WASH POST's Ben Bradlee Claims Plame Leaker Was Richard Armitage

[jlmadyson]

WASH POST's Ben Bradlee Claims Plame Leaker Was Richard Armitage

Vanity Fair reports Bradlee reveals who unmasked Plame

Now Bradlee is backing off from the statement saying he doesn't recall saying that. He does say he knows who Woodward's source is, so either he just forgot saying it or Vanity Fair made up the whole thing.

Now, the VF Reporter says she has the conversation on tape.

THE WASHINGTON POST's famous Watergate editor Ben Bradlee claims that it was former State Department Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage who was the individual who leaked the identity of CIA official Valerie Plame.

In the latest issue of VANITY FAIR: "Woodward was in a tricky position. People close to him believe that he had learned about Plame from his friend Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's former deputy, who has been known to be critical of the administration and who has a blunt way of speaking. 'That Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption,' former WASHINGTON POST editor Ben Bradlee said."

'I had heard about an e-mail that was sent that had a lot of unprintable language in it.'"

Developing...

Text

Woodward testified Monday, November 15th, that contrary to Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's public statements, a senior government official -- not Libby -- was the first Bush administration official to tell a reporter about Plame and her role at the CIA. Woodward also said that Libby never mentioned Plame in conversations they had on June 23 and June 27, 2003, about the Iraq war, a time when the indictment alleges Libby was eagerly passing information about Plame to reporters and colleagues.

I'm not too sure what Woodward was thinking, and I know he has since apologized to the post, but to wait till after the investigation hands out an indictment to reveal this info to the prosecution is beyond me. Protecting sources is one thing, but this goes beyond that and it only reinforces his wishy washy stance on the matter. I?ve heard Armitage?s name tossed around before although I had discounted it, but if this true I?m just wondering what the next step if any the prosecution team may take.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

This is indeed interesting. That being said, Libby is not presently charged with leaking Plame's identity anyway. Bob Woodward is a bit of an enigma to me - sometimes I have the sense he suffers from something akin to Stockholm Syndrome as a result of spending so much time in the White House.

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: DonVito
This is indeed interesting. That being said, Libby is not presently charged with leaking Plame's identity anyway. Bob Woodward is a bit of an enigma to me - sometimes I have the sense he suffers from something akin to Stockholm Syndrome as a result of spending so much time in the White House.

True

 

[techs]

Actualy he doesn't claim it was Armitrage. He is is saying in HIS OPINION it was Armitrage.
Not much of story here.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: techs
Actualy he doesn't claim it was Armitrage. He is is saying in HIS OPINION it was Armitrage.
Not much of story here.

True, though I wouldn't expect Ben Bradlee of all people to speculate about this unless he was fairly sure. The loosy-goosiness of the whole thing is really strange IMO - I think that has to be laid at the feet of Bob Woodward.

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: techs
Actualy he doesn't claim it was Armitrage. He is is saying in HIS OPINION it was Armitrage.
Not much of story here.

Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption,' former WASHINGTON POST editor Ben Bradlee said."

Indirectly or directly that is a pretty clear statement. Moreover this is only his former boss we're talking about and Editor of the post that he had to apologize to. Further he may have actually discussed additional details with him, who knows. Nevertheless, Bradlee quotes friends close to Woodward, which I'm sure he is privy to those accounts. I don't see any reason why he would have said such if he thought it was untrue, especially in light if he believed it may impact his credibility.

 

[Harvey]

Source = Drudge. Credibility = 0 without further confirmation.

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Source = Drudge. Credibility = 0 without further confirmation.

Actually the quoted source is Vanity Fair, with an interview they did with Bradlee. We will see though.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Actually the quoted source is Vanity Fair, with an interview they did with Bradlee. We will see though.

Actually, the quoted source is excerpts from Vanity Fair. Sometimes, even Drudge accidentally lets some truth slip through his fingers to his keyboard, but any correlation between anything he writes and reality is purely coincidental. 😛

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Actually the quoted source is Vanity Fair, with an interview they did with Bradlee. We will see though.

Actually, the quoted source is excerpts from Vanity Fair. Sometimes, even Drudge accidentally lets some truth slip through his fingers to his keyboard, but any correlation between anything he writes and reality is purely coincidental. 😛

If it is pure speculation from Drudge, he went way overboard on this one. I'm reading that the article isn't due out until tomorrow, should get an update sometime.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Originally posted by: techs
Actualy he doesn't claim it was Armitrage. He is is saying in HIS OPINION it was Armitrage.
Not much of story here.

Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption,' former WASHINGTON POST editor Ben Bradlee said."

Indirectly or directly that is a pretty clear statement. Moreover this is only his former boss we're talking about and Editor of the post that he had to apologize to. Further he may have actually discussed additional details with him, who knows. Nevertheless, Bradlee quotes friends close to Woodward, which I'm sure he is privy to those accounts. I don't see any reason why he would have said such if he thought it was untrue, especially in light if he believed it may impact his credibility.

I guess its in how you read it. To me its a strong opinion but he is not saying he has any real info. But I can see the validity in your read too.

 

[jlmadyson]

Ex-U.S. Official Called Likely Leak Source

WASHINGTON, March 14 ? A former executive editor of The Washington Post was quoted in a magazine article published Tuesday as saying that Richard L. Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state, likely was the official who revealed the identity of the intelligence officer at the center of the C.I.A. leak case to Bob Woodward, an editor and reporter for The Post.

Benjamin C. Bradlee, the Post editor who guided Mr. Woodward's Watergate reporting, is quoted in the article about the leak investigation in the April issue of Vanity Fair as saying, "That Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption."

The assertion attributed to Mr. Bradlee added the weight of one of the country's best-known editors to months of speculation that Mr. Armitage could be Mr. Woodward's source.

Mr. Armitage has not commented on the matter. On Tuesday, he did not return a reporter's phone call.

In an interview, Mr. Bradlee said that he had been told about Mr. Woodward's source although he did not recall saying the exact words attributed to him by the Vanity Fair reporter. Mr. Bradlee said his information about Mr. Armitage was imprecise, although he said Mr. Armitage's identification as Mr. Woodward's source was "an inference that could be drawn."

A spokesman for Vanity Fair defended the accuracy of the quotes, saying that the author of the article, Marie Brenner, said that she had tape recorded Mr. Bradlee's comments.

Mr. Bradlee said Mr. Woodward had not told him the identity of the source. "Woodward is not my source for any knowledge I have about the case," Mr. Bradlee said.

The question of who told Mr. Woodward about the intelligence officer, Valerie Plame Wilson, is one of the lingering mysteries of the C.I.A. leak inquiry.

In an article last November, Mr. Woodward said he would not name his source, but he has written that the person who told him about Ms. Wilson was a former or current government official and longtime source who told him about her in an offhand manner at the end of a lengthy interview.

In part, Mr. Woodward's disclosure was important because he said the interview with the source occurred in June 2003, which meant he may have been the first reporter to learn of Ms. Wilson's identity, weeks before she was named in a newspaper column by Robert D. Novak.

Mr. Woodward never wrote about the case, but in the article in November he said he was disclosing the conversation because his source had decided to talk to the special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, about it.

Mr. Novak has also been silent about his source, although he has written that the person was a government official who was not a "partisan gunslinger." Mr. Novak named Ms. Wilson in a column on July 14, 2003, after Ms. Wilson's husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, publicly criticized the Bush administration as twisting intelligence about Iraq's weapons programs in months preceding the war.

The disclosure of Ms. Wilson's name led to a grand jury investigation by Mr. Fitzgerald, who in October brought obstruction and perjury charges against I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff. The indictment accused Mr. Libby of falsely testifying that he learned of Ms. Wilson's identity from reporters, when, the prosecutor charged, he had been given information about her from Mr. Cheney and others in the government.

Getting a bit more interesting. Now, I would have to go back and read the Libby indictment and the timing, but would Armitage be official A and thus Patrick Fitzgerald maybe utilizing him as some kind of witness? Now if he isn't official A and he is Woodward's source does he not have the goods to fully indict Armitage on the original charge?