About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

In excerpt of forthcoming book, Novak offers yet another account of his Armitage conversation

July 09, 2007 7:33 pm ET
image

28 Comments

On July 8, the Chicago Sun-Times published an excerpt of conservative columnist Robert D. Novak's forthcoming memoir, The Prince of Darkness: 50 Years Reporting in Washington (Crown Forum, July 2007), in which Novak offers an account of a July 8, 2003, meeting he had with then-deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Novak writes that, in that meeting, Armitage revealed the identity of former CIA operative Valerie Plame, contending that the exchange over Plame's identity "lasted no more than sixty seconds." Novak also writes that Armitage described the information as "real Evans and Novak," adding: "I believe he meant that was the kind of inside information that my late partner, Rowland Evans, and I had featured in our column for so long. I interpreted that as meaning Armitage expected to see the item published in my column." While Novak has previously claimed that Armitage believed that the revelation about Plame "fit the style of the old Evans-Novak column" and that this "impl[ied] to me it continued reporting Washington inside information," he has also at times characterized the Armitage disclosure of Plame's identity very differently, claiming that it was "offhand" or "inadvertent."

Plame is the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who was sent to Niger in 2002 by the CIA to investigate whether Iraq had attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium from the African country. Wilson's investigation, which was prompted by questions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, 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 referred to Iraq's purported attempt to obtain uranium from Africa in his 2003 State of the Union address as justification for invading Iraq (the notorious "16 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." Armitage was later revealed to be Novak's initial source in Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown, September 2006), by Newsweek investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff and The Nation Washington editor David Corn. The resulting Justice Department investigation by special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald led to the conviction of former Cheney aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements regarding whether he had leaked Plame's identity to reporters other than Novak. Libby's 30-month prison sentence was commuted by Bush on July 2.

Novak's accounts of how Plame's identity was conveyed to him have varied widely:

  • As Media Matters for America has documented, shortly after the publication of his July 14, 2003, column identifying Plame's CIA employment, a July 22, 2003, Newsday article quoted Novak as saying, "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," adding that his then-unnamed sources for Plame's identity "thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."
  • In his October 1, 2003, column, however, Novak wrote that he learned Plame's identity through "an offhand revelation" from his primary source within the White House, suggesting that he came by the information almost by accident.
  • On the October 5, 2003, broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press, Novak again claimed that Plame's identity "was given to me as an offhand manner" and that the information "came up almost offhandedly in the course of a very long conversation with a senior official about many things." When host Tim Russert asked Novak to "explain" the discrepancy between this claim and his quotes in Newsday, Novak simply said his statements to Newsday were not "very artfully put" and insisted that there existed "no inconsistency between those two."
  • In his July 12, 2006, column, Novak wrote that his source "told me through a third party that the disclosure was inadvertent on his part" and suggested that it was he who recognized the importance of Plame's identity in reporting on the story, writing: "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."
  • On the July 13, 2006, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Novak accused Newsday reporters Timothy M. Phelps and Knut Royce, authors of the July 22, 2003 article, of misquoting him, saying: "[S]ome of the things that they said that quoted me that are not in quotes are paraphrases, and they're incorrect, such as the whole idea that they planted this story with me. I never told that to the Newsday reporters." On the October 5, 2003, broadcast of Meet the Press, however, Novak had simply claimed that his comments to Newsday were "not artfully put."
  • After Armitage was identified as Novak's source, he told CBS News on September 7, 2006: "At the end of a wide-ranging interview he asked me, 'Why did the CIA send Ambassador (Wilson) to Africa?' I said I didn't know, but that she worked out at the agency." According to Armitage: "I didn't put any big import on it and I just answered and it was the last question we had."

Novak responded to Armitage in a September 14, 2006, column and contradicted his earlier claims that the revelation was "offhand," writing: "First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he 'thought' might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked, and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former Amb. Joseph Wilson. Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column." Novak further wrote: "As for [Armitage's] current implications that he never expected this to be published, he noted that the story of Mrs. Wilson's role fit the style of the old Evans-Novak column -- implying to me it continued reporting Washington inside information."

The excerpted passage from The Prince of Darkness published by the Sun-Times did not mention any of the contradictory descriptions Novak has previously given regarding Armitage's disclosure.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by open_mind (July 09, 2007 7:51 pm ET)
         

      Is anyone else here getting the impression that Armitage was probably the only member of PNAC that could have pulled this off without ending up in jail.  This recent revelation from Novak seems to make the case more solid that Armitage was indeed acting on behalf of the administration.  The odds of that many people pushing this story almost simultaneously as a mere coincidence is dwindling by the second if it isn't already nearly impossible.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Darth Nader (July 09, 2007 9:26 pm ET)
           

        This recent revelation from Novak seems to make the case more solid that Armitage was indeed acting on behalf of the administration.

        Armitage isn't on friendly terms with the Bush admin and has been against the war since it began.

        Your evidence for Armitage acting on behalf of the administration is what, aside from your assumption? 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by open_mind (July 10, 2007 4:18 pm ET)
             

          "Armitage isn't on friendly terms with the Bush admin and has been against the war since it began."--darth nader

          I once thought the same thing about Colin Powell, but he took one for the team when he went to the UN.  I don't see why his underling would be any different.  Armitage was a member of PNAC.  In case you didn't notice, the War in Iraq is and was their baby.

          The fact that many people keep repeating that Armitage is a dove doesn't really mean much at all.  It could have made him the perfect guy to put the leak out to begin with. 

          Novak is now saying that Armitage was pushing this information in severe contrast to Novak's previous characterization as well.

          I also find it simply unbelievable that it is mere coincidence that so many people in the administration repeated the same information about Plame to so many different national reporters around the same time.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by halfaworldaway (July 10, 2007 1:27 pm ET)
           

        maybe im crazy but does anybody else believe the word illuminati fits the pnac ??

         

        Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (July 09, 2007 8:19 pm ET)
         

      and the right wingers want to know why no one was prosecuted for the leak.  uh, maybe because all the principals in this case have repeatedly changed their stories?   but one thing is beyond dispute.  members of the bush white house leaked classified material to those unauthorized to have it, and bush has never punished one of them as he promised. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by bittermarv (July 10, 2007 12:09 am ET)
           

        Well, if you look at the original quote, it turns out Bush DID follow through on his promise:

        “If there’s a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is,” Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. “If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of."

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Harlequin (July 09, 2007 8:24 pm ET)
         

      "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," - Novak

      changed to

      "an offhand revelation" - Novak

      The two statement by Novak are inconsistent. But wait good ol Bob Novak has an excuse uh an answer uh B.S he says his version to Newsweek was:

      "very artfully put"

      Judge: What a minute you said the car was blue and now you say it's green.

      Novak: When I said blue that was very artfully put there's no inconsistency bettween those two.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Dem02020 (July 10, 2007 9:17 am ET)
           

        My account of the events, on or about July 8, 2003, are different from what's transcribed above... it doesn't come from any published source, but from a secret wire-tap... the names of the principals are here code-named (you know, like 'deep throat'), so as to protect their reputations... plus, it was an illegal wire-tap, and to name those that had been tapped, is to create a plaintiff in a lawsuit... "Where there is no plaintiff, there can never be a lawsuit" is what my ambulance chasing former law professor used to always say.

         

        BALD HEAD: "We got a problem, a BIG PROBLEM, and we need help..."

        ANOTHER BALD HEAD: "What's the problem?"

        BH: "Well, you know the lie we told to the American People and their Congress, to con them into this hundreds of billions of dollars invasion and occupation of Iraq?"

        ABH: "Yeah, WMDs..."

        BH: "No, not that."

        ABH "Bio- and chem-weapons you mean?"

        BH: "Not that either."

        ABH: "That 9/11 and Iraq are linked... or that "al qaida is in Iraq"?"

        BH: "No, I'm talking about the lie that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger."

        ABH: "Oh, OK... it's a little hard to focus on any one lie, when you've told so many..."

        BH: "That's the beauty of it, buddy."

        ABH: "So, that lie, that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger... what's the problem?"

        BH: "Well, there's this guy, Joe Wilson, and he's a former U.S. Diplomat in both Niger and Iraq, and he's written an opinion piece in the New York Times, titled "What I Didn't Find In Africa", where he asks http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm:

        "Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq? Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

        ABH: "The friggin' troublemaker! But so what, just discredit him as yet another Clinton-ite unqualified terrorist lover."

        BH: "First off, he's one of our own... he was Deputy Chief of Mission in Baghdad, under Bush I... also, we sent him to Niger, at the request of the CIA, to verify that Iraq sought uranium from Niger..."

        ABH: "Some verification... that didn't work out too well for you guys, did it now? I see your problem, what can I do?"

        BH: "We need to knock the guy Wilson off the front pages on this one... we need to re-direct the public dialogue on the matter, and get him off of the Iraq-uranium-Niger thing, and on to different, more personal matters..."

        [The secret wire-tap is nearly unintelligible here, due to the whispers that BH and ABH spoke in; but it doesn't matter now, does it; because you know what it was they thought of, to do what it was they needed to do.]

        ABH: "Brilliant idea! I love it! It'll keep all the critics and Joe Wilson and everyone else so distracted and off-topic... off the topic of falsified intelligence and the invasion and occupation... I love it! I'm on the case... I'm on the job... count me in!"

        BH: "Great, and thanks. We really need help on this one, and we won't forget... we have to nip stuff like this in the bud, before it gets out of hand... before anybody takes too seriously what this guy Wilson said... because he sure was trying to cause trouble, he sure was trying to fan the flames, especially the way he ended his opinion piece in the NYT, quote:

        "We have to find out.

        America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information.

        For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested.

        The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security.

        More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already.

        We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons."

        Report Abuse
    • Author by shoes89 (July 09, 2007 9:19 pm ET)
         

      In other words, Richard Armitage, not Karl Rove or Scooter Libby, was the person who initially leaked Valerie Plame's identity to Novak.

      Thank you, Media Matters!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (July 09, 2007 9:23 pm ET)
           

        what about the fact that rove and libby were giving her identity to reporters before novak's column?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by wzwriter (July 10, 2007 8:50 am ET)
             

          Now, now - don't confuse the righties with facts.  Their little pinheads might explode.....

          :-)

          Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (July 09, 2007 9:49 pm ET)
           

        Yeah I once saw a big blonde biker in a bar punch one of the costumers. Then four of his friends beat the guy to a pulp. Does that mean that ONLY the big blonde guy assualted him or is it possible for more than one person to commit a crime? When are you guys going to stop trying to pass of this incredibly stupid talking point as if it had any relevance whatsoever?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by jscott (July 09, 2007 10:47 pm ET)
             

          Libby's more like the guy who sneaks up behind the target and gets on his hands and knees right behind the target's legs while someone else gives the guy a shove.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by bittermarv (July 10, 2007 12:13 am ET)
               

            Libby might have done a number of things, but two things he was CONVICTED of doing are 1) perjury and 2) obstruction.

            Maybe Armitage was the leak.  Scoots blocked the investigation into that with lies and other tactics. 

            Regardless, it seems like the supposed "law and order" party would be chomping at the bit to find out who the traitor actually was, and to get justice.  But all they can do is point over your shoulder and shout "Look!  A Clinton!"

            Report Abuse
            • Author by NL207 (July 10, 2007 12:29 am ET)
                 

              If Libby blocked the investigation, then how did Fitzgerald know who the Novak leak was prior to opening his grand jury hearings?

              "Early in the inquiry, Armitage told authorities he was Novak's source. Armitage said Fitzgerald asked him to not to say that publicly. Fitzgerald then pressed on with the investigation, ..." 

              Do ANY of you libs have any sense at all?

              Report Abuse
              • Author by tex (July 10, 2007 5:16 am ET)
                   

                NL:

                Do we have "sense"? Let's try a gut-check from YOU. Was Armitage the ONLY White House guy who leaked this story to reporters? Did Armitage have a security clearance? Did the other leakers? WHY do you think it's significant that, of all the leakers, Novak decided to rely upon Armitage? Could another reporter have relied upon another source, and "scooped" Novak, by printing the story earlier than Novak's?

                Do you agree or disagree that the Bush White House wished to make it publicly known that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA? Do you believe the REASON the Bush White House wanted this known was to attempt to discredit Wilson, by claiming his WIFE sent him on the mission to Niger?

                Do you think the Vice President, Cheney, knew about Wilson's wife, and discussed wanting to have this "fact" exposed in order to harm Wilson? Do you think Cheney could have learned about Wilson's wife being in the CIA if Cheney did not have a secruity clearance as well? Do you believe that people with security clearances ought to honor their oaths to keep classified information secret?

                In order of Armitage to be the beginning and end of this story, you'd have to discount all the above questions. Alas, you cannot, because they are all a matter of the factual record.

                On the other hand, I think it's a wonderful development that our rightwing friends have decided to be apologists for PERJURY and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE -- CONVICTED.

                It's great that the GOP is now coddling THEIR convicted criminals. It's really helpful that the Republicans and their sycophants in the Rightwing Media are now claiming MULTIPLE FELONY CONVICTIONS are no big deal, and FELONIES deserve no punishment.

                Bush has done this to you Rightwingers. In order to try to protect Libby, Bush has you hypocritically destroying any claim to "law and order" and "respect for the LAW" that you may have ever claimed in your lives. Now, you have no credibility on that issue ... it is dead to you. You cannot talk about punishing crime without being laughed at to your faces.

                This Libby situation has been GREAT for the left. And it just keeps on giving. It's just the latest in the LEGACY of Bush.

                Used to be, Rightwing Conservatives laid claim to many "virtues". They claimed to be AGAINST big government, AGAINST nation building, FOR a balanced budget, AGAINST deficit spending, FOR strong civilian military leadership which SUPPORTED the troops, FOR law and order, FOR strict punishment for crime. FOR open and accountable government. AGAINST corruption. FOR protecting our intelligence assets, AGAINST the leaking classified information to the Media.

                BUSH has destroyed all this for you guys, made you into pitiful cartoons of yourselves. Don't it make you proud? 

                Report Abuse
      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (July 09, 2007 11:04 pm ET)
           

        "In other words..."- shoes89

        You mean, other than the words above? Novak can't even get his story straight about the first time he was leaked the information, I don't know where you imagined that MM was confirming any of his stories.

        I will give you this, Shoes, you didn't get as desparate as the poster who suggested Plame as the original leak source.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tex (July 10, 2007 5:23 am ET)
             

          A note on Novak:

          It's a cardinal rule of reporting a story that there be a SOURCE, and that a SECOND SOURCE with unreproachable credibility be on the record before a story can be printed.

          If Armitage was Novak's primary source, what was his BACKUP source, his confirming insurance? Hmmm? Wouldn't it have to be someone who KNEW about Plame, her position at the CIA, and her "participation" in the Wilson-to-Niger situation? Wouldn't it have to be someone ELSE with a security clearance?

          Or did Novak violate the cardinal rule of reporting, and go forward with ONLY ONE SOURCE? 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by eddiejoe (July 10, 2007 5:17 pm ET)
               

            His second confirming source was Karl Rove.

            ....but I have a question.  Was Ford's state department memo of June 10, 2003, that was sent to both Libby and Armitage, the same state department memo that was faxed for Armitage to Air Force I for Colin Powell on July 7??

            There is one State Department memo from Ford that indicates Valerie's name and one that doesn't?  The memo sent to Air Force I on July 7 is marked Not To Reveal but only mentions Valerie as having worked at the CIA.  The one sent to Libby and Armitage in June identifies her as Valerie Wilson and was marked secret not foreign.

            Thanks in advance.

             

             

             

            Report Abuse
          • Author by john henry (July 11, 2007 4:01 pm ET)
               

            Tex- Remember Rove was the confirming source -- the one that made it possible for Novak to publish. You are right Novak needed the second source and providing confirmation was the act that allowing the outing. Somehow this doesnt count although without Rove's conduct Novak would have probably been constrained from publication. Rove is guilty as hell bc I am  

            Report Abuse
    • Author by gg (July 09, 2007 10:43 pm ET)
         

      I think the title of his book is the first thing he has gotten right in 50 years.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by gg (July 09, 2007 10:46 pm ET)
         

      Of course there goes Cheney's title for his future opus magnum.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mary59 (July 10, 2007 10:09 am ET)
         

      Wish all these war-mongering imperialistic neo-cons could find their own planet and have at it amongst themselves...of course, they wouldn't have any servants to do their chores and would probably wither away without those libruls to oppose.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by tweakthetroll (July 10, 2007 1:54 pm ET)
         

      Arnt you people sick and tired of what Novak, Libby, Rove, Fitz and all of the other pol-cats out there are saying? Isn't it time to put Armitage on the waterboard and see what he did, when he did it and why he did it? For the love of a monkey, hasn't this mule been whipped enough OR is this painfully stupid story being given all of the medical attention available at Johns Hopkins to simply keep it alive for political reasons...........

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Timmee (July 10, 2007 2:07 pm ET)
         

      Novak is just lucky that being an asshole is not a Federal crime.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.