Hitchens baselessly claimed Novak's recent statements "dissolved any remaining doubt about the mad theory that the Bush administration 'outed' Ms. Valerie Plame"
SUMMARY: Christopher Hitchens concluded that Robert Novak's July 12 "tell-all" column and his July 16 appearance on Meet the Press "dissolved any remaining doubt" that the Bush administration "outed" Valerie Plame, but presented irrelevant facts and assertions in support of that conclusion.
In a July 17 column titled "The End of the Affair" appearing in Slate, Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Hitchens concluded that syndicated columnist and Fox News political analyst Robert D. Novak's July 12 column, coupled with Novak's appearance on the July 16 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, "dissolved any remaining doubt about the mad theory that the Bush administration 'outed' [former CIA agent] Ms. Valerie Plame as revenge for her husband's [former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV] refusal to confirm the report by British intelligence that Iraqi officials had visited Niger in search of uranium." Following that claim, Hitchens "summarize[d]" what "we now know," which he apparently offered in support of his claim:
- "Novak was never approached by any administration officials but approached them instead."
- "He [Novak] was never told the name Plame but discovered it from Who's Who in America, which contained it in Joseph Wilson's entry."
- "Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had all along known which sources had responded to Novak's questions."
But none of these points support Hitchens's conclusion that there is no "remaining doubt" about whether the Bush administration outed Plame as revenge for her husband's actions.
"Novak was never approached by any administration officials but approached them instead.''
Hitchens apparently makes this assertion to rebut claims that the Bush administration deliberately disclosed Plame's identity "as revenge for her husband's refusal" to confirm President Bush's claims about Iraq seeking yellowcake uranium from Niger. But whether Novak called his sources or they called him does not directly answer the question of whether the disclosure of Plame's identity was deliberate, and on that question, Novak has made seemingly inconsistent statements. As Media Matters for America has noted, a July 22, 2003, Newsday article quoted Novak saying: "I didn't dig it [Plame's identity] out, it was given to me." He continued: "They [Novak's White House sources] thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it." However, in his October 1, 2003, column, Novak wrote that he learned of Plame's identity through "an offhand revelation" from his primary source. On the October 5, 2003, broadcast of 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." 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.
Further, rebutting Novak's claim -- and Hitchens's echoing of that claim -- that the disclosure of Plame's identity was not part of a deliberate effort to smear Wilson, in court filings released on April 6, Fitzgerald wrote that "it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish' Wilson." Moreover, as Media Matters has previously noted, in court filings including the indictment of former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice, Fitzgerald asserted that Novak was not the first reporter to be told Plame's identity by administration officials. According to the indictment, Libby discussed Plame's CIA employment with former New York Times reporter Judith Miller on two occasions prior to Novak's July 14, 2003, column that revealed Plame's identity -- on June 23, 2003, and July 8, 2003; Matthew Cooper, then Time magazine's White House correspondent, claimed that White House senior adviser Karl Rove disclosed Plame's CIA identity to him on July 11, 2003; and an unnamed administration official reportedly leaked the information to Washington Post staff writer Walter Pincus on July 12, 2003. It was this pattern, among other things, that led Fitzgerald to assert the existence of a "concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" to smear Wilson after the publication of his July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed -- in which he cast doubt over Bush's claims about Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Niger. Hitchens's column never mentioned Miller, Pincus, or Cooper.
"He [Novak] was never told the name Plame but discovered it from Who's Who in America, which contained it in Joseph Wilson's entry."
Hitchens repeated a popular argument among conservative media figures -- that there is significance to Novak's claim that he was not told Plame's name by administration sources but learned it from Who's Who in America. Hitchens did not explain the purported significance of this. In fact, as Media Matters has noted, whatever harm that arose from the outing of Plame resulted not from the disclosure of her actual name, but from identifying "Wilson's wife" as an employee of the CIA. As Media Matters -- and Novak -- have noted, the actual name of "Wilson's wife" could have been -- and apparently was, by Novak -- easily discovered. Even Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, and Republican attorney Victoria Toensing, a defender of Novak's, acknowledged that public disclosure of Plame's actual name had no bearing on whether there was a violation of the law.
"Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had all along known which sources had responded to Novak's questions."
While this fact, if true, may be relevant to whether Fitzgerald was satisfied with Novak's level of cooperation with the investigation -- implying that Novak did cooperate to the extent that was necessary -- Hitchens does not explain how this "dissolve[s] any remaining doubt" about whether the Bush administration purposely leaked Plame's identity. In fact, as mentioned above, Fitzgerald has also stated there was a "concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" Wilson. Also, as mentioned above, although Novak has yet to reveal the identity of his primary source, Fitzgerald has alleged that Libby and Rove gave Plame's identity to other reporters before it was given to Novak.
On this issue. Hitchens has gone round the bend in his zeal to carry water for the Gump administration. FACT Novak said directly in his column that two high ranking administration officials told him Valeri Plame was a CIA operative. There was NEVER any question that this administation exposed her as a CIA operative PERIOD.
...therefore, it is so!
This mindset is at the foundation of all things unprovable and currently Republican.... This is 'faith-based' politics.
There's no need to even check the validity of Hitchens's points 1 and 3. The fact that he was so desperate to pad his list that he included the ludicrous logical gaffe of point 2 proves he has nothing.
who quit his column with "the nation" because they were sooooo wrong about going into iraq. another snippy little neocon who's still preaching to those who were correct. so on july 22, novak's source, according to him, "thought it [her identity] was significant, they gave me the name." then on oct. i, that had changed to "an offhand revelation". that pretty much is a direct contradiction.
Ten years ago I thought the Mr. Hitchens was one of the most interesting public intellectuals in existence. Since 9/11 he has degenerated into an agent of political theater. Despite all of his seeming erudition, cultured manner and sophistication he's nothing but a neocon attack dog, a hired thug and political name-caller. I quit going to Slate because I just couldn't stop hoping that he'd come around...he seemed so smart. Now I'm just disgusted whenever I hear his whingeing about the antiwar movement and his sickening fawning over the Neoconservative cause. Christopher Hitchens lives in a fantasy world where none of his inital positions are ever wrong and platitudes take the place of real ideas and solutions to America's problems.
Does anyone even listen to this guy?
He always looked like he's drunk off his ass.
Is he a heavy drinker?
He looks like he's drunk off his ass because he's drunk off his ass. He pretty much destroys the myth of the classy Brit.
Hitchens is the living proof that alcohol will destroy one's mind. Since 911 he has degenerated into a neocon cheerleader.
Perhaps more than a few of you (or most of you) forget that Hitchens was one of the first to attack Bush's little domestic spying program, furthermore signing on as a plaintiff in the ACLU suit. To call him a "Cheerleader" for the neo-cons is harldy accurate, and demonstrably false. Furthermore, it was the Nation who booted Hitchens, or rather, "asked" him to leave. In the end, it was the Neo-cons who came around to Hitchens justification for the War in Iraq and not vice-versa. Hitchens main basis for ousting Hussein was a two fold argument: one, humanitarian, and two, based upon solidarity with heavily oppressed secular left in Iraq (as well as his longstanding support for the Kurdish resistance). I don't always agree with Hitchens, but the demonization of him that has occured on the left is troubling in my opinion. Hitchens has (like most democrats, you may recall) supported the initial invasion but subsequently been highly critical of the handling of the war and 'rebuilding' of Iraq. Quite frankly, he has been more critical of the handling of the Iraq war and the 'war on terrorism' as adminstered by the Bush admin. than certain wanna-be first female presidential candidates. Is Hitchens wrong on this one? I don't know. What I do know, however, is that he seems to be on the right side (that being the 'left' side, of course :) ) of the first amendment when it comes to press freedom and the protection of government sources, which I assume is his underlying point here. Plame wasn't a field agent deep in enemy territory. Wilson's "investigation" in Niger, if you read many of Hitchens columns on the subject, was conducted, at best, with minimal effort. Despite Hitchens attempt to get at the truth of the Niger issue, however, I think he probably agrees with me regarding the whole issue of WMD's, which is, they are not a basis for g0ing to war, particularly when we consider the United States' hypocrisy on the subject, and our hypcrisy on the subject of national soveriegnty in general. Is Hitchens wrong sometimes? of course. Is he a pet of the Neo-cons? Please. Agree to disagree, lay out your case, but stay off the ad-hominem attacks.
>>Furthermore, it was the Nation who booted Hitchens, or rather, "asked" him to leave.
I am not absoutely sure, but am pretty damn sure that this is totally wrong. Hitchens actually wrote a letter explaining why he was leaving--not why he was fired.
You are also very wrong about Hitchens not being a cheerleader as well as his rationale for the war. Hitchens has given so many contradictory rationales that it is hard to keep track. Yes, Hitchens did push the WMD issue and is still pushing it. See the Slate column in question. Ludicrously, Hitchens believes that Saddam tried to purchase uranium from Iraq, though now that we have interviewed all those involved and looked at documents, we have concluded that Iraq never *tried* (let alone succeeded) in purchasing uranium.
Further, Hitchens has been one of the most obnoxious supporters of the war. That is why the left can't stand him. (To be sure, he was always an anti-intelluctual snob who passed himself off as smart by using inuendo and smears, which is why I could never stand him.) For example, he wrote and article entitled "Why I hope the anti-war protestors get rained on." (This is not the exact title, but pretty close.) In it I believe he calls those against the war Saddam aplogist, a term he contantly uses to denigrate those against the war.
I have subscribed to the Nation magazine for years. Hitchens was NOT fired he left of his own accord. You guys can continue along this path of pretending Plame was not undercover, its garbage, the CIA says she was and I guess they ought to know better than, I dont know say YOU. I think most people supported the invasion of Afghanistan I am not so sure most democrats supported the invasion of Iraq a month before the invasion a poll showed that a majority (59%) of people PERIOD did not support invading Iraq without the support of the UN or our allies. I guess you just make these things up as you go along or get your news from FOX which would be just about the same thing.
More sarcastic than I meant to be. Excuse me, it is early for me. Hitchens didnt get fired. I am willing to cut Hitch some slack because of the really good work he has done in the past like his book and documentary on Kissenger. He will still attack Bush on economic policy but he has really gone over the bend on the war. This attack was bone dumb. OBVIOUSLY the Bush administration exposed her identity that was NEVER in doubt. The original article made that clear. Rove and Libbys lawyers have admitted to them doing so. Not long before they exposed her a memo on Air Force one mentioned her CIA status and it was marked secret. It is purely ludicrous to make the statement Hitch did.
>>Despite Hitchens attempt to get at the truth of the Niger issue,
Apparently, the phrase "attempt to get at the truth" does not meant what you think it does. This phrase means an honest effort to understand the situation. As MMFA demonstrates in its critique--as any half intelligent 16-year old could see on his own--Hitchens most recent article is patently dumb. His assertions don't support the rest of his article. And if Hitchens wanted to get at the truth, he might have quoted Firtzgerald, a cautious prosecuter, who definitevely stated that it would be impossible to argue Bush did *not* try to take revenge on Wilson.
What Hitchens have you been reading?
Sounds like a good read. And I will argue he is still one of the most interesting "public intellectuals". HOWever (yes, I meant to do that and please read it that way) I think he has had a major belief shift in the last few years, and a new convert is always the most zealous. When you add that fact with the "intellectuals" need to correct and natural unwillingness to retreat from a bad position (think Iraq) it is easy to see why he is not "coming around" anytime soon.
>>And I will argue he is still one of the most interesting "public intellectuals".
Hitchens is not an intellectual. He just thinks he is. The man could not write a coherent letter to his mom, let alone put fourth an intelligent argument. I say this as someone who always despised him, even before his shift. Somehow people confuse using big words and convulted thinking with intellectualism.
Just take a look at MMFA's critique of the Slate article. Hitchens states three propisitions to make his case, but the propisitions don't support it at all. He contstanly engages in this type of stupid logic.
His main trick is innuendo. That is how he supports the ridiculous belief that Saddam tried to get uranium from Iraq. The factual case couldn't be more damaging to him.
I remember in his pre 9/11 persona, he used to make some rather viscious attacks on Mother Theresa. While there is an undeniable buzz to be had at seeing right wingers being hammered in the same way that they regularly do to liberals, still Hitchens always made me feel a bit uneasy. I suspect that his transition to neocon hitman & Republican apologist was a matter of a dour, restless alchoholic settling in with people that he feels more comfortable with.
He is also preaching the neocon position that the War on Terror is a conflict that will last for generations, & that we must adjust our thinking about the importance of our civil rights when contrasted against the demands of this holey war that we have now embarked on.
Some pretty scary stuff.
>>While there is an undeniable buzz to be had at seeing right wingers being hammered in the same way that they regularly do to liberals, still Hitchens always made me feel a bit uneasy
Exactly. Because Hithens smeared the right-wingers the way the right-wingers smear everyone else, but because he worked for our cause, so many were willing to call him intellectual and to turn a blind eye to his tatics. He has always been a big jerk.
I have to disagree on the alcoholic reason, though. I mean, he might be an alcholic, but I don't think we can say for sure, and we shouldn't resort to what amounts to an ad hominem attack. His own words speak volumes about him.
"Once you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow." A phrase considered so true it is often repeated by political sorts.
The world has a long history of "changing people"s minds." Especially, organized crime figures who face jury trials will attempt to obtain "like minded" cooperation from those who will officially judge them.
There are many methods of obtaining a "CONVERSION" of behavior, and the abandonment of common sense, honesty, integrity, and decency.
The first, and easiest, is a simple BRIBE. PAY someone to believe what they are told to believe, and testify on the adopted belief rather than the TRUTH. Armstrong Williams is only one example of "pundits" whose ideology was up for sale to the highest bidder. Bribes also have the benefit of not being overtly illegal.
If outright bribery fails, then there is BLACKMAIL. You investigate and obtain information about the person in question or their behavior, and you agree to keep it SECRET, if they will just "do you a favor" and publicly espouse the message you wish them to claim. The more MONEY you have access to, the more thorough this search can be; "situations" can even be staged in order to obtain the needed "proof". Photographic evidence of publicly STRAIGHT people in sexually compromising positions with same-sex partners work good, especially if the partner is obviously under-aged. But blackmail works on really ANY information the person wishes to be kept secret, to protect their "reputation" and perserve whatever false persona they have publicly adopted.
BLACKMAIL material sometimes cannot be obtained, so the NEXT level is the THREAT. "Do as we ask, or the people you love will start getting hurt." This threat depends on your target believing utterly in two things; 1. the threatener has the ABILITY to deliver on the threat, and 2. is fully WILLING to harm or kill people in order to obtain the "cooperation" they desire.
For example, if Dick Cheney says he wants you to vote "NO" on a bill, and then you receive a threat to your family, you have to ask yourself two questions. Are these people CAPABLE of following through? And are they WILLING to follow through? If the threat seems REAL, you are likely to "fall in line".
This is especially effective if the people threatening you REPRESENT law enforcement, leaving you nowhere to turn to obtain JUSTICE. Ken Starr threatening Susan McDougal is but one example of this "official" abuse of power.
So, has Christopher Hitchens had a political epiphony, has he "seen the light" and is now a true NeoCon believer? It is possible, of course, but if this is the case, he is pretty BAD at it.
His stories are now transparently weak. He now reports exactly like the "cooperation" of a man with his arm bent up behind his back. The "cooperation" is there, but it is reluctant, insincere, and contains NONE of his previous convictions, fire, nor cunning reasoning and persuasiveness. He is a man mouthing words, going through the motions, DELIVERING, but without any enthusiasm.
Luckily, bribers, blackmailers, or threateners do not NEED the brilliance of their targets. All that is required is cooperation on the record.
If there were more $$$ to be made by shilling for the left, I think that Hitch, Rush, BillO, Coulter, and the lot would suddenly "see the light."
I caught a bit of the OxyMorons show the other day, and he was doing the same thing as Hitchens here-- Proving the innocence of Novak by quoting Novak.
Ya think, in the process of determining Novaks role in the whole Plame deal, one of these rightys might want to get some info from at least one other source than Novak himself?
Not that he would have any bias in the case.
Yikes!
"I'm innocent! See? I said so!" doesn't fly. And it reminds me of Bush's refusal to allow investigation of his domestic spying program -- "It's legal! But so classified and supersecret you can't investigate it because I said so! Remember, it's legal if I do it!"
This idea that there was no leak because Rove/Libby said "Wilson's wife" and not her name is the most disingenuous and disgusting distortion about this whole affair. That would be like someone telling Lex Luthor that Superman is really "Lois Lane's boyfriend". The guy then looks up Lois Lane on the Internet and finds Clark Kent's name. Do you think the leaker could possibly pretend that he didn't reveal Superman's identity?
I like Hitchens. I find him provocative and interesting. However, he dropped a gear after 9/11. Something's gone seriously wrong with him. To see him parroting an obviously contorted excuse regarding Plame's outing is doubly painful. It's one thing to think that the people in Iraq will be better off without Saddam. It's another to adopt con debunked talking points. What happened to this contrarian?
Like attacking Mother Theresa for having a jet while teaching that poverty and suffering bring you closer to God. I can get onboard with that. But as for his baseless support of the Iraq War (time to teach the Middle East some manners) and taking Novak's excuses at face value, there I draw the line. How the same person can be such an adept at sniffing out religious hypocrisy yet be so "stuff-nosed" about political hypocrisy is a mystery.
>>How the same person can be such an adept at sniffing out religious hypocrisy yet be so "stuff-nosed" about political hypocrisy is a mystery.
Perhaps, but then again the only zealot worse than a religious zealot is an anti-religious zealot. Htichens comes irrational and mean in his own stance of anti-religion.
I remember reading an article written by a former student of his. Years later they sat in a bar and Hitchens became so angry. What's wrong, Hitch? the student asked. There was a Cat Steven song on the jukebox, a song dating back *before* Cat Stevens converted to a Muslim. The student was pretty shocked at the reaction of Hitchens.
Hitchens uses Fitzgerald to prove his point that Bush did not try to punish Wilson:
But then he ignores the line Fitzgerald says, the quote that would destroy his argument. Fitzgerald said:
Sounds like sour grapes from Mr. Fitzgerald. Obviously there was not enough evidence to bring charges, let alone a conviction.
I was watching "Absence of Malice" the other night. It is a Paul Newman movie where he's unfairly implicated in a mob murder by an unscrupulous government investigator and a reporter trying to get a story.
The nut of the story is he allows these people to "hang" themselves by coming to erroneous conclusions while using illegal tactics. That is what gets them in trouble.
Now, many argue the Bush Administration did something similar, by using unlawful means, to supposedly 'punish' a nobody.
However, unlike the movie, after a very concerted attempt, there is nothing more than a second rate indictment against Libby. Not for outing Plame, but for not being completely accurate in his statements? If Fitzgerald had a larger case, we would have seen it.
I think this is an obvious case of "where there is no smoke, there is no fire".
Wilson wasn't a nobody. He was/is a hero.
>>Sounds like sour grapes from Mr. Fitzgerald. Obviously there was not enough evidence to bring charges, let alone a conviction.
>>If Fitzgerald had a larger case, we would have seen it.
Fitzgerald clearly stated that he could not gather evidence because he was blocked by Libby. So it doesn't follow that it is "sour grapes." However, there certainly is proof that the Bush adminstration had a plan to seek revenge on Wilson. Some of this has been disclosed already, so I don't know what you are talking about:
[link to www.washingtonpost.com]
Thanks for the link. I read the article you cited but cannot figure out where it provides "proof" there was a plan to seek revenge on Wilson.
Maybe I missed it. Perhaps you can point it out to me?
Until then, I will ignore your last comment.
Fitzgerald states that there is abundance evidence to show the White House sought to punish Wilson. The article is one piece of evidence, a hand-written note by Cheney:
Supposedly, according to Libby and Hitchens himself, the mention of Plame's name was incidental. The records actually show that there was a concerted effort to let the press know that Plame was a CIA agent. How is the mention accidental when there is a paper trail showing many differnt people having the goal to out Plame?
Also, take a look here:
[link to www.washingtonpost.com]
Are you suggesting that Fitzgerald is lying? If what he said were not absolutely true, his case, as well as his legal standing would be in jeopordy. You can't make allegations to the press about a case that are not absolutely true and not get in trouble.
Which again begs the question: why didn't Hitchens mention what Fitzgerald believed? The answer is that Hitchens has a disregard for the truth.
that it is ok to start a war based on the evidence (or should I say NONevidence) Bush had? Especially when a former ambassador (a hero who arrainged for the release of captive Americans)--a person with complete credibility gives conflicting evidence concerning Husseins attempt to purchase uranium.
Here are a few questions that need to be answered if you believe what you just wrote.
What was Wilson's motivation to lie about the yellowcake?
If war was Bush's last prefered option, why didn't he look into Wilson's findings?
If Wilson's findings were valid, would the administration call off the war, or would they search for other reasons?
If the Bush administration wasn't sending a shot over Wilson's bow, why did they out his wife?
And concerning Novak, this is the question I have asked from the beginning--If someone in the administration mentions that Plame is Wilson's wife, how is that newsworthy enough to make it into Novak's column if it were just mentioned in passing, and if it weren't just mentioned in passing, and it was made known that she was an agent, why would Novak put it in his column?
My belief is--Yes, they outed her, and they knew it. Novak knew it, Fitzgerald knows it, hell, even you know it. They did it because Wilson was trying to avoid the death and destruction that goes with war. Wilson was screwing up their plans, and they showed him. Novak was working under orders from BushCo and was more than happy to stick it to Wilson in order to continue their "glorious cause."
Meanwhile, more than 2500 of our soldiers, 70 journalists, and maybe 50,000 Iraqi's have died. And these people are going to get off free as a bird.
that rove may have escaped indictment because a reporter, vivica novak as i remember, no relation, called rove's lawyer, unethically, and said she had been questioned by justice dept agents. it was after that, rove got in touch with fitzgerald and said he just happened to remember a few things he forgot to tell the grand jury.