Richard Armitage…

Posted on Sunday 18 February 2007


Ted Wells: Week of July 7 2003.
Robert Novak: Change of counterterrorism aide, Ms. Townsend, and several small stories ran in item, working on Amb Joe Wilson’s mission to Niger which he had written about.
Ted Wells: How did you come to be working on Wilson column
Robert Novak: Previous Sunday, alleged attempt by Iraq to buy yellowcake from Niger, he had written op-ed, he was on MTP, I happened to be on roundtable and came in contact with him, had been interested in story, became more interested in it, and whether Pres had ignored report in opting for invasion of Iraq.
Ted Wells: introduces the column.
Ted Wells: Focuses on the key paragraph of the column. Two SAOs told me. WRT statement about 2 SAOs, who were the two?
Robert Novak: Both of those officials have signed waivers I’m free to give their names, then Dpty SOS Armitage, and Senior WH Aide, Karl Rove.
Ted Wells: Start with how you came to speak with Armitage.
Robert Novak: I had been trying to get appointment with Armitage since 2001, he had declined to see me, had indicated he just didn’t want to see me. After 9/11 I tried again, got rebuffed. At the end of June, last week of June, his office contacted me, said he’d see me. Made appointment for July 8, afternoon, his office, State.
Ted Wells: What you recall about conversation.
Robert Novak: The only people in room were Armi and me, no aides, no tape recorders, I did not take notes, it was by tacit agreement rather than by stipulation, a background, I assumed I could write what he said, but I wouldn’t be able to identify him, I also got to the point, I had decided by then I was going to write a column about Wilson’s mission to Niger.
Ted Wells: What he told you WRT Wilson’s wife.
Robert Novak: After we talked about mission, I asked why in the world they named WIlson when he had been staffer in Clinton NSC, he was believed to be critical of Bush, no experience in policy, had not been in Niger since 1970s, so Armi said he was suggested by wife Valerie who was employee in CPD at CIA.
With the closing arguments coming up this Tuesday and all of us up to our necks in Plamology, I sat down today to try to decide what I personally thought. Oh. not about Libby and Cheney. Their part in the C.I.A. Leak is a matter of public record. Rove too, and probably the President. The part that eats at me is Richard Armitage. Michael Isikoff and [David Corn] see him as something of a bumbling gossip. Apparently they think that he was just a loudmouth, not a part of anything more devious.

The disclosures about Armitage, gleaned from interviews with colleagues, friends and lawyers directly involved in the case, underscore one of the ironies of the Plame investigation: that the initial leak, seized on by administration critics as evidence of how far the White House was willing to go to smear an opponent, came from a man who had no apparent intention of harming anyone.
The things that suggest that he was just a blabbermouth are that he said it casually to Bob Woodward weeks before, that he was Colin Powell’s Deputy [the State Department was definitely part of the "out group" by this time], that Novak thought of him as a non-gunslinger, that Powell, Armitage, and Tate didn’t tell Gonzales.

Several things continue to bother me. First, Armitage called Novak "out of the blue" at the end of June, a time when the Administration was abuzz about Wilson [As a matter of fact, I’m suspicious of anything Novak is vague about – "end of June"]. Second, if one were to pick a Washington columnist to leak to who would publish it, Novak is the man – bumbling gossip to bumbling gossip. Third, Powell had been sacraficed at the U.N., why not sacrafice his assistant?

It just sticks in my craw. Why actively call Robert Novak? Why let a bomb that big out of the hat to Robert Novak unless you wanted him to use it? Why did it take until October for Armitage to realize he was the source [or did he realizet he was going to get busted]?

It just doesn’t add up…

  1.  
    dc
    February 19, 2007 | 3:28 AM
     

    from the West coast to your ‘coast’:
    MW must have read your discription of him/ he has done it again!
    http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0215nj1.htm

    “- taking us through the story piece by piece as they build a house rather than giving you a snapshot, and then commentary. Murray Waas is such a journalist. His articles are always definitive, carefully researched, and only conclude what the evidence allows.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.