| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| Richard L. Armitage Called Likely Leak Source | |
| 2006-03-15 | |
| 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.
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. | |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #13 Bradlee mentioned Armitage because Armitage tends to speak before think. BTW he did a splendid job warning the Syrians about crossing the Iraqi border. Don't discount his warrior experience. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-03-15 18:39 |
| #12 He could tell us, but then he'd have to kill us... |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-03-15 18:21 |
| #11 Yeah, how about the full skinny, John? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-03-15 18:03 |
| #10 betcha john might know Moose! |
| Posted by: RD 2006-03-15 18:01 |
| #9 john: Funny you should mention it, as Armitage was the personal representative of the President sent when India and Pakistan were on their nuclear hair trigger. In that case, whatever he did had a complete "wet blanket" effect on the hostilities, and yet both sides came out of it all smiles. That was some maneuver. What exactly he did, we shall never know. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-03-15 15:48 |
| #8 Some Indians refer to him as "Armitraj", a term of deep respect, because of his toughness. His periodic visits to Islamabad have caused much heartburn there. |
| Posted by: john 2006-03-15 15:01 |
| #7 I would not wish to confront Dick Armitage face-to-face with such drivel, you might get your ass handed to you. |
| Posted by: Visitor 2006-03-15 14:44 |
| #6 In hockey, if and when the ref fails to take control of dirty play, soon the fists fly and the policing is handled by the ass kickers. In politics, when the special prosecutor plays cream puff with the facts, soon the MSM has to dig up the 'truth' excuse me, I have to vomit...... In conclusion, Fitzgerald should give back every cent we paid his sorry worthless ass. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-03-15 11:51 |
| #5 Probably explains why Wilkinson is so mad all the time. |
| Posted by: danking_70 2006-03-15 11:17 |
| #4 Colin Powell sure has a gift for picking cronies: Armitage, Wilkinson, etc. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-03-15 10:18 |
| #3 Since it's a Bush detractor, the Dems will probably be willing to let him off the hook. 6 months ago the whole world was going to end if they didn't get their hands on the guy who spilled the beans. Oh, but I forgot, that was when they thought Rove did it. Such a just and fair bunch of people, those Democrats. |
| Posted by: Jeresh Snump4916 2006-03-15 09:19 |
| #2 Armitage is the equivalent of a US diplomatic-bureaucratic "James Bond". One of the elite few who use paper like weapons. His Internet bio changes on a yearly basis. In past, he has been deeply involved in US govt. black ops in narcotraffic; moved to Reagan's office of POW/MIA; and was sent in to sabotage the US-Phillipine Subic Bay treaty talks (we wanted out, with no reparations paid). In between, he was shuttled between government agencies, usually with an investigation at his heels. As with the few serious "James Bond" type operatives in the CIA, of which there are just a handful, the diplomatic-bureaucratic ones are always on the road, doing all the ugly work that needs to be done. Yes, it's ugly. That's a fact of life. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-03-15 09:08 |
| #1 Has there ever been more puffed-up tomfoolery and disinformation written about nothing? I mean a specific nothing, a non-issue, a bit of navel fluff that was of absolutely no consequence, had no foundation in fact or law, a nothing that did not even happen, was obviously not a something, and did not even approach a something? |
| Posted by: Glert Thetch2165 2006-03-15 09:05 |