From the Washington Post (which should know given its connections to Woodward and Bradlee) we have this on the Plame leak coming from Armitage:

In an interview yesterday, Bradlee said he does know the identity of Woodward’s source and does not recall making that precise statement to a Vanity Fair reporter. He said he has no interest in unmasking the official who first told Woodward about Plame in June 2003.

“I don’t think I said it,” Bradlee said. “I know who his source is, and I don’t want to get into it. . . . I have not told a soul who it is.”

Seems like a non-denial denial to me. Seems Bradlee spoke too freely. At least he admits he knows who the leaker is!

Bradlee, currently Post vice president at large, said he learned the source’s name from someone other than Woodward. Woodward said he did not reveal the source to his friend and former boss.

OK, so Bradlee snooped on Woodward as opposed to snitched on his source. I guess in the world of journalism that makes a difference somehow in blowing a commitment of confidentiality.

“He is not in the management loop on this,” Woodward said. “Maybe he was alerted from somebody else, if he in fact did learn” the source’s name.

Hmm. So somebody else knows. Like Novak? Armitage? Mary Matalin? Fitzgerald? Who is Woodward implicating?

Woodward and Bradlee refused to disclose the source’s name. Armitage did not return phone calls requesting comment.

Ok, unless Armitage comes out with a clear and unambiguous denial it was probably him.

It made Woodward’s source — not Libby — the first known government official to disclose Plame’s CIA employment to a reporter. Woodward has said he does not recall ever discussing Plame with Libby.

It also made Woodward’s source the first and only one to obstruct justice and possibly commit perjury. Libby’s perjury charge is based upon the assumption he lied to reporters and never divulged his inside knowledge on Plame’s role on the Wilson hit pieces. This all makes me more a believer.