RSSUsing PayPal
Was It Richard Armitage?
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Sunday, Mar 19 2006, 6:16AM
CLOSE 
SOCIAL WEBSITES
http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://twn.riverlab.com/archives/2006/03/was_it_richard/&title=Was It Richard Armitage?&topic=political_opinion" target="_blank">Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Facebook
Newsvine
Stumble UponEMAIL THIS ARTICLE
Here is what I wrote Richard Armitage and the Plame Case in November 2005:
Could this insider source be Stephen Hadley? Seems odd to me. To many, Hadley still ranks fairly high as Bob Woodward's source -- and at least to my knowledge -- Hadley has only "hinted" that he was not Woodward's source. Unlike Rumsfeld, Rice, and others, he has not "denied" he was Woodward's source.If he was Woodward's source, I don't think he would have taken the moral tone that laces the commentary in the Dana Priest/Mike Allen story.
Might it have been John Bellinger, who was Senior Associate Legal Counsel to the President and Legal Adviser to the National Security Council? He is now Legal Adviser to the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. Bellinger is a straight-shooter, fair, and not an ideologue. The activities of Libby and Rove would have offended his sensibilities.
Another potential person is Richard Armitage, who is as publicly loyal to the President as one can be -- but who deploys brilliant knife-in-hand tactics against others inside the bureaucracy and administration whom he thinks are undermining the nation's interests.
Of course, Rich Armitage was Colin Powell's Deputy at State. It is unclear to me how much Armitage would have known about Libby's and Rove's campaign against Plame -- but his sources throughout the Bush White House, in the national security and intelligence communities are legendary -- and Armitage is one of the few people who would have had early warning about the Libby/Rove efforts. So, is Armitage secretly helping Fitzgerald?
Again, there are many reasons to doubt that these individuals are the sources for Dana Priest and Mike Allen -- but they also might be.
I have since been able to confirm that the source was not John Bellinger, and Hadley has essentially denied that he was the source.
That left Rich Armitage, so I am not surprised by this news -- but I have no more information on this subject that I did in November 2005.
Here is a follow-up piece I did on this Plame source for Dana Priest and Mike Allen.
More later.
-- Steve Clemons
» Next Article - Lead Editorial In Philadelphia Inquirer on Collapsed Mystique of American Power
Those Bushistas are just the funniest bunch of inept criminals to have crawled down an American pike in years. Not since the hijinks of the Nixon clan have so many buffoons clambered around the halls of American government. You probably wouldn't want to rob any banks with the Bush gang, they would inevitably get caught and then sell you out in a blink and a plea deal. If America's Congress ever grows a spine, would it be historical to impeach an entire administration?
Steve - Are you assuming, or do you rather have reason to believe, that Woodward's source and Priest/Allen's September 28, 2003 source are one and the same? That would be pretty big news. emptywheel and I were speculating about different scenarios where Armitage is 1 in 1x2x6 (Priest/Allen's source) on this thread. It is worth noting that as of 8-27-04 Fitzgerald was still considering Priest/Allen's source a whistleblower, which doesn't rule out that he was mistaken but does seem to rule out that he was merely screwing over his White House competitors within the Bush administration. It of course does not rule out that he was covering his ass and trying to distract attention away from the fact that he blew Plame's cover to Woodward back in June 2003.
All of which is part of why it would be pretty big news if it turned out Woodward's source were also Priest/Allen's.
Also, that was Pincus back in November who talked about the possibility of the source going wobbly, wasn't it? Note that Pincus coauthored the followup article with Allen on October 12, 2003. So he should know what he's talking about.
Armitage? If so, probably not with intent. Accidental in conversation perhaps. However I dont see how doing it would benefit the state department under Powell. But then again, I am just a ignorant bystander. Enlighten me.
Question: Why does everyone isist that the exposure of Plame was intended to punish amb Wilson?
It seems plain enough to me that the intent was to punish the CIA, which was seen as undermining the Administration's not so carefully planned cassus belli story. In that light the whole affair makes far more sense than the rather snarky attempt to damage a retired and not all that important ambassador.
Perhaps more importantly it underlies the rank and file CIA, despite Tennant's efforts as its titular head, attempting to counter Administration misinformation. In short this was an Administration at war with itself and the ultimate sources are going to be those who left the company during Goss' recent purges.
In this light it is highly unlikely that Armitrage had anything to do with the exposure, unless it was communicated in context of explaining to Woodward why Wilson/Plame was being attacked.
Lastly, I am amazed at the "passes" given general officers and Administration elite when people say speaking the truth would cost them their jobs ala General Shinseki. Of course it would, but if the effort is worth a few thousand young american lives, isn't it worth a career or two? If Steve's friends in the inner circle are, as he suggests, distraught at the mess that is being made why are they silent? There is a time to get yourself fired.
Reader Comments (5) - post a comment