Overzealous, politically motivated and/or ambitious prosecutors pursuing highly politicized allegations and prosecuting people for "lying to authorities" when they come up empty handed. It's the bureuacrat's/politician's cover-my-ass mentality combined with the prosecutor's authority and ability to use the Stygian stable of outrageous statutes to prosecute anybody for anything - and I don't like it one bit, whether it's Scooter Libby, Martha Stewart, Hank Greenburg, or anyone else. This is not partisan - I don't like it whoever the target may be.

Goddammit, this is America! - and unless I am under oath I have the right as a free American to tell any fucking lie to any fucking person I choose, including fucking dicks and the fucking F - B - fucking I!

Dammit anyway!


(Dragging Roxanne to Venom thread . . .)

 

[R. Richard]

The real problem here, IMHO, is that it is not even clear that Scooter Libby lied. His recollection of what he said differs from what reporters have so far testfied to. Of course, some of the same reporters KNEW that Armitage told them about Valerie Plame first and withheld that information. I suspect that there will not be any pushing and elbowing to get to the head of the line to testify against Scooter Libby.

Sccoter Libby has now lost his job/paycheck and has enormous legal bills for what looks more and more like a political witchhunt by Fitzgerald. The reader might put him/herself in Libby's position. You are sitting in a home for which you no longer have income to pay the rent/mortgage, sipping coffee you can no longer afford to replace and you wonder, "Why me?"

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The real problem here, IMHO, is that it is not even clear that Scooter Libby lied. His recollection of what he said differs from what reporters have so far testfied to. Of course, some of the same reporters KNEW that Armitage told them about Valerie Plame first and withheld that information. I suspect that there will not be any pushing and elbowing to get to the head of the line to testify against Scooter Libby.

Sccoter Libby has now lost his job/paycheck and has enormous legal bills for what looks more and more like a political witchhunt by Fitzgerald. The reader might put him/herself in Libby's position. You are sitting in a home for which you no longer have income to pay the rent/mortgage, sipping coffee you can no longer afford to replace and you wonder, "Why me?"

I don't care if he said his dick is three feet long and he fucks Barbara Bush six times a day with it, this is America and unless he was under oath he has a right to tell any frigging lie he wants.

(BTW, I understand that my over-the-top ranting does ignore a little thing called obstructing justice, but I don't think that's what is being charged in the cases I cited, and in any event, if there's no underlying crime, there's no "justice" being obstructed.)

 

[R. Richard]

(BTW, I understand that my over-the-top ranting does ignore a little thing called obstructing justice, but I don't think that's what is being charged in the cases I cited, and in any event, if there's no underlying crime, there's no "justice" being obstructed.)

Libby is being charged with obstruction of justice in Fitzgerald's indictment.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Much to do about nothing.

 

[R. Richard]

Much to do about nothing.

I think Scooter Libby would have an contrary view. He has lost his job and racked up considerable lawyer bills trying to defend himself from something that is probably not a crime.

Armitage has admitted that he was the first one who "outed" Valerie Plame. Armitage admitted that to Fitzgerald. However, Armitage was not indicted by Fitzgerald. We are left with just two conclusions: 1) Armitage was not indicted because of his political views [He opposed the war in Iraq and is not a credible part of any "White House Conspiracy;"] 2) "Outing" Valerie Plame was not a crime because Valerie Plame was not a covert agent. [Only "covert agents" are covered under the law. It is not a crime to state that someone is a non-covert member of the CIA, Congress does that when they examine a condidate for the head of the CIA.]

If you accept conclusion 1), then Fitzgerald conducted a political witch hunt and should be disbarred. If you accept conclusion 2), then Fitzgerald used the resources of the federal government to investigate what he knew to be a non-crime and should be requred to pay back the money he spent and also he sould be disbarred.

JMNTHO.

 

[cantdog]

It's nice that you guys have come up with a rationalization. May it salve your wounds.

 

[Pure]

Armitage, whose admission was first reported by CBS News Thursday, said he cooperated fully with Fitzgerald's investigation. He was never a target of the investigation and did not hire a lawyer. He agreed to speak to reporters after Fitzgerald released him from a promise of confidentiality.


*These* are the actions of an innocent man. The actions of Rove, Cheney, and Libby are not. One can only assume that they had much to hide of a similar nature, even if not anything culpable re Mrs. Plame.

And by the way, I think poor Scooter, who did commit a crime, will land on his feet, retain his house, etc. It's odd how lying is now permissible whereas a few years back it was grounds for impeachment.

 

[R. Richard]

Armitage, whose admission was first reported by CBS News Thursday, said he cooperated fully with Fitzgerald's investigation. He was never a target of the investigation and did not hire a lawyer. He agreed to speak to reporters after Fitzgerald released him from a promise of confidentiality.


*These* are the actions of an innocent man. The actions of Rove, Cheney, and Libby are not. One can only assume that they had much to hide of a similar nature, even if not anything culpable re Mrs. Plame.

And by the way, I think poor Scooter, who did commit a crime, will land on his feet, retain his house, etc. It's odd how lying is now permissible whereas a few years back it was grounds for impeachment.

Why was Armitage never a target of the investigation? Armitage has ADMITTED that he revealed to a reporter that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. Atmitage was also the first to out Valerie Plame.

Rove was voluntarily questioned at least five times. I don't know about Cheney or Libby.

How nice of you to try Libby on your own. I think I will wait for a court trial.

 

[Oblimo]

Why was Armitage never a target of the investigation?

(First of all, how could he have "cooperated with the investigation" if he was never investigated in the first place? That's some sloppy journalistic writing, right there.)

As to why Libby was indicted and Armitage wasn't: Armitage never lied or obstructed the investigation, at least according to the article referenced. He "cooperated fully," apparently.

How nice of you to try Libby on your own. I think I will wait for a court trial.

You seem readily willing to accuse Fitzgerald of abusing his role as special investigator, however.

 

[Darkniciad]

(First of all, how could he have "cooperated with the investigation" if he was never investigated in the first place? That's some sloppy journalistic writing, right there.)

You don't need to be under investigation to cooperate with one. Far more people who are not under a cloud of suspicion are questioned in any investigation than those who are. If those people tell what they know, they are cooperating with the investigation.

= = = = = =

Many, I think, would do well to remember the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy". A witch hunt is a witch hunt, and Fitzgerald strikes me as someone who has found his path to those fifteen minutes of fame. He's been just as much of a rabid dog in Chicago, where Dems are in charge, as he has here.

I get the impression he likes hearing his name on CNN, and he'll step on anybody and everybody for one more blurb.

 

[Huckleman2000]

The law about 'outing' a CIA operative requires that the person does it knowingly. The State Dept. memo where Armitage learned about Ambr. Wilson's wife did not make note of her classified status. When he realized that she was classified, he alerted the investigation and cooperated.

On the other hand, Libby, Rove, Cheney, etc. were aware of her classified status, since they learned of it from CIA. Cheney was clearly very keen to disassociate himself from Wilson's trip, and also to discredit the facts Wilson brought up in his Op-Ed. The conversations that Rove and Libby had with reporters were orchestrated to discredit Wilson by leaking selective information from the classified document produced by the CIA. This included confirming Plame's role at CIA, with the strong implication that Wilson's trip was a junket (to Niger?! ) set up by her. Cheney himself wrote handwritten notes to this extent on a clipping of Wilson's Op-Ed.

Armitage leaked to Novak and Woodward. Other reporters (Cooper, Miller) were leaked to as well, by Rove and Libby, but not by Armitage.

The campaign to discredit Wilson was similar to previous (and subsequent) smear campaigns directed at anyone questioning Bush administration policies - Paul O'Neill; Richard Clarke; various retired Generals; and others.

 

[R. Richard]

The law about 'outing' a CIA operative requires that the person does it knowingly. The State Dept. memo where Armitage learned about Ambr. Wilson's wife did not make note of her classified status. When he realized that she was classified, he alerted the investigation and cooperated.

Per Armitage, the State Department memo that was the source of his information about "Wilson's wife" was a classified memo. I had a government security clearance. If anything factual is contained in a classified document the fact(s) is assumed to be classified until proven otherwise. If Armitagwe was an engineer, he would lose his security clearance and never work defense again.

On the other hand, Libby, Rove, Cheney, etc. were aware of her classified status, since they learned of it from CIA. Cheney was clearly very keen to disassociate himself from Wilson's trip, and also to discredit the facts Wilson brought up in his Op-Ed. The conversations that Rove and Libby had with reporters were orchestrated to discredit Wilson by leaking selective information from the classified document produced by the CIA. This included confirming Plame's role at CIA, with the strong implication that Wilson's trip was a junket (to Niger?! ) set up by her. Cheney himself wrote handwritten notes to this extent on a clipping of Wilson's Op-Ed.

The indictment charges that Libby said the Wilson's wife might have been a CIA agent. Huckleman, I am charging that you might be a CIA agent. Go ahead, indict me.

Armitage leaked to Novak and Woodward. Other reporters (Cooper, Miller) were leaked to as well, by Rove and Libby, but not by Armitage.

Armitage told Novak about Wilson's wife and Novak published information about Valerie Plame. Per your own statement, above, Armitage did not think he was leaking anything. If Rove leaked classified information, why is he not charged?

The campaign to discredit Wilson was similar to previous (and subsequent) smear campaigns directed at anyone questioning Bush administration policies - Paul O'Neill; Richard Clarke; various retired Generals; and others.

You forgot to add that Wilson himself now admits that certain of the things in his Niger report were false. Do you charge that Wilson was part of a campaign to discredit himself?

 

[wazhazhe]

Goddammit, this is America! - and unless I am under oath I have the right as a free American to tell any fucking lie to any fucking person I choose, including fucking dicks and the fucking F - B - fucking I!

No, actually you don't have the right to tell a lie to anyone you chose. If you defame someone, you may have to answer for it in civil court. If you impede a criminal investigaton by lying to authorities, you may be charged and tried in criminal court.

 

[Oblimo]

The indictment charges that Libby said the Wilson's wife might have been a CIA agent.

I'm pretty sure that the indictment was for purjury and obstruction of justice allegedly committed during the investigation itself, not on any of the substance of what the investigation was in fact...investigating, like when (IIRC) Starr indicted Clinton for stating in an affidavit interview for the (Paula) Jones v. Clinton harassment lawsuit that he did not have sex with Monica Lewinksi.

Now, I'm not saying "sauce for the goose" -- and not just because "sauce" and "Lewinksi" should not be written within 10 feet of each other -- but because I believe both the Starr and Fitzgerald investigations have equal contents of horse-shit.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

... If you defame someone, you may have to answer for it in civil court.

The only way a lawyer will ever take a case like this is if the person you sue is worth millions and has the assets to pay the judgement. So I "can" say anything about anybody I want, even if it is a lie as I am homeless and have no prospects of ever getting a job.

If you impede a criminal investigaton by lying to authorities, you may be charged and tried in criminal court.

May is a long way from will. Again, if your a nobody in the case and aren't worth going after they won't bother. Besides my recollection of events was a little fuzzy when they asked me about Valerie anyway, I thought she had this television show back in the 70's or 80's.

 

[R. Richard]

I'm pretty sure that the indictment was for purjury and obstruction of justice allegedly committed during the investigation itself, not on any of the substance of what the investigation was in fact...investigating, like when (IIRC) Starr indicted Clinton for stating in an affidavit interview for the (Paula) Jones v. Clinton harassment lawsuit that he did not have sex with Monica Lewinksi.

There are a number of items in the indictment. One of them is that Libby is quoted as saying that, "Wilson's wife may have been a member of the CIA." You see, if there is obstruction of justice, there has to be some investigation ongoing. Thus, there at least has to be the appearance that Libby "outed" Wilson's wife. Of course, Libby did not out Wilson's wife, Armitage did.

As to Clionton's indictment for lying. Judge Susan Wever Wright issued an unprecedented contempt citation against Clinton in April, ordered the president to pay almost $80,000 to the Dallas, Texas law firm that represented Jones and $9,484 to the Rutherford Institute, which assisted with the Jones case.

The financial sanctions were ordered by Wright "not only to deter
others who might consider emulating the president's misconduct, but to
compensate the plaintiff," for costs associated with the false testimony,
according to the court order.

Wright's ruling cited Clinton's "willful failure to obey this court's
discovery orders," while giving a deposition in January, 1998 as part of
his defense in the Jones lawsuit.

Clinton was also ordered to pay more than $1,200 to cover Wright's
visit to Washington, D.C. to preside over the deposition. Her presence
at the deposition was requested by the president's lawyers.

Now, Judge Susan Weber Wright's contempt citation was in the Paula Jones case, not the Monica Lewinski case. However, Clinton did deliberately lie in the Lewinski case and would have been found guilty if the matter had been settled legally instead of politically.

 

[Oblimo]

There are a number of items in the indictment. One of them is that Libby is quoted as saying that, "Wilson's wife may have been a member of the CIA."

Okay; what's the charge associated with that statement?

 

[R. Richard]

Okay; what's the charge associated with that statement?

Check it out for yourself:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801086.html

 

[Oblimo]

Check it out for yourself:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801086.html

Just did.

Nowhere in that document is Libby indicted for leaking Plame's identity.

Libby is charged with lying to the Grand Jury and misleading to the FBI during the investigation. The merit of the underlying investigation itself is irrelevant to indictments of perjury and the obstruction of justice unless the investigation was unlawful such that the FBI or grand jury did not in fact have jurisdiction or the authority to investigate the matter in the first place.

I'm splitting hairs, here, but this is an important hair. The (im)propriety of the investigation is a different question from understanding what the charges against Libby were in the first place.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I think you people need to take one step backwards and look at the record.

Rove testified that he heard that Valery Plame worked from the CIA from Chaney. Later he testified that Plame's job at the CIA was "common knowlege all along the Beltway." After four reporters were told that was probably true.

Armatige said he got the information from Chaney. And, magically, during the investigation remembered outing her. So he ran to Fitzgerald and squeeled.

Fitzgerald went looking for collaborty evidence to support Armatige's claim and Libby got caught misdirecting the investigation with his sworn testamony.

Regardless of your arguement here, "Lying to Congress" is a Federal Crime. That's what Bill Clinton did to get him impeached. That's what Libby did in his testamony to the Fitzgerald committee. The "Obstruction of Justice" comes directly from his sworn testamony to Congress.

What nobody wants to admit is that all the information everyone gave out in this case came from Chaney. The conspiracy still stands because it goes right back to the Vice President.

 

[R. Richard]

What nobody wants to admit is that all the information everyone gave out in this case came from Chaney. The conspiracy still stands because it goes right back to the Vice President.

I would like to know where you got your information on the conspiracy you allege. Armitage specifically [in red below] says there was no conspiracy.

Armitage says he was source on Plame

WASHINGTON - A former top official in the State Department acknowledges he was the source who outed a CIA operative to reporters, but he says it was an accident and he's sorry.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, the former No. 2 official in the department, said he inadvertently disclosed Valerie Plame's identity in conversations with syndicated columnist Robert Novak and Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward.

"I made a terrible mistake, not maliciously, but I made a terrible mistake," Armitage said in a telephone interview from his home Thursday night. He said he did not realize Plame's job was covert.

"I did what I did," Armitage said. "I embarrassed my president, my secretary, my department, my family and I embarrassed the Wilsons. And for that I'm very sorry."

For almost three years, an investigation led by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has tried to determine whether Bush administration officials intentionally revealed Plame's identity as a covert operative as a way to punish her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, for criticizing the Bush administration's march to war with Iraq.

Armitage's admission suggested that the leak did not originate at the White House as retribution for Wilson's comments about the Iraq war. Wilson, a former ambassador, discounted reports that then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger to make a nuclear weapon — claims that wound up in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address.

Armitage said he was not a part of a conspiracy to reveal Plame's identity and did not know whether one existed.

He described his June 2003 conversation with Woodward as an afterthought at the end of a lengthy interview.

"He said, 'Hey, what's the deal with Wilson?' and I said, 'I think his wife works out there,'" Armitage recalled.

He described a more direct conversation with Novak, who was the first to report on the issue: "He said to me, 'Why did the CIA send Ambassador Wilson to Niger?' I said, as I remember, 'I don't know, but his wife works out there.'"

Armitage, whose admission was first reported by CBS News, said he cooperated fully with Fitzgerald's investigation. He was never a target of the investigation and did not hire a lawyer. He agreed to speak to reporters after Fitzgerald released him from a promise of confidentiality.

Armitage said he considered coming forward late last month when a flurry of news reports identified him as the leak. But he said he did not want to be accused of trying to get the story out during the summer's slow news cycle.

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, is the only administration official charged in the CIA leak case. He faces trial in January on charges he lied to authorities about conversations he had with reporters about Plame.

Armitage said he assumed Plame's job was not a secret because it was included in a State Department memo.

 

[wazhazhe]

The only way a lawyer will ever take a case like this is if the person you sue is worth millions and has the assets to pay the judgement. So I "can" say anything about anybody I want, even if it is a lie as I am homeless and have no prospects of ever getting a job.


May is a long way from will. Again, if your a nobody in the case and aren't worth going after they won't bother. Besides my recollection of events was a little fuzzy when they asked me about Valerie anyway, I thought she had this television show back in the 70's or 80's.

And what law school did you go to? If you keep making posts like this one, the law school you went to (assuming you did) is likely to want it's diploma back.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=116511
"One mystery solved.

It was Richard Armitage, when he was deputy secretary of state in July 2003, who first disclosed to conservative columnist Robert Novak that the wife of former ambassador Joseph Wilson was a CIA employee.

A Newsweek article--based on the new book I cowrote with Newsweek correspondent Michael Isikoff, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal and the Selling of the Iraq War--discloses that Armitage passed this classified information to Novak during a July 8, 2003 interview. Though Armitage's role as Novak's primary source has been a subject of speculation, the case is now closed. Our sources for this are three government officials who spoke to us confidentially and who had direct knowledge of Armitage's conversation with Novak. Carl Ford Jr., who was head of the State Department's intelligence branch at the time, told us--on the record--that after Armitage testified before the grand jury investigating the leak case, he told Ford, "I'm afraid I may be the guy that caused the whole thing."

Ford recalls Armitage said he had "slipped up" and had told Novak more that he should have. According to Ford, Armitage was upset that "he was the guy that fucked up."

The unnamed government sources also told us about what happened three months later when Novak wrote a column noting that his original source was "no partisan gunslinger." After reading that October 1 column, Armitage called his boss and long-time friend, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and acknowledged he was Novak's source. Powell, Armitage and William Taft IV, the State Department's top lawyer, frantically conferred about what to do. As Taft told us (on the record), "We decided we were going to tell [the investigators] what we thought had happened." Taft notified the criminal division of the Justice Department--which was then handling the investigation--and FBI agents interviewed Armitage the next day. In that interview, Armitage admitted he had told Novak about Wilson's wife and her employment at the CIA. The Newsweek piece lays all this out.

Colleagues of Armitage told us that Armitage--who is known to be an inveterate gossip--was only conveying a hot tidbit, not aiming to do Joe Wilson harm. Ford says, "My sense from Rich is that it was just chitchat." (When Armitage testified before the Iran-contra grand jury many years earlier, he had described himself as "a terrible gossip." Iran-contra independent counsel Lawrence Walsh subsequently accused him of providing "false testimony" to investigators but said that he could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Armitage's misstatements had been "deliberate.")

The Plame leak in Novak's column has long been cited by Bush administration critics as a deliberate act of payback, orchestrated to punish and/or discredit Joe Wilson after he charged that the Bush administration had misled the American public about the prewar intelligence. The Armitage news does not fit neatly into that framework. He and Powell were not the leading advocates of war in the administration (even though Powell became the chief pitchman for the case for war when he delivered a high-profile speech at the UN). They were not the political hitmen of the Bush gang. Armitage might have mentioned Wilson's wife merely as gossip. But--as Hubris notes--he also had a bureaucratic interest in passing this information to Novak.

On July 6--two days before Armitage's meeting with Novak--Wilson published an op-ed in The New York Times on July 6, 2003, that revealed that he had been sent by the CIA to Niger to investigate the charge that Iraq had been trying to buy uranium in that impoverished African nation. Wilson wrote that his mission had been triggered by an inquiry to the CIA from Vice President Dick Cheney, who had read an intelligence report about the Niger allegation, and that he (Wilson) had reported back to the CIA that the charge was highly unlikely. Noting that President George W. Bush had referred to this allegation in his 2003 State of the Union speech, Wilson maintained that the administration had used a phoney claim to lead the country to war. His article ignited a firestorm. That meant that the State Department had good reason (political reason, that is) to distance itself from Wilson, a former State Department official. Armitage may well have referred to Wilson's wife and her CIA connection to make the point that State officials--already suspected by the White House of not being team players--had nothing to do with Wilson and his trip.

Whether he had purposefully mentioned this information to Novak or had slipped up, Armitage got the ball rolling--and abetted a White House campaign under way to undermine Wilson. At the time, top White House aides--including Karl Rove and Scooter Libby--were trying to do in Wilson. And they saw his wife's position at the CIA as a piece of ammunition. As John Dickerson wrote in Slate, senior White House aides that week were encouraging him to investigate who had sent Joe Wilson on his trip. They did not tell him they believed Wilson's wife had been involved. But they clearly were trying to push him toward that information.

Shortly after Novak spoke with Armitage, he told Rove that he had heard that Valerie Wilson had been behind her husband's trip to Niger, and Rove said that he knew that, too. So a leak from Armitage (a war skeptic not bent on revenge against Wilson) was confirmed by Rove (a Bush defender trying to take down Wilson). And days later--before the Novak column came out--Rove told Time magazine's Matt Cooper that Wilson's wife was a CIA employee and involved in his trip.

Bush critics have long depicted the Plame leak as a sign of White House thuggery. I happened to be the first journalist to report that the leak in the Novak column might be evidence of a White House crime--a violation of the little-known Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it a crime for a government official to disclose information about an undercover CIA officer (if that government official knew the covert officer was undercover and had obtained information about the officer through official channels). Two days after the leak appeared, I wrote:

Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security--and break the law--in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?

And I stated,

Now there is evidence Bushies used classified information and put the nation's counter-proliferation efforts at risk merely to settle a score.

The Armitage leak was not directly a part of the White House's fierce anti-Wilson crusade. But as Hubris notes, it was, in a way, linked to the White House effort, for Amitage had been sent a key memo about Wilson's trip that referred to his wife and her CIA connection, and this memo had been written, according to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, at the request of I. Lewis Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff. Libby had asked for the memo because he was looking to protect his boss from the mounting criticism that Bush and Cheney had misrepresented the WMD intelligence to garner public support for the invasion of Iraq.

The memo included information on Valerie Wilson's role in a meeting at the CIA that led to her husband's trip. This critical memo was--as Hubris discloses--based on notes that were not accurate. (You're going to have to read the book for more on this.) But because of Libby's request, a memo did circulate among State Department officials, including Armitage, that briefly mentioned Wilson's wife.

Armitage's role aside, the public record is without question: senior White House aides wanted to use Valerie Wilson's CIA employment against her husband. Rove leaked the information to Cooper, and Libby confirmed Rove's leak to Cooper. Libby also disclosed information on Wilson's wife to New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

As Hubris also reveals--and is reported in the Newsweek story--Armitage was also the source who told Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward in mid-June 2003 that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Woodward did not reveal he had learned about Wilson's wife until last November, when he released a statement recounting a conversation with a source (whom he did not name). Woodward acknowledged at that time that he had not told his editors about this interview--and that he had recently given a deposition to Fitzgerald about this conversation.

Speculation regarding Woodward's source quickly focused on Armitage. Last week, the Associated Press disclosed State Department records indicating that Woodward had met with Armitage at the State Department on June 13, 2003. In pegging Armitage as Woodward's source, Hubris cites five confidential sources--including government officials and an Armitage confidant.

Woodward came in for some harsh criticism when he and the Post revealed that he had been the first reporter told about Wilson's wife by a Bush administration official. During Fitzgerald's investigation, Woodward had repeatedly appeared on television and radio talk shows and dismissed the CIA leak probe without noting that he had a keen personal interest in the matter: his good source, Richard Armitage, was likely a target of Fitzgerald. Woodward was under no obligation to disclose a confidential source and what that source had told him. But he also was under no obligation to go on television and criticize an investigation while withholding relevant information about his involvement in the affair.

Fitzgerald, as Hubris notes, investigated Armitage twice--once for the Novak leak; then again for not initially telling investigators about his conversation with Woodward. Each time, Fitzgerald decided not to prosecute Armitage. Abiding by the rules governing grand jury investigations, Fitzgerald said nothing publicly about Armitage's role in the leak.

The outing of Armitage does change the contours of the leak case. The initial leaker was not plotting vengeance. He and Powell had not been gung-ho supporters of the war. Yet Bush backers cannot claim the leak was merely an innocent slip. Rove confirmed the classified information to Novak and then leaked it himself as part of an effort to undermine a White House critic. Afterward, the White House falsely insisted that neither Rove nor Libby had been involved in the leak and vowed that anyone who had participated in it would be bounced from the administration. Yet when Isikoff and Newsweek in July 2005 revealed a Matt Cooper email showing that Rove had leaked to Cooper, the White House refused to acknowledge this damning evidence, declined to comment on the case, and did not dismiss Rove. To date, the president has not addressed Rove's role in the leak. It remains a story of ugly and unethical politics, stonewalling, and lies.

A NOTE OF SELF-PROMOTION: Hubris covers much more than the leak case. It reveals behind-the-scene battles at the White House, the CIA, the State Department, and Capitol Hill that occurred in the year before the invasion of Iraq. It discloses secrets about the CIA's prewar plans for Iraq. It chronicles how Bush and Cheney reacted to the failure to find WMDs in Iraq. It details how Bush and other aides neglected serious planning for the post-invasion period. It recounts how the unproven theories of a little-known academic who was convinced Saddam Hussein was behind all acts of terrorism throughout the world influenced Bush administration officials. It reports what went wrong inside The New York Times regarding its prewar coverage of Iraq's WMDs. It shows precisely how the intelligence agencies screwed up and how the Bush administration misused the faulty and flimsy (and fraudulent) intelligence. The book, a narrative of insider intrigue, also relates episodes in which intelligence analysts and experts made the right calls about Iraq's WMDs but lost the turf battles.

And there's more, including:

* how and why the CIA blew the call on the Niger forgeries

* why US intelligence officials suspected Iranian intelligence was trying to influence US decisionmaking through the Iraqi National Congress

* why members of Congress on both sides of the aisle who doubted the case for war were afraid to challenge the prewar intelligence

* how Cheney and his aides sifted through raw intelligence desperately trying to find evidence to justify the Iraq invasion

* how Karl Rove barely managed to escape indictment with a shaky argument.

And there's more beyond that. In other words, this is not a book on the leak case. It includes the leak episode because the leak came about partly due to the White House need to keep its disingenuous sales campaign going after the invasion. Feel free to see for yourself. The book goes on sale September 8. Its Amazon.com page can be found here. "

In one place I did mis-speak. Armatige did not get the information from Chaney. It came from Rove by way of a memo from the Vice President's office. Then the Bush Administration took advantage to exploit the leak by allowing Rove to break the case to, at least, Miller and Novack.

Even with this correction, I still stand behind my statement that the consparicy theory comes full-circle back to the office of Vice President Chaney. Whether he intentionally outed, Valery Plame or simply took advantage of the situation makes no difference in the end. The conspiracy was for the Bush Administration to discredit their critic, Wilson, by any means.

Note in paragraph 8 of the article, the Bush Administration with Chaney in the lead already had a program active and in place to go after Wilson.

Valary Plame is not important in this case at all. Was there a crime committed in outing her? Maybe. But Plame was never the target. Joe Wilson was.

JJ