About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

In new book, Novak distorts events to support assertion that Armitage leak was not "planned"

July 13, 2007 11:00 pm ET
image

30 Comments

In his recently released memoir, The Prince of Darkness: 50 Years Reporting in Washington (Crown Forum, July 2007), conservative columnist Robert D. Novak issues his most thorough recounting yet of a June 2003 meeting he had with then-deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, in which Armitage revealed the identity of former CIA operative Valerie Plame. While Novak writes that Armitage "expected" the revelation to be "published in my column," he nonetheless concludes: "I am sure it was not a planned leak but came out as an offhand observation" (Page 4). Yet the two principal pieces of purported evidence Novak provides in the book to bolster his conclusion that the leak by Armitage was not "planned" are undermined by the account of events outlined by Novak and others in the trial of former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

First, Novak claims in The Prince of Darkness that he had "initiated" the meeting with Armitage, suggesting that Armitage did not purposefully seek out Novak to leak Plame's identity. However, during the Libby trial, Novak acknowledged that when Armitage agreed to an interview in June 2003 (shortly after Armitage learned of Plame), "a couple of years" had passed since Novak last "pressed the case" for a meeting with Armitage in 2001. Second, Novak suggests that at the time Armitage arranged the meeting, he would have had no reason to want to discredit Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, because Armitage had scheduled the meeting "before" Wilson went "public" with a New York Times op-ed criticizing the Bush White House for ignoring intelligence about Iraq that Wilson had gathered during a fact-finding mission to Niger. In fact, contrary to Novak's suggestion, the op-ed was not the first time that Wilson had publicly revealed his Niger findings, and Armitage was well aware of Wilson's trip and its potential ramifications at the time he contacted Novak. Beyond resting his case that the leak was not deliberate on these two assertions, in The Prince of Darkness, Novak also distorts other evidence that undermines his claim that the Armitage leak was "inadvertent," as he described it in a July 12, 2006, column.

Wilson was sent to Niger in 2002 by the CIA to investigate whether Iraq had purchased yellowcake uranium from that African country. Wilson's investigation, which was prompted by questions from Vice President Dick Cheney, 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 cited a British intelligence finding that Iraq had attempted to obtain uranium from Africa in his 2003 State of the Union address as justification for invading Iraq (the notorious "16 words"), Wilson was quoted anonymously in a May 6, 2003, New York Times column by New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof and two subsequent media reports (one of which was another column by Kristof). Finally, Wilson detailed the findings of his trip in a July 6, 2003, Times op-ed and in an appearance the same day on NBC's Meet the Press. Eight days later, in his July 14, 2003, column, Novak identified Wilson's wife 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." Following this public disclosure of Plame's identity, the CIA referred the matter to the Justice Department, resulting in an investigation by special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald that ultimately led to Libby's conviction on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements. Libby's 30-month prison sentence was commuted by Bush on July 2.

Armitage was 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 David Corn, Washington editor of The Nation. Following this disclosure, Plame and Wilson amended their civil lawsuit against Cheney, Libby, and White House senior adviser Karl Rove to include Armitage.

While explaining in The Prince of Darkness the background behind his meeting with Armitage, Novak offers several noteworthy details. For example, Novak observes that since he and Armitage "had no personal relationship and never before had had a conversation, I was surprised that no press aide sat in on our meeting." But perhaps more telling are the circumstances under which the meeting between Novak and Armitage was arranged. Novak writes that he had "asked to see Armitage early in their administration and repeated my request after the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001," but that he had been "rebuffed" by Armitage -- "not with the customary evasion of claiming an overly full schedule but by his secretary making clear that he simply did not want to see me." Yet despite Armitage's blunt refusal to meet with Novak for several years, Novak writes that Armitage's office suddenly contacted him "in the last week of June 2003" to schedule a meeting with no explanation "given then or subsequently for this change of heart":

I asked to see Armitage early in their administration and repeated my request after the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. [Secretary of State Colin] Powell and Armitage were widely perceived as being out of step with the rest of the administration about military intervention in Iraq. I had ready access to Powell, in person and over the telephone, but he was circumspect in what he said to me, while Armitage had a reputation for being less guarded in conversations with journalists. Armitage rebuffed me, not with the customary evasion of claiming an overly full schedule but by his secretary making clear that he simply did not want to see me. I assumed that Armitage bracketed me, a notoriously conservative columnist, with the Iraqi war hawks who were unsympathetic toward his views. If so, he had somehow missed my written and spoken criticism of the Iraqi intervention.

Then, in the last week of June 2003, Armitage's office called to agree unexpectedly to my request and set up the appointment for July 8. No reason was given then or subsequently for this change of heart. However, he apparently was following the recommendation of his political adviser, Washington lobbyist Ken Duberstein, a longtime source of mine. (Page 4)

In his testimony at Libby's trial, Novak more explicitly stated what the above passage suggests -- that he had not requested to meet with Armitage at any point in time close to when Armitage's office contacted him in June 2003. According to a transcript of the trial included in journalist Murray Waas' book The United States v. I. Lewis Libby (Union Square, June 2007), Novak said on the stand: "[A]t the end of June -- the last week of June of 2003 -- his office contacted my office and said he would see me. I had not pressed the case in a couple of years" (Page 416).

Yet despite acknowledging that his request to meet with Armitage had gone unfulfilled for "a couple of years" before Armitage contacted him in June 2003, Novak asserts later in the book that he had "initiated" the meeting with Armitage, in addition to his subsequent meeting with Rove in which Rove confirmed Plame's identity. Novak offers this assertion to rebut reports that senior administration officials were "cold-calling" reporters and disclosing Plame's CIA employment:

I have no interest in critiquing the work product of colleagues except as it affected me personally. But the Sunday and Monday accounts in the [Washington] Post gave the impression that two White House aides were "cold-calling" reporters without success until they came to me. The truth, as related in chapter one, is that I initiated contact with my two sources. (Page 601)

Moreover, while Novak attributes Armitage's refusal to meet with him to a mistaken perception that Novak was a proponent of the Iraq war and attributes Armitage's eventual willingness to meet with him to the "recommendation of his political adviser, Washington lobbyist Ken Duberstein," Novak simply dismisses the possibility that Armitage's "change of heart" might mean that Armitage had purposefully fed him Plame's identity. Indeed, Novak flatly asserts that he is "sure" the leak was not "planned." Yet in addition to acknowledging that Armitage did not explain his sudden willingness to meet with him, Novak does not mention any topic that Armitage indicated he wanted to discuss, and the only specific topic Novak says that they did discuss was "the Niger uranium issue." Indeed, what Novak writes of the discussion itself, besides recounting how Armitage leaked Plame's identity, is that "our hour together was more conversation than interview"; that Armitage gave Novak "high-level insider gossip"; and that "[a]bout halfway through our session, I brought up Bush's sixteen words" (Pages 4-5).

Moreover, other than noting that "Armitage offered no interpretation of Wilson's conduct and said nothing negative about him or his wife," Novak writes only the following in support of his claim that the leak was not intentional: "It is important to note that Armitage reached out to me before [emphasis in original] Joe Wilson went public on the New York Times op-ed page and on Meet the Press" (Page 4). In pointing to this chronology, Novak suggests that at the time Armitage decided to schedule their meeting, he could not have intended to leak the information that Wilson's wife was a CIA operative in order to discredit Wilson because Wilson had not yet criticized the administration in print, and therefore had not yet posed a threat to the administration's credibility.

But contrary to Novak's suggestion that Wilson had not yet gone "public" about his mission to Niger, Wilson had already revealed details of his trip and findings to two journalists, as evidenced by a pair of columns and a news report that quoted him anonymously in May and mid-June of 2003. Moreover, Libby's investigation into the first of these media accounts resulted in Armitage's learning of Wilson and Plame before he scheduled his meeting with Novak, according to testimony from Armitage's immediate subordinate.

Wilson's mission was first reported in a May 6, 2003, column by Kristof that mentioned a "former U.S. ambassador to Africa" who had discovered during a trip to Niger no evidence that Iraq had attempted to obtain uranium. Subsequently, a June 12 Washington Post report by staff writer Walter Pincus and a June 13 Kristof column also described Wilson's trip (Wilson remained anonymous in those reports as well). According to testimony from the Libby trial by former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman, the third-ranking official in the State Department at the time Plame was outed, Armitage learned of Wilson's trip and Plame's identity as a result of an inquiry by Libby into the May 6 Kristof column. According to Grossman, Libby asked him on May 29 to look into the anonymous official and his alleged trip. Grossman soon identified the official as Wilson and discussed that information with Armitage before relaying it to Libby in "early June." Grossman further testified that he told Armitage on June 11 -- well before he scheduled his meeting with Novak in "the last week of June," according to Novak -- that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, as documented in a June 10 memorandum compiled by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) at Grossman's request. Grossman also stated that at the time of their June 11 discussion, Armitage had a copy of the INR memo, which also asserted that Plame, identified as "the wife of Joe Wilson," had "convened" a February 19, 2002, CIA meeting. The notes of an INR analyst who attended that meeting were attached to the memo, and they stated that Plame "apparently convened" the meeting "with the idea that the [CIA] and the larger [U.S. government] could dispatch Joe to Niger to use his contacts there to sort out the Niger/Iraq uranium sale question." (While the contents of the memo are not in dispute, the accuracy of its description of Plame's role, of course, is.*)

Novak's assertion that Armitage's mention of Plame in their July 8 meeting was an "offhand observation" is further undermined by the fact that Armitage also revealed Plame's identity to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward several weeks earlier, during a June 13, 2003, interview (two days after Armitage learned of Plame's identity). Further, while Armitage's motivations are not definitively known, public statements by the State Department about Iraq's purported attempts to procure uranium suggest Armitage may have had a vested interest in discrediting Wilson. For example, in a January 26, 2003, remark at the World Economic Forum, Powell -- Armitage's immediate superior and close friend -- stated that Iraq is "trying to procure uranium and the special equipment needed to transform it into material for nuclear weapons." Similarly, an official December 19, 2002, State Department "Fact Sheet" asserted that "the Iraqi regime [is] hiding their uranium procurement."

*In Hubris, Isikoff and Corn write that the INR analyst who attended the meeting and wrote the notes later told them that he had arrived late to the meeting and that Plame was not there when he arrived. From Page 94 of Hubris:

Douglas Rohn, an INR Africa analyst who attended the meeting, afterward wrote what would become a fateful memo that noted that the session was "apparently convened" by Valerie Wilson. His one-page report made it seem as if she indeed had been responsible for the meeting -- and for the mission that would follow. But years later, Rohn said that he had arrived after it had started and "really didn't understand who had done the organization work for the meeting." He explained that he had used the word "apparently" in his memo because he hadn't been sure who had actually initiated the gathering. Valerie Wilson was not there when he entered. "I have never met her," he said. Rohn, who wrote the only known account of the meeting, acknowledged that his memo may have created a misimpression about Valerie Wilson's involvement.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (July 14, 2007 12:22 am ET)
         

      If Novak witheld vital information from the court so he could write a tell all book, Novak is a bigger criminal than I gave him credit for.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by bittermarv (July 14, 2007 3:34 am ET)
           

        Criminal!?  How dare you insult the Douchebag of Liberty!

        Report Abuse
        • Author by wolf kotenberg (July 14, 2007 2:57 pm ET)
             

          He had the opportunity to keep Valerie Plame's identification from being published. It was totally up to him. He had the power ( and the duty ) to do so. But this spineless buffoon couldn't do it for the good of the country.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by bittermarv (July 15, 2007 2:49 am ET)
               

            (You do get that "Douchebag of Liberty", the name Jon Stewart bestowed on Novak, is not a compliment.  =)

            Report Abuse
        • Author by djasper2761 (July 15, 2007 9:32 am ET)
             

          novak is a "skimark in the briefs of life"

          Report Abuse
          • Author by djasper2761 (July 15, 2007 9:36 am ET)
               

            "skidmark in the briefs of life" = no-vak. His name means: no vacuum he just sucks

            Report Abuse
    • Author by nativeofsf (July 14, 2007 5:43 am ET)
         

      That pedantic misanthrope & lying coward Novak is giving himself enough rope for his eventual necktie party.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by psmarc93 (July 16, 2007 2:30 pm ET)
           

        Well said. As time goes on, Novak keeps modifying his tale of woe and sefl-justification, so contradicting his earlier writings/statements that his previous comments were either made wrecklessly or are lies -- neither explanation speaks well for a "journalist" -- and therefore his present revisions do nothing to ultimately exonerate him. As more and more facts come out on the Plame scandal, more and more revisions will come from Novak until he buries himself and whatever career he had under a mountain of bullcrap excuses and more contradictions. The rest of his life is doomed to "panic" mode.  

        Report Abuse
    • Author by slothrop (July 14, 2007 7:55 am ET)
         

      I doubt anyone has confidence in Robert Novak to tell the truth. He is not someone worthy of our respect. He is a hack and, to be honest, he always has been. That he would "distort" is not surprising, he has done it throughout his career. Again, I doubt anyone trusts Novak's words.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by tweakthetroll (July 14, 2007 7:46 pm ET)
           

        Waterboard Armitage.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by slothrop (July 15, 2007 8:18 am ET)
             

          What does that have to do with anything? Does it change the fact that Novak is a hack or dishonest? No. Does it change the fact that few people have any confidence in Novak?

          Why on earth would anyone "waterboard" anyone. Yours is an idiotic statement.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by Dem02020 (July 14, 2007 11:10 am ET)
         

      It's hard to deny 'cause and effect' in this matter, when Joe Wilson's opinion piece in the New York Times, titled "What I Didn't Find In Africa" (in which he states he has concluded that the Bush administration's claim that Iraq sought uranium from Niger is intelligence that's been "twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat")... that opinion piece of Mr. Wilson's was published:

      July 6, 2003.

      And novak's subsequent publishing (publishing? It appears to be a post on the Internet, under a 'Creations Syndicate' copyright) of something called "Mission To Niger", where novak finds it somehow necessary to publish the fact that Mr. Wilson's wife is an operative for the CIA... all of this appears dated:

      July 14, 2003.

      And such an appearance of 'cause and effect' is not negated, when novak says that he learned of Ms. Plame's status as a CIA operative on July 8, 2003... two days after Mr. Wilson's opinion piece appeared in the NYTimes, and 6 days bfore novak went online identifying Ms. Plame as a CIA operative.

      So novak scheduled his meeting with Dick Armitage before Mr. Wilson's opinion piece appeared in the NYTimes... so what.

      I'm sure that the decision to publish the opinion piece in the NYTimes was not made (and that piece not written) in only the day of few days before, that piece was published; nor would such advance knowledge of it, be 'Top Secret' and unknown to the enquiring minds of the Bush administration... and besides, as the item above points out, Mr. Wilson's opinion in this matter had been known long before the dates I've mentioned.

      It's hard to deny it seems 'cause and effect', that what was posted on the Internet by novak, on July 14...

      ...of what he says he learned from Armitage on July 8...

      ...wasn't caused by Mr. Wilson's opinion piece being published by the NYTimes on July 6.

       

      And again, let us never forget what it was that set all of this into motion:

      The False (Falsified) Claim By The Bush Administration That Iraq Sought Uranium From Niger.

      That simple fact is the origin of all this complicated dialogue about publishing the identity of a supposedly covert CIA operative...

      The Bush administration sought to distract us from that fact:

      The False (Falsified) Claim By The Bush Administration That Iraq Sought Uranium From Niger.

      ...and have us drawn off into a lengthy and complicated argument about Ms. Plame...

      And oh, by the way, it worked.

      They successfully drew millions and millions of the American People's attention away from:

      The False (Falsified) Claim By The Bush Administration That Iraq Sought Uranium From Niger.

      ...but it's never too late to get back on track.

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by jjl235 (July 14, 2007 12:55 pm ET)
         

      Scooter Libby is a felon.  All mitigating factors using words such as Novak, Armitage, non- covert, or whatever- the- f*** are irrelevant.  The investigation happened.  Get over it.  To ask questions about how it happened is important, however, to stop future episodes of such madness.  Why did it take five months for Wilson to emerge from the shadows?  What happened between the S.O.T.U.  speech and the following summer?  I'll tell you.  No stockpiles of W.M.D. were found in Iraq.  Joe Wilson continued to publicly support the supposition of W.M.D. in Saddam's arsenal, which he considered an important reason NOT to invade, until he was tapped for potential cabinet level personnel by the Kerry campaign, which suddenly had a fresh angle to play against G.W.B.  From the time Wilson changed his story until now the only time he was truthful was when he was under oath before the Select Senate Committee on Intelligence.  From their report we learned that Wilson's debriefing was never sent up because it was useless.  Moreover, it actually supported the idea that Iraq had inquired about uranium from Niger.  We also learned that his wife, Valerie, had suggested him for the job in an inter- office memo and that he was lying when he claimed in media forums that he had debunked forged documents concerning the matter.  When all of this began to surface, skeptical reporters asked the obvious question.  Who the heck is Joe Wilson and why was a carreer diplomat sent on a C.I.A. investigation into nuclear proliferation?  In answering this question, not only did Valerie Plame become a household name, but a good man was profoundly damaged in the ensuing investigation and a false cloud of suspicion was formed over a Whitehouse that had enough problems already.  The real culprit in this fiasco is the C.I.A. which, for the money we pay to support it, is criminally inept.  Thank you.  Good day.    

      Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (July 15, 2007 4:52 pm ET)
           

        JJL, another seagull poster from heck, or a live one? That good man your referring too. Considerred opinion is that he had our administration by the balls. So in violation of the administrations own policies he was put into no jail cell and can speak no new information as a result. Is your spew the new set of talking points?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by leatherhelmet (July 14, 2007 1:04 pm ET)
         

      Wilson said he was misquoted in the articles prior to the NY Times Op-Ed

      "ZAHN: I want you to respond to that very specific allegation in the addendum to the Senate report, which basically says that your public comments “not only are incorrect, but have no basis in fact.”

      WILSON: Well, I’m not exactly sure what public comments they’re referring to. If they’re referring to leaks or sources, unidentified government sources in articles that appeared before my article in the New York Times appeared, those are either misquotes or misattributions if they’re attributed to me."

       http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072004.shtml

       

      Was Armitage not a witness in this case? Surely someone has asked him if he planned to leak the information to Novak.  Testimony from Armitage is strangely absent from all of these pointless meandering speculative articles from Media Matters.

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (July 14, 2007 1:48 pm ET)
           

        Because what Armitage did or didnt do is irrelevant to whether or not Libby or Rove leaked. What is absent from your obfuscatory logic bereft posts is anything but propaganda and talking points.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tweakthetroll (July 14, 2007 8:09 pm ET)
             

          I agree, what Joe Wilson did to his wife is kind of weird though with this entry here.......

          http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/wilson.whoswho.pdf

          He probably never thought anyone would connect the dots, or have any reason to.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (July 14, 2007 8:27 pm ET)
               

            You have NO POINT. He didnt do ANYTHING to his wife. So what she is married to Joe Wilson. You know what I DIDNT see in that who's who entry. Valarie Wilson nee Plame an undecover NOC agent for the CIA... You guys are so desperate for this affair to be anything other than what it is you are completly incoherent.

            Report Abuse
        • Author by leatherhelmet (July 15, 2007 1:10 pm ET)
             

          It is relevant to this thread and MMFA's accusations against Novak. Maybe you weren't paying attention and just spewing your talking points which tend to leave out pertainent facts.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by Citizen J (July 14, 2007 5:20 pm ET)
           

        Whether Armitage leaked or not is irrelevant.  Testimony during the Libby case shows that there were at least 6 different sources.  Armitage may have been one, but so was Rove, and there were others.  It was an orchestrated campaign of slime and defend, directed at a critic of the administration.  This case is perhaps the most visible example of this, but there have been dozens, perhaps hundreds.  General Shinseki and Janis Karpinski are other examples.

        Nobody was charged with this *because of* Scooter Libby's crimes of Perjury, and Obstruction of Justice *into* the leak that had several sources.  

        Now, just because nobody was charged with the leak, because of Libby's crimes *during* the investigation doesn't mean that the crime didn't happen.  It did.  Crimes go unsolved, where nobody is charged, every day. 

        For example, only 25% of bank thefts are ever solved.  Does that mean the stolen money is *actually* still in the bank, because the *unsolved* crime, where no one is charged or convicted, didn't really happen?  Of course it doesn't. 

        Armitage isn't the point, leather.   

        Why must you people defend criminals?  Is it *just because* they are on "your team", or what?  Is it because you simply cannot admit that lib'ruls were right?

        Put down the Repub pompoms for a while and get back to being an American.

        At what point do "Rule of Law Conservatives" like yourself actually start supporting the Rule of Law?   

        These people are running our gov't like an organized crime ring, buddy, wake up. 

        On Novak:  It was an "accident" now, during a "casual conversation", huh?  Funny, you didn't *use to* think that, Bob:

        "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." '

        Novak's merely shilling for Bu$hCO again, trying to get back in the good graces of the regime, the shameless hack. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tweakthetroll (July 14, 2007 7:46 pm ET)
             

          Plame was the biggest threat to the Republican Party....she had to be taken down.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by bittermarv (July 15, 2007 2:52 am ET)
               

            Even when you make your stupid comments, you demonstrate that You Don't Get It.

            Like the mob, these guys were intimidating an opponent by going after his family.

            Report Abuse
        • Author by leatherhelmet (July 15, 2007 1:16 pm ET)
             

          My point in case you missed it:

          Here is MMFA's accusation against Novak.

          Yet the two principal pieces of purported evidence Novak provides in the book to bolster his conclusion that the leak by Armitage was not "planned" are undermined by the account of events outlined by Novak and others in the trial of former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby."

          Nowhere does MMFA mention Armitage's testimony. Obviously Fitzgerald talked to him but MMFA completely neglects Armitage's testimony which could answer these questions instead of making accusations it can't prove by purposely playing loose with the facts.

           

          Report Abuse
        • Author by Darth Nader (July 16, 2007 4:21 pm ET)
             

          In a failed attempt at convicting someone for outing Ms. Plame, the identity of the leaker is hardly irrelevant.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (July 14, 2007 6:26 pm ET)
           

        sure leather, i can just see it now in the grand jury:   "mr. armitage, did you plan to leak the identity of a covert agent?"

        Report Abuse
        • Author by leatherhelmet (July 15, 2007 1:21 pm ET)
             

          I see, so now you are calling Armitage a liar too.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by mefirst (July 15, 2007 3:03 pm ET)
               

            perhaps someday you could catch a clue.  i don't know when, but maybe.   this was your statement:  "surely someone has asked him if he planned to leak the information to novak".    earth to leather, if he was to answer yes to that question, he would have been indicted.   so he has every reason to pass it off as just an innocent little offhand comment. 

            Report Abuse
    • Author by sambo (July 15, 2007 10:17 am ET)
         

        LEATHERHELMENT

        SPECULATIVE ARTICLES FROM MEDIA MATTERS??

       YOU SHOULD STUDY BEFORE SPECULATING 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by zyzzyg2875 (July 16, 2007 11:11 am ET)
         

      Novak said he had two sources inre: to Plame.  Actually, Novak said he learned about Plame from reading Who's Who In Amerca.  I am surprised that Russert did not catch Novak, or ask a follow-up, because Novak said it on Meet the Press a couple of months ago.  Novak said, he learned of Valerie Plame from Who's Who.

      I wonder why Novak made this omission from his most recent statements and from his book.  Either Novak did learn of Plame from Who's Who In America, or he did not.  And, his assertion that he did so should be in his book. 

      When I first heard Novak mention that he learned of Plame from a public source like Who's Who I was aghast that they would publish that she was an employye of the CIA.  It escapes all reason and credulity.  Oh, and by the way, I was never able to locate any mention of Plame in Who's Who.  Maybe I had the wrong volume, maybe Novak was looking at the private Armitage State Department copy of Who's Who In America.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (July 16, 2007 8:46 pm ET)
           

        i believe that he looked her up in who's who after he was told about her, and that he found out that she was named as wilson's wife, and some general info about her "business" career.  it did not say she worked for the cia.

        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.