Novak's "tell all" Plame column revealed little new, contained more falsehoods, distortions, and contradictions
SUMMARY: In his latest column, Bob Novak purported to discuss his role in the federal investigation into the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, but instead of providing the answer to perhaps the most enduring mystery in this case -- the identity of his original source -- he repeated a number of false and contradictory statements regarding the investigation and the manner in which he learned of Plame's identity.
In his July 12 nationally syndicated column, Fox News political analyst Robert D. Novak claimed to make good on his promise to discuss his role in the federal investigation into the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. But he did not provide the answer to perhaps the most enduring mystery in this case -- the identity of his original source -- and repeated false and contradictory statements regarding the investigation and the manner in which he learned of Plame's identity. The only discernible new disclosure in Novak's column was that he in fact testified before the grand jury and revealed his sources there.
In 2002, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was sent to Niger by the CIA to answer questions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office regarding the purported sale of Nigerien yellowcake uranium to Iraq. Wilson's investigation turned up no evidence that any sale had taken place and found that "it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq." After President Bush alluded to Iraq's purported attempt to obtain uranium from Africa in his 2003 State of the Union address as justification for invading Iraq (the now-infamous "sixteen words"), Wilson detailed the findings of his trip in a July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed. Eight days later, in his July 14, 2003, column, Novak identified Plame as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction," and wrote: "Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger." In September 2003, it was reported that the Justice Department had launched an investigation into the public disclosure of Plame's identity. In December 2003, the Justice Department appointed U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald as special counsel to head the inquiry. On October 28, 2005, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's then-chief of staff, was indicted on charges of obstruction of justice, perjury, and making false statements to the FBI regarding the Plame investigation.
Deliberate disclosure or inadvertent?
In his latest column, Novak has continued his pattern of making false and contradictory statements regarding the Plame case, including offering contradictory accounts of how he came to know of Plame's identity as a CIA operative. In his July 12 column, Novak wrote:
In my sworn testimony, I said what I have contended in my columns and on television: Joe Wilson's wife's role in instituting her husband's mission was revealed to me in the middle of a long interview with an official who I have previously said was not a political gunslinger. After the federal investigation was announced, he told me through a third party that the disclosure was inadvertent on his part.
Novak previously wrote, in his October 1, 2003, column, that he learned of Plame's identity through "an offhand revelation" from his primary source. On the October 5, 2003, broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press, Novak claimed Plame's identity "came up almost offhandedly in the course of a very long conversation with a senior official about many things." As Media Matters for America noted, however, these explanations, as well as Novak's most recent claim that "the disclosure was inadvertent," are contradicted by the account of how he learned of Plame's identity he gave to Newsday shortly after the publication of his July 14, 2003, column. According to Newsday, he said that his White House sources "thought it was significant." According to the July 22 Newsday article:
Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."
On the October 5, 2003, broadcast of Meet the Press, host Tim Russert asked Novak to explain the discrepancy between the two quotes; Novak responded that his earlier statement had not been "very artfully put" and insisted that there existed "no inconsistency between those two."
Novak misrepresents Senate Intel Committee findings on Plame role
In his July 12 column, Novak twice claimed that Plame "helped initiate" Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger and claimed that the Senate Intelligence Committee's 2004 report on prewar Iraq intelligence "confirmed" that assertion:
For nearly the entire time of his investigation, Fitzgerald knew -- independent of me -- the identity of the sources I used in my column of July 14, 2003. A federal investigation was triggered when I reported that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, was employed by the CIA and helped initiate his 2002 mission to Niger. That Fitzgerald did not indict any of these sources may indicate his conclusion that none of them violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
[...]
I considered his wife's role in initiating Wilson's mission, later confirmed by the Senate Intelligence Committee, to be a previously undisclosed part of an important news story. I reported it on that basis.
Novak previously made these claims in an August 1, 2005, column. As Media Matters has noted, however, the CIA has disputed the assertion that Plame was instrumental in her husband's obtaining the assignment. Also, the Senate Intelligence Committee report offered no conclusions as to whether Plame suggested Wilson for the trip. The committee chairman, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), stated in an addendum to the report that committee Democrats had specifically opposed inclusion of an official finding on the subject.
Indeed, Novak himself accurately noted the committee's lack of a conclusion on the matter in a July 15, 2004, column, writing: "They neither agreed to a conclusion that former diplomat Joseph Wilson was suggested for a mission to Niger by his CIA employee wife nor defended his statements to the contrary." Since then, however, Novak has consistently and falsely claimed that the Senate Intelligence Committee report "confirmed" Plame's role in the controversy.
Central question remains
Novak's column also revealed little or nothing that was not previously known about his sources or role in the leaking of Plame's identity. In his July 12 column, Novak wrote:
Some journalists have badgered me to disclose my role in the case, even demanding I reveal my sources -- identified in the column as two senior Bush administration officials and an unspecified CIA source. I have promised to discuss my role in the investigation when permitted by the prosecution, and I do so now.
But Novak did not answer the central question regarding his role in the investigation: Who was his primary source for Plame's identity? Instead, he "revealed" that White House senior adviser Karl Rove and former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow were his "confirming" sources. Novak wrote:
I have revealed Rove's name because his attorney has divulged the substance of our conversation, though in a form different from my recollection. I have revealed Harlow's name because he has publicly disclosed his version of our conversation, which also differs from my recollection. My primary source has not come forward to identify himself.
It has long been known, however, that Rove and Novak spoke about Plame. As The Washington Post reported on October 20, 2005: "One of the longest-running mysteries of the case is the identity of Novak's second source. Rove has testified that he discussed Plame in passing with Novak, but it is not clear who else did." Also, Novak previously acknowledged Harlow as his source at the CIA. In his August 1, 2005, column, Novak specifically responded to Harlow's claim that Novak had ignored Harlow's warnings regarding the Plame story. Novak wrote:
In the course of a front-page story in last Wednesday's Washington Post, Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei quoted ex-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow describing his testimony to the grand jury. In response to my question about Valerie Plame Wilson's role in former Amb. Wilson's trip to Niger, Harlow told me she "had not authorized the mission." Harlow was quoted as later saying to me "the story Novak had related to him was wrong."
Moreover, Harlow himself has reported that he discussed Plame with Novak before the July 2003 column.
Let's see. There's the copy of the editorial marked up by Dick Cheney himself, noting Plame's possible "involvement" in Wilson's activities. Then there's that SEVERAL sources in the White House put the story out at the same time. Then there's Libby's contention that he was given the go-ahead to reveal classified information about Wilson by the President's office.
So now the story is that Novak being told was "inadvertant"? A well-planned, White House-wide coordinated leak program, participated in by many people in the White House, OKed by either/or the President and Vice President, and some in the CIA, was an "inadvertant" thing?
Then there's that Bob Woodward had "the story", such as it was, MONTHS before Novak, but Woodward decided to sit on the information. Was his telling "inadvertant" as well?
Judith Miller was told as well, but she didn't immediately report it, either. The White House was HAPPY to let her go to jail rather than reveal that Rove, Libby, and others were leaking like crazy. They let her be jailed, rather than admit their part in this PLANNED, "unintentional" leaking of classified information.
Meanwhile, they send Scott McClellan in front of the American people to DENY that any in the White House leaked this information. He LIED to us.
Yeah, this makes sense, that inadvertance was running rampant through this White House. That, and a sudden urgency to COVER UP.
from the raw story:
"Conservative commentators are already trumpeting Novak's claim that the leak was inadvertent and accidental... Maybe I'm cynical or perhaps it's because I worked in Congress for years. But you know what, I always found that leaks of this size were rarely mistakes regardless of what the writer or the right-wing people may tell you. I can assure you that if you assign selfish motives to leakers, you will rarely be proven wrong."
He even thinks Novak is shovelling 10 pounds into a 5 pound sack!
Suffered by the Titanic
What would be wrong (or newsworthy, from Novak's perspective) about that? Why does that make any difference to the righties if Plame suggested sending Wilson or not? It has always made perfect sense to me that someone in her [former ] position might either suggest he go, or agree when asked. It is the CIA's job, after all. Prior to be outed, aquiring similar intelligence for Iran was directly her job. Have I been missing something here for all these months?
are several if you want to discredit Mr. Wilson. This is politics. Mr. Wilson played politics first, and in that world it was only natural for the other side to respond with politics.
First, he had no wmd background, so why send someone with no experience in uranium or nuclear materials or wmd for that matter? Plame was more qualified than Joe. The question was why send someone from the CIA who is more of an ambassador type than an expert in this area? Answer: His wife pushed him for the job.
Wilson's trip wasn't a trip to a nuclear reactor. It was to sniff out a POLITICAL situation, one in which his expertise fit perfectly, to wit: diplomatic experience with Iraq AND Niger both.
Now if he was sent to remove the rods from a reactor core, I'd chalk it up to the Bush policy of "worst man for the job" and, no, we wouldn't have had heard squat about the meltdown in Niger, just, "You did a heckuva job, Willy."
After watching Crossfire daily for years along with the performance of Mr. Novak, I don't believe anything he does or says in relation to his leaking Plame's name was inadvertant or anything other than another calculated act like he did with Rove about 10 years ago. Hardly anyone mentions anymore why he vehemently went after trying to out her front company name and address and how that may have harmed countless other operatives. He did that on Crossfire if I remember correctly just a day or two or shortly after his initial column and day after day he went after Wilson like a rabid dog going into his election donations along with Plame's etc. I don't know if the transcripts would still be available after they have removed the show, but he went after Wilson as a liberal or democrat at every chance he could. He displayed by his daily actions this was not anything that could be misconstrued as "accidental" but a blatant attempt to discredit Wilson as often as he could on Crossfire daily.
as he had the choice to print this so called " inadvertent " leak.
After his refreshing “hissy fit” debut, Bobble-head Novak has returned to spew anew his bilge. Pray tell, what nuanced histrionics might Mr. N mount when he takes center stage anew? Surely he’ll lavish another of his patented, tear-jerked melodramas. And strew his dais with peanut shells to announce his sojourn.
Just when you think he cannot be more duplicitous, Novakula takes it up one more level.
Olbermann (MSNBC) is commenting on this story shortly.
"We talk about spreading democracy and freedom all over the world, but they are to us words rather than conditions. We haven't even got them here in America, and the farther we get into this war the farther we get away from democracy and freedom. Where is it leading us to, and when will it end?
The war might stop this winter, but that is improbable. It may go on for fifty years or more. That also is improbable. The elements are too conflicting and confused to form any accurate judgment of its length. There may be a series of wars, one after another, going on indefinitely.
Possibly the world will come to its senses sooner than I expect. But, as I have often said, the environment of human life has changed more rapidly and more extensively in recent years than it has ever changed before. When environment changes, there must be a corresponding change in life. That change must be so great that it is not likely to be completed in a decade or in a generation. "
-Charles Lindbergh Journal entry (11 December 1941); later published in The Wartime Journals (1970)
and it's not too much. I think it should be put into a booklet of quotes that should be required reading prior to voting.
The NY Times has never said their SWIFT story was accidental-they've stood by it, to their credit.
Unlike the party of accountability and values, who seems to be filling up the "nobody could have anticipated" and "we were given bad intelligence" and "in hindsight, we're idiots, but let's keep going" sacks of Foxcrement.
Any lame attempt by the Cons to keep making the analogy is negated by their wussy "Oopsy" defense.
when rove and libby called half a dozen reporters, maybe more, before novak's column. and none of them knew of plame's status. and libby asked judith miller to disquise his status as an administration official by calling him a former hill staffer.
important to leak Plame's name, then why did Judith Miller not even write a story about it?
So you think 1 reporter not writing the story is a strong rebuttal to multiple admin officials calling multiple reporters to get the info out? Hmmmm, you're not too good at this debate thing are you.
a non-issue it is ridiculous. ValeriePlame was not some secret spy who's life was endangered by her name being exposed in an article. Her husband had already done that anyways. You guys are really fishing here.
When you set the standard as HIGH as the Republicans did for Bill Clinton, you and the rest of the conservative robots don't get to cry insignificant.
If a president can be impeached for lying about his sex life then covering up the outing of a CIA operative is at least impeachable if not worthy of life in front of the firing squad, as Col. Henry Blake once put it.
Remember: this is YOUR standard. Time you started applying it. Just pretend Bill Clinton did all the things Bush has done then let the hearings begin!
Excerpts from a former CIA "classmate" of Ms Plame in a letter to Congress:
"...We must put to bed the lie that she was not undercover. For starters, if she had not been undercover then the CIA would not have referred the matter to the Justice Department...Val only told those with a need to know about her status in order to safeguard her cover, not compromise it. Val has never been a flamboyant, insecure person who felt the need to tell people what her "real" job was. She was content with being known as an energy consultant married to Joe Wilson and the mother of twins. Despite the repeated claims of representatives for the Republican National Committee, the Wilson's neighbors did not know where Valerie really worked until Novak's op-ed appeared.
I would note that not a single member of our training class has come forward to denounce Valerie or question her bona fides. To the contrary, those we have talked to have endorsed what those of us who have left the CIA are doing to defend her reputation and honor.
As noted in the joint letter submitted to Congressional leaders earlier this week, the RNC is repeating the lie that Valerie was nothing more than a glorified desk jockey and could not possibly have any cover worth protecting...I am stunned that some political leaders have such ignorance about a matter so basic to the national security structure of this nation.
Robert Novak's compromise of Valerie caused even more damage. It subsequently led to scrutiny of her cover company. This not only compromised her "cover" company but potentially every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company or with her..."
Larry C Johnson.
You can read the full letter at [link to www.crooksandliars.com]
Flip the players in this script and make this a Democratic administration you guys would be calling for the administration leakers and the biased reporters heads on sticks. Nevertheless, I give you guys credit because you guys are consisent in your bias. Your down right steadfastly biased, no flip flopping real men!
From the same letter linked above:
"Another false claim is that Valerie sent her husband on the mission to Niger. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee Report issued in July 2004, it is clear that the Vice President himself requested that the CIA provide its views on a Defense Intelligence Agency report that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium from Niger. The Vice President's request was relayed through the CIA bureaucracy to the Director of the Counter Proliferation Division at the CIA. Valerie worked for a branch in that Division.
The Senate Intelligence Report is frequently cited by Republican partisans as "proof" that Valerie sent her husband to Niger because she sent a memo describing her husband's qualifications to the Deputy Division Chief. Several news personalities, such as Chris Matthews and Bill O'Reilly continue to repeat this nonsense as proof. What the Senate Intelligence Committee does not include in the report is the fact that Valerie's boss had asked her to write a memo outlining her husband's qualifications for the job. She did what any good employee does; she gave her boss what he asked for.
The decision to send Joe Wilson on the mission to Niger was made by Valerie's bosses. She did not have the authority to sign travel vouchers, issue travel orders, or expend one dime of U.S. taxpayer dollars on her own. Yet, she has been singled out by the Republican National Committee and its partisans as a legitimate target of attack. It was Karl Rove who told Chris Matthews, "Wilson's wife is fair game". "