but it’s good to know; makes sense of my hunches.

thanks.

and, yet another slip under…. like postcards passing in the fog….

this can get confusing sometimes.

harlow’s account differs, as far as i know, only in that he has said he checked her status after the first conversation, and then called novak back to reiterate that her name should not be used:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..69_pf.html

in any case, i decided to google this too, and guess what i came up with. larisa was on this back then, and – as luck or providence would have it – just ran across a confirmation from none other than scott ritter:

http://www.atlargely.com/2008/…..wmd-i.html

the way the story rolls, it doesn’t lead one to any role from brewster-jennings. but, it doesn’t rule it out, either

but, if memory serves, novak put that very statement (in so many words) in a column.

googled, wiki:

In “The CIA Leak,” published on October 1, 2003, Novak describes how he had obtained the information for his July 14, 2003, column “Mission to Niger”:
During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA’s counter-proliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: “Oh, you know about it.” The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue. At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson’s wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause “difficulties” if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson’s wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.[52]

i like the rugby analogy, but i’d go so far as to add that it’s more than just one game on the field, the concept of teams keeps getting muddied cuz so many players play the ‘winning’ side, and no refs. hell, there don’t seem to be any rules!

so as far as i can tell, all will be losers.

ohmercy, i’ve thought for a long time that cheney’s outing of plame was a twofer, shutting wilson up and shutting plame down.

What Wayne Madsen wrote “Going Blind in Iran“, circa September 17-18, 2006:

However, Ney had also stumbled across incriminating evidence tying top Bush administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, to the WMD proliferation network — the same intelligence discovered by covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson and her Brewster Jennings & Associates (BJ&A) network in their investigation of arms smuggling routes through Cyprus, South Africa, Turkey, and former Soviet Central Asian states. Zayat’s money laundering reportedly coincided with BJ&A’s investigation of WMD money laundering and sanctions-busting activities in Switzerland, Cyprus, and the Isle of Man. Ney’s links to the Middle East arms bazaar also provided the CIA with an important backchannel into Tehran, Damascus, and Baghdad — a backchannel not wanted by the neocons who were anxious to bomb all three capital cities.

The CIA (BJ&A) was about to bite its own tail (the Tinners) in Switzerland? Cheney had to shut that down by taking out BJ&A (and settling a score with Wilson as the ‘twofer’)?

Ney had to go to the can because he had his own channel the the neocons didn’t want?