Thursday, July 07, 2005


Our formerly BARBARic colleague John of Blogenlust saw Arianna Huffington's post from Aspen last night, and he's riffing like a wild man:
The way she relays how Rove and Libby got their information on Wilson from the State Department is rather matter of factly, isn't it? If this is indeed true, then the State Department is the location of the original source. And who was at the State Department at this time?

John Bolton, Under Secretary, Arms Control and International Security.

My wild speculation about Bolton yesterday doesn't seem so wild today. I think the key to connecting Bolton to the Plame investigation is whether Wilson or Plame show up in any of the NSA documents that the White House is keeping from the Senate. Remember, the Democrats have asked the White House to reveal whether the documents contain intelligence on intercepted conversations relating to about 36 people. The big question now is whether Plame or Wilson are one of those people. If they are, it wouldn't be too hard to imagine that information gleamed from those intercepts resulted in the leak to the White House. After all, Plame's area of expertise is precisely the area for which Bolton was responsible.

SIDEBAR (courtesy of our distinguished colleague Joe at AmericaBlog): WaPo's Dan Froomkin asks an excellent question. If Matt Cooper agreed to testify because he received an explicit confidentiality waiver from his source -- generally assumed to be Karl Rove -- why hasn't Judith Miller received a similar waiver?

SIDEBAR II (via Zemblan patriot K.Z.): David Corn speculates that Robert Novak squealed -- but did it in a way that would protect his White House sources from prosecution.

SIDEBAR III (with reference to Sidebar I above): From this morning's WaPo:
[Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F.] Hogan said Miller was mistaken in her belief that she was defending a free press. He stressed that the government source she "alleges she is protecting" had already waived her promise of confidentiality. He said her source may have been providing information not to shed light on government secrets but to try to discredit an administration critic.
Which leads us to wonder: is Judy Miller asserting confidentiality as a convenient excuse to avoid answering an assortment of questions that have nothing to do with incriminating her source?

| | Technorati Links | to Del.icio.us