My reason for thinking this is Woodward's writing in his two previous books about the administration. Certain officials are simply discussed by the actions they took or the public pronouncements they made. Others, particularly Tenet, Powell, and Armitage, are given special attention and their "thoughts" as events unfolded are described in detail. Tenet and Powell got far more attention than Donald Rumsfeld in the book Bush at War. I believe this was because unlike Rumsfeld, Tenet and Powell gave detailed interviews to Woodward.
It is not inconceivable to me that one of them let this piece of information out in the course of an interview, and that it wasn't considered important, especially if the information came from the head of the CIA, George Tenet.
Woodward has a long history of CIA contacts, and my money is on Tenet as the source.
Are you challenging me to a bet?
LOL!
It could just as well be Tenet. But the irony would be more delicious if it turns out to be the MediaCrats' favorite general!
And thanks for the reminder about the interviews for Woodward's book. I'd forgotten how evident it was that Powell and, maybe, Tenet had played major roles and provided him with an incredible amount of access.
I would love to be a fly on trhe wall at the WP.
Hee-hee-hee (evil laugh)
Mine too. Who would a reporter logically go to to get information on a story about an envoy sent by the CIA to Niger? The CIA, of course. Remember, Tenet and James Pavitt (Plame's boss) both resigned within four days of each other for "personal reasons" along with Jami Miscik,CIA Deputy Director for Intelligence (for what she called a "natural evolution", although rumor has it that she was asked to leave). According to Wayne Madsen, he was told by the DoJ that these resignations were connected to the Plame investigation. While Madsen is considered by some to be a leftist kook, as is Seymour Hersch (who said the CIA admitted they forged the documents), I just can't fathom them publicly reporting false conversations with officials connected to the case. Also, they are normally critical of Bush, why would they print something untrue that would seem to exhonerate the Bush Admin on this?
Great analysis!