Adapted from The Next Hurrah
The New York Times today focuses attention on a memo that has been floating around the Plame story for a long time. I have long speculated that Frederick Fleitz (Bolton's Chief of Staff, but shared by CIA at the time) may have written the memo; but that didn't make sense to me because it has always been described as an INR memo. It would be a stretch to say that Fleitz was an INR analyst. But NYT suggests the memo and the notes may have been written by different people. Which may be where the shenanigans with the memo happened.
The memo that Powell took to Africa is apparently the same memo that was leaked to the
WSJ in late 2003 to provide proof that Plame sent Wilson on a bamboozle.
This memo, recall, was first referred to as "prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel." Later it was leaked that it was an "INR memo" (I think Newsday was the first to identify it as such, but Jeff Gannon was one of the first to do so). Further, this memo was discredited by the CIA based on the fact that the person "who wrote it" wasn't at the meeting in question. Joe Wilson says he has heard the same.
I had one reporter tell me that the person who wrote the memo wasn't at any meeting, and had quoted someone who had also never been to any meeting. [my emphasis]
I've always been surprised about this. If CIA knows definitively the memo is fraudulent, then why aren't they making a bigger deal out of it? In fact, I've never once heard someone authoritative refer to it as fraudulent--I've only heard people discrediting it because the author wasn't at the meeting.
Since it became clear this was an INR memo, I've always assumed that meant it was written at the direction of the INR, and that it meant that it was written by an INR analyst. Which would rule Frederick Fleitz (Bolton's Chief of Staff) or David Wurmser (then Bolton's Deputy, but moved to OVP in September 2003) out, unless we're stretching the definition of INR analyst to include all analysts who are currently stationed at State.
But here's how the NYT refers to the memo today:
The memorandum was prepared at the State Department, relying on notes by an analyst who was involved in meetings in early 2002 to discuss whether to send someone to Africa to investigate allegations that Iraq was pursuing uranium purchases. The C.I.A. was asked by Mr. Cheney's office and the State and Defense Departments to look into the reports. [my emphasis]
This would suggest it's possible the author of the memo is not the person who took the notes. That is, someone else at State took an analyst's notes (presumably, but not necessarily, an INR analyst) and wrote them up into a memo summarizing Wilson's trip. This might make the CIA's comments more sensible--the person who wrote the memo wasn't present at the meeting, but the analyst whose notes the memo author used was.
The NYT suggests there is some discrepancy between the memo and the notes.
the notes described a Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at C.I.A. headquarters on whether Mr. Wilson should go to Niger. The notes, which did not identify Ms. Wilson or her husband by name, said the meeting was "apparently convened by" the wife of a former ambassador "who had the idea to dispatch" him to Niger because of his contacts in the region. [my emphasis]
But the memo does refer directly to Wilson by name.
The memorandum ... referred explicitly to Valerie Wilson as Mr. Wilson's wife,
Further, if you look at how the WaPo reports on the memo, it shows the memo referred to Plame's involvement in Wilson's trip differently than the notes apparently do.
The memo "identifies her as having selected or recommended her husband" for the Niger assignment, [my emphasis]
The NYT doesn't say that the author of the notes and the author of the notes were different. But it does show over a year passed between the time the notes were taken (Feb. 19, 2002) and the memo was written (June 10, 2003--after Kristof's column about Wilson appeared, but before Wilson's own op-ed appeared).
Further, again according to the NYT the memo bounced around a bit in State,
"The memorandum was written for Marc Grossman, then the under secretary of state for political affairs,
But Powell didn't get it from Grossman.
When Mr. Wilson's Op-Ed article appeared on July 6, 2003, a Sunday, Richard L. Armitage, then deputy secretary of state, called Carl W. Ford Jr., the assistant secretary for intelligence and research, at home, a former State Department official said. Mr. Armitage asked Mr. Ford to send a copy of the memorandum to Mr. Powell, who was preparing to leave for Africa with Mr. Bush, the former official said. Mr. Ford sent it to the White House for transmission to Mr. Powell.
So here's my question about State. If the memo was written for Marc Grossman, why would Armitage go to Ford to get it from him? How did Armitage already know about the memo? And what of the fact that Armitage called Ford at home? Was he just in such a rush, on July 7, to get it to Powell before he left for Africa. Or was there a reason to do this off the books and get it from Ford directly?
Now, normally it would not be surprising that the memo and the notes were written by different people. State may have been trying to hide details from the original notes. But here, the memo provides more information than the notes.
It seems to me that the possible disparity between the author of the memo and the author of the actual notes may be the real source of confusion--or mischief--here. And it might be just the place where Wurmser or Fleitz--or Bolton--could have slipped in some damaging information on Plame.