« Go Get 'Em Tigers! | Main | Iran Utilizes Delay Tactic »

Another Piece of the Plame Puzzle

It has long been speculated that Richard Armitage was Bob Woodward's source, now there appears to be some hard evidence to support it.

The No. 2 State Department official met with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward in mid-June 2003, the same time the reporter has testified that an administration official talked to him about CIA employee Valerie Plame.

Official State Department calendars, provided to The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act, show then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage held a one-hour meeting marked "private appointment" with Woodward on June 13, 2003.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has investigated whether Bush administration officials intentionally revealed Plame's identity as a one-time CIA covert operative to punish her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, for criticizing the administration's march to war with Iraq.

When contacted at home Monday night, Woodward declined to discuss his meeting with Armitage or the identity of his source in the CIA leak case. Instead, he referred to his statement last year that he had a "casual and offhand" discussion about Plame with an unidentified administration official in mid-June 2003.

A person familiar with the information prosecutors have gathered, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because the material remains sealed, said Woodward's meeting with the confidential source was June 13, 2003.

The calendar released to the AP is the first confirmation that Woodward and Armitage met during the key time in the CIA leak case that was the focus of Fitzgerald's probe.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Another Piece of the Plame Puzzle:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Calendar May Offer Key CIA Leak Clue

Comments (27)

*yawn*Other than h... (Below threshold)
yo:

*yawn*

Other than hard-core conspiracy theorists and sufferers of deep BSD, does anyone really give a rat's tucus about Plame-gate?

From time to time, it gets regurgitated, and I still cannot find any reason to care.

What happened to the much touted lawsuit?

Buehler?

Lorie, please don't take th... (Below threshold)
yo:

Lorie, please don't take that as a criticism of your posting this.

Ditto!... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

Ditto!

I agree with the general "y... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

I agree with the general "yawn" but think it is funny that the more that is known, the more in the clear Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney and Karl Rove seem to be.

I think the entire story is incredibly important, but not because any secret agent was outted. I think it is a prime example of how the media can take a nothing story and blow it up into some big deal based on the allegations of a now exposed liar and instead of the media being exposed as the organs of the Democrat party that they are, they still hold tight to Joe Wilson's largely disproven theory of administration wrongdoing. This is why I don't even think it would matter now if stockpiles of WMD were found in Iraq. The media has written their story in stone, just as they did with the Plame story, and facts are not going to change it.

Forget Plame for a moment, ... (Below threshold)

Forget Plame for a moment, though this is certainly related.From the White House Press conference of 08/21/2006:


Q Quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?

THE PRESIDENT: I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East. Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question -- my answer to your question is, is that, imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens. You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of "we're going to stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

Q What did Iraq have to do with that?

THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Q The attack on the World Trade Center?

THE PRESIDENT: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective. I have made that case. And one way to defeat that -- defeat resentment is with hope. And the best way to do hope is through a form of government. Now, I said going into Iraq that we've got to take these threats seriously before they fully materialize. I saw a threat. I fully believe it was the right decision to remove Saddam Hussein, and I fully believe the world is better off without him. Now, the question is how do we succeed in Iraq? And you don't succeed by leaving before the mission is complete, like some in this political process are suggesting.


You read-correctly, the Bush administration is finally admitting there was NO CONNECTION between 9/11 and Iraq, none. Wonder when we'll ever read this in the press?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060821.html

How exactly do you read: "N... (Below threshold)

How exactly do you read: "Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq." and interpret it as: "the Bush administration is finally admitting there was NO CONNECTION between 9/11 and Iraq, none."??

That's some powerful wishing there...little wooden boy into flesh wishing...tinkerbell alive wishing...

Hey Matt,Spare us ... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Hey Matt,

Spare us the rhetoic! You're an idiot.

I think if I read another r... (Below threshold)
Charles Bannerman:

I think if I read another report where the information was given on condition of anonymity I will puke. What rock is the source of all these anonymous stories hiding under and does he have a list of tid bits to relaese every day.

What ever happened to a source being vetted and the truthfulness of the story being verified? I could tell a NYT reporter I just saw Nancy Pelosi screwing a goat and he would believe it, it wouldn't get into print because she is a democrat, but he would believe it. If on the other hand I told the same story to the same reporter about Elizabet Dole the headline would be 2 pages wide.
Chuck

Hey, Matt, you're kinda slo... (Below threshold)

Hey, Matt, you're kinda slow on the uptake, huh?

Bush has NEVER said there was a tie between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. NEVER. Nor has any of his administration.

There is evidence -- substantial, but not conclusive -- of ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda, but only idiots ever speculated about that cooperation extending to an operational level, especially on the 9/11 attacks. For one thing, it would be sheerly stupid -- Saddam had no "need to know" from Al Qaeda's perspective, and that info could have been a very useful bartering chip to get him out from under the sanctions.

It's only the idiots who keep saying Bush made that connection over and over and over again, to now it seems that they are actually believing their own bullshit.

And, apparently, so are you.

J.

Matt,I can understan... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

Matt,
I can understand why you would want to change the subject, but Bush has made the same statement before, just not in those exact same words. Chris Matthews just about pops a vein everytime anyone brings up the subject.

I have never claimed that Saddam ordered the 9/11 attacks or even played any direct part in them, but there are some really strange things that make it at least reasonable to wonder what he might have known. Read the "bombshell revelation" section of this post I did a while back and follow the links. Lest you denounce it as some Republican trick, the information was put into the congressinal record by Democrat Fritz Hollings.

The point I have always mad... (Below threshold)

The point I have always made about how Iraq was connected to 9/11 is that it had less to do with 9/11/2001 and more to do with the next 9/11. We did not connect the dots before the attacks of 9/11 and were determined never to ignore threats again. A key piece of info that I think was very persuasive in support of invading Iraq when we did, is the revelation by Putin that he had informed Bush after 9/11 that his intelligence sources had information that Saddam was planning terrorist attacks on America and American interests abroad. Whether or not Putin's info was correct, it was something that could not be ignored when brought to the attention of the President in the shadow of 9/11.

That is one of those inconvenient pieces of the puzzle that those on the left choose to ignore completely and it received incredibly little media coverage. I would guess that it would be difficult to find anyone, but a diehard news junkie, who had ever heard about it.

All:We are letting... (Below threshold)
scotty:

All:

We are letting the Matts of the world off lightly. They have repeated this lie so often we have bought into defending the statement. Don't get caught up debating the straw man.

Bush has said all along the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Matt has suggested. Remember the term "The Bush Doctrine"? It was used to criticize Bush for pre-emptively attacking Iraq when the Bush administration readily admitted no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. The Bush Doctrine was to attack while the storm was gathering rather than wait for another 9/11.

Matt you are wrong. Go back and do your research and if you continue to repeat this bullcrap... you are simply a liar.

Posted by: Lorie Byrd at Au... (Below threshold)
yo:

Posted by: Lorie Byrd at August 22, 2006 12:59 PM


Ah. Well, now ... when you put it in that light, I see your point.

The only gig I'd offer you is that it's a shame that evidence to confirm your point is still being made available.

The media should just let it go.

As an aside, I forget who said it and apologize for that, but the following statement wraps up the moral of this little story as well as anything:

Scotter Libby, the only only person charged with anything related to this case, is charged with lying about telling the truth about a liar.

Yes, back to the subject:</... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Yes, back to the subject:

Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn. Yup.

Um... not to be immodest, y... (Below threshold)

Um... not to be immodest, yo, but I believe that was my line. Thanks!

J.

Scotty,Check this ou... (Below threshold)

Scotty,
Check this out.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-on-911

This is just one reason so many people feel Bush has a hard time with the truth.

Live: don't cite some chick... (Below threshold)
MItchell:

Live: don't cite some chickenshit lib. website regurgitating the Bush Lied meme with the typically scant, slanted take on the evidence.

I checked at least one of the "facts" cited as "proof" documenting the "lying" and it is a crock.

Suck on this, Islamic Dictator-worshiping Putz.

Would somebody please lay J... (Below threshold)
914:

Would somebody please lay Joe the crescent slant Simpson and His? Trollip filled mannequin to rest already?

Did I say Simpson?? sorry Juice..

You read-correctly, the ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

You read-correctly, the Bush administration is finally admitting there was NO CONNECTION between 9/11 and Iraq, none. Wonder when we'll ever read this in the press?

Seeing as how they never claimed there was a link, the only news here is that you can't read.

This is just one reason so many people feel Bush has a hard time with the truth.

Bush not actively denying every asinine conspiracy theory = lying?

Got it.

I could be mean and actually cite the Meet the Press interview where the left swears, up and down, that Cheney said that Saddam was behind 9/11 when he didn't remotely say it.

I guess the left's healthy intellectual curiosity is a codeword for idiocy.
-=Mike

Mitchell,The idea wa... (Below threshold)

Mitchell,
The idea was not to go the the "chickenshit lib. wedsite" and swallow the propaganda hook line and sinker. The idea was to look inside and try to understand why so many people absolutely do not trust a word our Government says. When I checked this afternoon they had over 400 responses to the 15 or 16 on this web site. When you build a library of responses that large you can begin to see patterns. Once you understand the reasons why people are pissed, (have you seen the poll # lately?) you can begin to build a better platform of ideas to counter the left and win the middle.

1) Wizbang has much more th... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

1) Wizbang has much more than 16 or 17 replies.

2) An echo chamber, no matter how fervently posted, is still just an echo chamber. Your site lacks the diversity of opinion that this place offers.

If you really want to be tied to the bilge of that site, I'll be more than happy to ask you to explain away a lot of what is said.
-=Mike

Isn't Bush's poll number up... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Isn't Bush's poll number up to 42% and rising?

I'm not worried so much about polls as I am about his doing the right thing. I'm happy enough that he's taking the approach he thinks best although we disagree on a number of things.

You won't get 100% even with Bubble Boy Lamont.

"(Y)ou can't distinguish be... (Below threshold)
StephieJanna29:

"(Y)ou can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." (President Bush, Photo Opportunity, 9/25/02)

"The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist organizations. And there are al-Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. The regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material, could build one within a year." (President Bush, remarks at Rose Garden, 9/26/02)

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal the Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own." (President Bush, State of the Union, 1/28/03)

"We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al-Qaeda terrorist planner...The danger that Saddam Hussein poses reaches across the world." (President Bush, Statement in the Roosevelt Room, 2/6/03)

"Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and Al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making document forgery experts to work with Al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training…We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior Al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad." (President Bush, radio address, 2/8/03)

"Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. The network runs a poison and explosive training center in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad." (President Bush, press conference, 2/6/03)

"...And it (Iraq) has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda." (President Bush, Address to the Nation, 3/17/03)


You guys can argue until the cows come home that the Iraq war had nothing to do with "links" to al qaeda, but it's ingenuine. The argument was never whether he claimed Hussein "ordered" the hit on 9/11 - and I'm sure Bush knows that. Obviously - in those very particular words - it was not true.

The much larger issue is did they mislead us with the above statements - and the accompanying one's by his administration. Anyone with a degree in marketing and public relations can clarify that one for you.

We're angry out here because we've been mislead. Pick apart the words all you want, any rational person can see that what they did was manipulation. There's no defense for it.

StephieJanna29,I get... (Below threshold)

StephieJanna29,
I get the feeling most people who post here are more interested in defending what the meaning of "is" is, instead of looking at the bigger picture when it comes to the Bush administration and how we were lead into this war in Iraq. They have picked there team, and will defend it like a little boy defends his mama. It's very easy to throw around insults, I was called an "Islamic Dictator-worshiping Putz", just because I had the nerve to actually be interested in what the left was saying on this issue. I guess there is no home for the Reagan Democrats anymore.

Manipulation in hindsight, ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Manipulation in hindsight, without context, or viewed from the time, with all the info we and the Europeans had essentially to the same effect, pragmatic and sensible?

You take it without context, we tend to view it in light of all we knew and did not know then.

"Manipulation in hi... (Below threshold)
stephieJanna29:

"Manipulation in hindsight, without context, or viewed from the time, with all the info we and the Europeans had essentially to the same effect, pragmatic and sensible?

You take it without context, we tend to view it in light of all we knew and did not know then."

Mitchell,

Huh? Never mind.

And Lori,

Your source for Hussein planning attacks on us ("Saddam was planning terrorist attacks on America and American interests abroad.") is ANNE COULTER? Are you serious? Obviously not, since using her as a source eliminates your credibility.

Argue it any way you want, the reality is that Coulter is a laughing stock who is villified by the conservatives she cosies up to. Her sources and footnotes have been easily debunked over the years - and this is hardly a minority opinion. Anyone using her as a source is desperate.

Once again, just because you use a link to backup your claim doesn't automatically make your claim true. And if your link isn't even marginally credible, like this one isn't, no amount of justification will make you right.

[email protected],I couldn't ... (Below threshold)
stephieJanna29:

[email protected],

I couldn't agree with you more - and I think the evidence of manipulation is pretty overwhelming. Much to Mitchell's last claim, it's not a matter of what we knew or what other governments told us then - it's about what our government knew and the doubts they had then - and how this president and vp continued to try to make those connections even after people in their own administration told them it was questionable evidence.

Ignorance 4 years ago doesn't condone an action today and we had other fish to fry and - possibly - other more important countries and regions to go after (who did harbor al qaeda fighters) that a wrong turn like Iraq makes considerably more difficult.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy