Plame Case: Calendars show Armitage met Woodward June 13

[leftchick]

wtf?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060822/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_woodward

<snip>

WASHINGTON - Then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage met with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward in mid-June 2003, the same time the reporter has testified an administration official talked to him about CIA employee Valerie Plame.

Armitage's official State Department calendars, provided to The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act, show 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.

<snip>

Two people familiar with the meeting, however, said the Libby-Armitage meeting dealt with issues involving Pakistan and said the subject of the CIA leak case wasn't raised. Both spoke only on condition of anonymity because some information about the meeting remains classified

[Greeby]

1. Interesting

:popcorn:

[elfin]

7. Armitage now "advisor" tp McCain's campaign -

Sorry no link now - think I saw it via Raw Story earlier today.

Correction - NYt --

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/21/washington/21mccain.html?hp&ex=1156219200&en=2f9e6124b54d3cc3&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[BuyingThyme]

2. Maybe the indictment is sealed because they indicted a CIA spook...

named Bob Woodward.

[panader0]

3. Is it true Rove is off the hook? I can't stand it!

When will Fitz indict?

[Missy Vixen]

5. Let him do his job

>When will Fitz indict?<

When he has the evidence he needs to gain a conviction.

BTW, Rove is not "off the hook", not by a long shot. There is a reason why his attorney did not release the letter he supposedly received from Patrick Fitzgerald. I'm sure the letter outlines the requirements of Rove's cooperation in upcoming trials and/or indictments.

Julie
president for life of the PFEB

[peacetalksforall]

6. And the WH has made no changes. Rove has a different job, but is

still in the same office? WHo is paying Rove in his new job (i.e., whose name is on the check)?

[Jazz2006]

9. I love Fitz too, Julie, but

I think it's obvious that Rove is off the hook.

*sigh*

(edit to direct the subject line to its intended recipient)

[Missy Vixen]

10. Based on what? What Luskin said?

>I think it's obvious that Rove is off the hook.<

I don't think so. I don't trust a word that comes out of Mr. Luskin's mouth. If everything was cool, why not release the text of "the letter"? Plus, why was there a need for any letter at all? If Rove was never made a target of the investigation, there'd be no need to notify him by letter that he was supposedly off the hook.

Julie

[snappyturtle]

4. YES!

:popcorn:

[Nickster]

8. K&R. I knew Armitage was involved in this too. Grrrrr n/t

[Jacobin]

11. I think they are trying to throw Armitage to the wolves

He's not been the most lock stepped PNACer in the room. He's had doubts about the wisdom of attempting to conquer Iraq since before the war.

I think they are gonna sacrifice him, or try to.

[speedoo]

12. Wilson/Plame now considering adding Armitage to lawsuit.

Just heard that brief news item on AAR radio news.