Now You Tell Us

What a strange little story we have in Ex-Colleague Says Armitage Was Source of CIA Leak by R. Jeffrey Smith. My favorite line:

The case's origin in a conversation between Novak and Armitage is one of Washington's worst-kept secrets. Neither Novak nor Armitage has confirmed it, however, leaving a measure of uncertainty until now. A story this weekend by Newsweek magazine was the first to cite confirming statements by former Armitage associates.

We've had a special prosecutor, a private civil lawsuit, and hundreds if not thousands of stories speculating about the origin of the leak that Joe Wilson's wife was Valerie Plame of the CIA. But now, on August 29, 2006, we learn it was one of Washington's worst-kept secrets. Thank you very much, Washington Post.

And worse, thank you very much, Richard Armitage and Colin Powell. What the hell.

But back to the story--most of it is based on comments by an unidentified "ex-colleague" (Powell?), who obviously is speaking now because the Washington Post Co.'s Newsweek  published excerpts from Hubris by David Corn and Michael Isikoff. Without that book and that excerpt and those writers, R. Jeffrery Smith wouldn't have been able to write today's story because "ex-colleague" wouldn't have told him a damn thing on the record about "one of Washington's worst-kept secrets." And how do we credit Newsweek, and Corn, and Isikoff? This way:

A story this weekend by Newsweek magazine was the first to cite confirming statements by former Armitage associates.

You know, some story. Can't remember what it was based on--a book or something? Ah, but R. Jeffrey Smith is not entirely unfamiliar with Corn's analysis, adding at one point in the story:

Armitage's involvement in the matter does not fit neatly into the assertions of Bush administration critics that Plame's employment was disclosed as part of a White House conspiracy to besmirch Wilson by suggesting his Niger trip stemmed from nepotism at the CIA. Wilson and Plame have sued top administration officials, alleging that the leak was meant as retaliation.

David Corn, in what has become almost the Comedy Central tagline of the book:

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.

On the bright side, at least the Post today didn't repeat its still-uncorrected misrepresentation of Joe Wilson and what he found in Niger, skipping past it by simply saying he went there.  The following stories are still uncorrected:

• Howard Kurtz, July 12: Novak triggered one of the capital's most tangled investigations with a July 2003 column reporting that Plame had suggested sending her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, to Niger to investigate whether Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was trying to obtain nuclear material from that country -- an unsupported claim that was included in President Bush's State of the Union speech.
• Eric Weiss and Charles Lane, July 14: Wilson had been sent by the CIA to investigate whether Iraq had sought nuclear weapons material from Niger. He reported that the charge could not be proved, but Bush nevertheless asserted in his 2003 State of the Union address that intelligence existed that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa.
• Daniela Deane, July 15: Wilson said yesterday that he told the administration repeatedly that, after two missions to Niger to investigate, he had "found no evidence" that former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was attempting to buy yellowcake uranium in Niger for nuclear weapons.

All of which are contradicted by the facts, not to mention Susan Schmidt, July 10, 2004, who accurately wrote of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee report:

Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts.

UPDATE: Kevin Drum  at Washington Monthly asks not only why Armitage has been quiet, but Isikoff and Corn:

When did Corn and Isikoff learn all this? Hey, we all have to make a living, but Armitage's name was swirling around the rumor circuits just a couple of months ago. Being magazine reporters and all, shouldn't they have written about this at the time instead of saving it up to help promote their book? Just asking.

That's a common complaint about the Washington Post, too--just ask Bob Woodward.

Comments

[soccer dad]

There is one other thing that's interesting here. Novak, who is a Republican is portrayed (at least implicitly) of helping to out an administration critic. The problem with that is that Novak has always been a critic of the war. He was against this war, he was against the war in 1990.

So he wasn't trying to do the administration's dirty work. I read someplace that suggested that what led to the revelation was that Novak didn't understand why the adminisration would send an opponent to do the research and that his source answered him that it wasn't the administration but his wife who arranged for the junket.

Armitage probably meant no harm when he answered that way toward the Wilsons or toward the administration; what's damning him is the damage he caused by his subsequent silence.