In a sense, it was Watergate in reverse. Instead of digging for the truth, lots of journalists tried to bury it. The sad fact remains the press was deeply involved in the cover-up, as journalists reported White House denials regarding the Plame leak despite the fact scores of them received the leak and knew the White House was spreading rampant misinformation about an unfolding criminal case.

--Eric Boehlert

Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.

Big Tent seems to think Leonning is on his side, and seems to be saying that Bush did in fact promise to fire people.

I happen to think Leonning is on the opposite side.  Just re-read her first four myths - in each case she presents what she believes to be a false statement (e.g., "1. Valerie Plame wasn't a covert operative.") and explains why it is false (e.e., a "myth").

So look at Myth 5: The White House would fire any administration official who leaked classified information about Plame.

Big Tent thinks this is presented, alone among the five, as a true statement.  

I disagree, and said so a long while back.

Fro example,the June 10 2004 press conference cited above inspired the titleof my post - Don't Play 'Gotcha' With The President.

The reporter asked Bush if he stood by his earlier pledge, then mis-stated that pledge.  Bush said "Yes".  A wiser man would have said, not so fast, I stand by my pledge, not your mis-statement of it.  

But let's not play word games - Bush's original pledge did not include firing, as Leonnig seems to be saying in her article.

As to the other myths - I would have said that "3. Libby didn't leak Plame's identity." was a strawman, arguing that nobody makes that claim.  I guess the above thread shuts me up.  Left out by Leonnig - Libby's own testimony is that he leaked to Miller (on July 12) and Cooper.

Point 1 I hope to post on yet again - Ms. Leonnig closes with this:

The CIA isn't famous for its clarity, but it's being pretty blunt on this issue: Langley says she was covert. Which other spook bureaucracy do you need to ask?

Yeah, yeah.  From a follow-up defense filing we learned this:

The summary described above [Ms. Plame's CIA employment summary] was provided to the defense along with a companion summary that defined a "covert" CIA employee as a "CIA employee whose employment is not publicly acknowledged by the CIA or the employee."4 It is important to bear in mind that the IIPA defines "covert agent" differently.

As to "Langely says she was covert", Rep. Hoekstra got this from the CIA in response to a query about Ms. Plame's IIPA status:

On March 21, Hoekstra [Ranking Republican on the House Intel Committee] again requested the CIA to define Mrs. Wilson's status. A written reply April 5 from Christopher J. Walker, the CIA's director of congressional affairs, said only that "it is taking longer than expected" to reply because of "the considerable legal complexity required for this tasking."

As best I can read it, it is either a myth that the WH said they would fire everyone who leaked, or a myth that they did in fact fire everyone.  Since I don't know anyone claiming that Bush fired all the leakers, I don't see how that could be the myth, so by process of elimination, I infer that the myth is the the WH said it at all.

And since she uses the word "accountable" rather than "fired" in her next paragraph, she seems to be suggesting that Bush described a different outcome than "fired".

Need more help?  When I posted, almost two years ago, that when Bush says "yes" to a reporter who asks, in effect, "Do you stand by your pledge that I am now mis-stating", the yes applies to "Stand by the pledge" not "I stand by the newly mis--stated pledge".  Don't put words in the President's mouth.

You want to call that a silly game?  Quite a compelling rebuttal.

Regarding the INR memo - it was prepared at State in response to Libby's questions; Libby did not "request" a memo, as asserted above, and in fact, never saw this one (OK, he claims he never saw it and no one claims to have given it to him, but who knows...)

Armitage almost surely saw the June 10 copy, since he leaked the contents to Woodward in June 13.

Who ordered him to get a copy?  Please - Armitage's underlings had prepared a memo to prepare their response to queries from OVP; any bureaucrat with half a brain (i.e., Armitage and Powell) would want to know what the underlings were telling OVP, in case Cheney buttonholed one of them with follow-up questions.  

Right now you are up 2-0, but stand back:

Leonning is clearly supporting my view.

Leonning is clearly supporting my view.

Leonning is clearly supporting my view.

Great, I win.  Unless it is four out of seven.