Comments on: It’s Wrong To Expose CIA Undercover Assets Willingly

By: Cecil Turner

Cecil Turner — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 03:10:42 +0000

Two things. First, I think the memo was "Top Secret" and someone has taken an eraser to some of the markings. Second, A.L. makes a good point about the memo:

. . . Neither Libby nor Rove is even alleged to have read the memo. They both learned about Plame from other sources. The significance of the INR memo appears to have been hyped by sources close to Libby and Rove as a way of casting suspicion away from them and toward the state department . . .

However, neither Libby nor Rove was the main source for Novak that actually leaked Plame's identity. That person (according to pages 14 and 15 of one of Fitz's recent filings) was an unnamed government official who also talked to Woodward. Woodward elsewhere describes him as a State Department undersecretary, probably Armitage or Grossman, who both had intimate knowledge of the INR memo.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 21:24:16 +0000

Nah, I should be thanking you for coming by and contributing in such a reasonable manner – so hard to find people from the left who’ll comment at a right blog without going off half-cocked (and vice versa)…

By: Anonymous Liberal

Anonymous Liberal — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 21:16:15 +0000

True, but supposedly he has some evidence to back up his claims. Thanks for the links.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 21:03:06 +0000

Yeah, but…(there’s always a but, right?): Fitzgerald has to prove his indictment. It’s not the gospel, it’s his version…

By: Anonymous Liberal

Anonymous Liberal — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:57:15 +0000

Fitzgerald’s indictment makes it clear that Libby heard about Plame from a number of sources, including the Veep, before this memo was ever issued. Libby heard about Plame from Cheney (who heard it from Tenet). Libby also heard about Plame from Grossman and from a CIA briefer. It’s all in the indictment. The significance of the memo is that it (might) explain how someone like Fleischer learned about Plame without Libby having been the one who told him. I have a post up at my site addressing this particular wrinkle.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:28:33 +0000

So, Anonymous, in other words, you think the whole allegation of conspiracy resting on this is the interpretation Rove and Libby’s defense would prefer, but that’s not the case…right? (Just seeing if I understand where you’re coming from).

Then where did Rove and Libby learn it from, in your opinion? Cheney and/or Bush?

Thanks for the insights, it’s a little difficult to follow all the threads of this story…

By: Anonymous Liberal

Anonymous Liberal — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:46:47 +0000

Mark,

I don’t think the INR memo is at the heart of the Plame controversy. Neither Libby nor Rove is even alleged to have read the memo. They both learned about Plame from other sources. The significance of the INR memo appears to have been hyped by sources close to Libby and Rove as a way of casting suspicion away from them and toward the state department and the folks on Air Force One, particularly Powell and Fleischer. In fact, I think the primary utility of the memo to Libby’s team is in attacking the testimony of Ari Fliescher. Libby’s team will allege that Fleischer learned about Plame from the memo, not from talking to Libby. They’ll also claim that it is from the memo that Fleischer inferred that Plame’s status is classified. That will help them explain why Fleischer apparently understood that he was not supposed to talk about Plame but Libby did not.

In other words, the fact that the memo doesn’t make it clear that Plame’s status was classified might actually hurt Libby’s defense. After all, Libby’s team has had this memo for quite a while, and from their latest filings, it’s clear they intend to use it to cross-examine Fleischer.