Now look at these three leaks (from Parry)
Armitage to Novak:
Novak wrote that Armitage “told me unequivocally that Mrs. Wilson worked in the CIA’s Counter-proliferation Division and that she had suggested her husband’s mission.Libby to Miller
On July 8, 2003, two days after Wilson’s article, Libby gave Judith Miller more details about the Wilsons. Cheney’s chief of staff said Wilson’s wife worked at a CIA unit responsible for weapons intelligence and non-proliferation.Rove to Cooper:
Rove added that the Niger trip was authorized by “Wilson’s wife, who apparently works at the agency [CIA] on WMD issues,” according to Cooper’s notes of the interview.For one reason or other, her specific work at the agency was the third leg of the official talking points. Why was that necessary? And if it wasn't necessary, why was it added? If anything, it kinda undermines their girly-man argument, because it suggests that she was at least somewhat qualified to recommend Wilson.
The 'WMD issues' thing didn't help the journalists track down the story, e.g. Novak simply called the regular CIA spokesman, Bill Harlow - the same guy he would have called wherever in the CIA Plame worked. So why did they include it? Good question.
Relatedly (kinda), this quote (again from Parry) is probably the funniest thing ever:
On July 20, 2003, NBC’s correspondent Andrea Mitchell told Wilson that “senior White House sources” had called her to stress “the real story here is not the 16 words but Wilson and his wife.”Perhaps that should be the name for EW's book! As I mentioned the other day, I have some issues with '16 Words' - perhaps we should call the book "Not the 16 Words"!
That'd be funny for a few reasons, and EW could call the book that for 'legitimate' reasons (i.e. without having to buy into my crazy conspiracy theories)