Robert Novak talks... well, sort of.

[sabra]

<<SNIP>>
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=7230

by Robert D. Novak
Correcting the CIA

WASHINGTON -- A statement attributed to the former CIA spokesman indicating that I deliberately disregarded what he told me in writing my 2003 column about Joseph Wilson's wife is just plain wrong.
Though frustrated, I have followed the advice of my attorneys and written almost nothing about the CIA leak over two years because of a criminal investigation by a federal special prosecutor. The lawyers also urged me not to write this. But the allegation against me is so patently incorrect and so abuses my integrity as a journalist that I feel constrained to reply.

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."

This gave the impression I ignored an official's statement that I had the facts wrong but wrote it anyway for the sake of publishing the story. That would be inexcusable for any journalist and particularly a veteran of 48 years in Washington. The truth is otherwise, and that is why I feel compelled to write this column.

....

The recent first disclosure of secret grand jury testimony set off a news media feeding frenzy centered on this obscure case. Joseph Wilson was discarded a year ago by the Kerry presidential campaign after the Senate committee reported much of what he said "had no basis in fact." The re-emerged Wilson is now accusing the senators of "smearing" him. I eagerly await the end of this investigation when I may be able to correct other misinformation about me and the case.

<</SNIP>>

[in_cog_ni_to]

1. Novak thinks he has "integrity as a journalist?"

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: PUHLEEEEEEAZE!

[Rose Siding]

3. Oh stop, you're killing me

This trash is PURE obfuscation. The selective details in his 2nd paragraph *don't* prove his conclusions!

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. They're always the last to know, aren't they?

They've lied and lied so often and gotten away with it for so long, that crooks and pay-per-view journalist are always the last to know that they don't have a lick left of credibility, much less integrity.

[progressoid]

7. Yeah, that one made me slap my forehead with a "Holy Shit!"

What a douche.

[mia]

8. Can't get the link to work

this article is worth reading and saving

[geckosfeet]

2. Hey Novakula,, go fuck yourself. nt.

[lonestarnot]

4. Yeah go fuck yourself Novakula!

<>

and that fucking treason committing rove while your at it!

[joemurphy]

5. Er, Bob, if you've got nothing to hide, can't you just go ahead

and spill it? I mean if you're the victim here and not Valerie Plame, why don't you just tell us what your deal with Fitzgerald is and where you fit in in all this. Are you still protecting a source?
Or are we to just take your word and not the word of a CIA official?

Tell us, Bob, why the CIA wouldn't care if you outed Plame. Why would the CIA give you a green light to do it? Why did the CIA think there had been cause to believe that a crime had been committed and refer the matter to a Republican Attorney General for an investigation?

If Wilson's a bum, why was he right on the uranium issue while the Administration was so wrong? Wasn't the point of his article that the Administration had "twisted" intelligence? If he was correct, on this, then what difference does it make if his wife worked for the CIA? Hell, if he was right, what difference does it make if his wife planned his itinerary, bought him the tickets, and went to Jamaica on their accrued frequent flyer miles?

So Bob, if you feel compelled to speak, why don't you? We'd all like you to explain everything and get your version of the truth out.

Or does your decision to finally go public have something to do with the rumor that indictments -- possibly for perjury -- are on the way.

And by the way, Bob. When you talk, let us know what you told the FBI about all this and do let us know, once and for all, if you talked to the grand jury.

[Mike_The_Computer]

9. Yes Bob, we know you're a player in all of this. Now, go away.

Man, some people just CANNOT pry themselves away from the 'any-publicity-is-good-publicity' teat.

[Hissyspit]

11. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Fridays Child]

10. Novak is slicing and dicing his own quote with Harlow's

From the above theconservativevoice.com article:

What he did say was, as I reported in a previous column, "she probably never again would be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties.'"

Notice that "difficulties" is the only word in double quotation marks? And the immediate antecedent to the entire quote is "...as I reported in a previous column...." But that segment of the sentence is prefaced by "What he did say was...."

Novak is merely quoting his own Washington Post article of October 1, 2003 (see below), with the exception of the word "difficulties." Is it his intention to make the reader think the entire quote is from Harlow? In any case, the fact is that we don't know what Harlow really said, immediately before he used the word "difficulties."

From the Post article:

At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request her husband's help. The CIA official asked me not to use her name, saying that she probably never again would be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she were to travel abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A30022-2003Oct1

[Karmakaze]

12. I know it is a bit late...

but I finally got around to reading the actual column where Novak identified Plame, as well as a couple of other columns, one from Novak regarding the furor that surrounded the first column, and another from Clifford May, also regarding Novak's column and the whole Niger thing in general.

Firstly, Novak was very careful in the first column to not actually make any serious accusations. For example he did say Plame "suggested" Wilson, not that she authorised his trip. Even more interesting he did NOT directly say that the trip was a case of nepotism, nor did he directly accuse Wilson of being wrong about Niger.

What he did say was that Wilson's report needed to be made public so that the truth could be known.

As a result of that article and the furor surrounding it, Novak wrote another column in which he tried to explain why he did what he did. In this article he gets a bit more vicious, saying that Plame's supposed recommendation was an explanation for the "otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission."

He is clearly stating that Wilson was NOT the right choice for the mission because of his leftist leanings. Then he refers to an article by Clifford May as proving that Plame's CIA identity was public knowledge, and then goes on to suggest that Plame was only an analyst at CIA rather than undercover.

Of course unless Novak is a total idiot, he KNOWS that she was undercover, NOT just an analyst, otherwise she would NOT have been working for a front company that DOES deal with undercover operatives, and she would have been listed as a CIA employee.

So then I read the Clifford May article. It was this article that led to a sudden thought jumping out at me. May goes to great lengths to show why he believed Wilson was a bad choice to investigate the Niger claim. He made sure to point out that Wilson had NO investigative experience.

Then he says this:
"There also remains this intriguing question: Was it primarily due to the fact that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the CIA that he received the Niger assignment?"

That is when I had the sudden thought - what if Wilson himself was NOT the one who was sent to Niger to INVESTIGATE the allegation, but was SUGGESTED as COVER for Plame to investigate?

Could this be why the report has not been made public, because Wilson didnt write it, but Plame did? Could the report itself have identifying information of OTHER covert agents in Africa who spoke to Plame about the allegation?

That would totally blow ALL of Novak and his right-wing compatriots' arguments out of the water. In fact it destroys' Novak credibility as not only did he expose a covert agent, but he got the ENTIRE STORY totally wrong. That could be what Bill Harlow was trying to say when he said "the story Novak had related to him was wrong."

Of course, Harlow would NOT be able to further expose a covert operation by TELLING Novak WHY he was wrong - but Novak in his desire to smear Wilson ignored the hints he was given.

Now he is trying to HIDE that fact by suggesting that he had no idea what the hints meant because he wasnt directly told that exposing Plame would endanger her or other operatives.

[Garbo 2004]

14. BTW, Wilson said he did not file a written report.

From Wilson's NYT Op Ed:

Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

[IdaBriggs]

15. I think you've got it. Please post in a separate thread! nt

[sabra]

19. excellent post, thanks!

[wli]

13. Novakula should just lie back down in his coffin

He just won't hold up to the light of day.

[H2O Man]

16. This is featured

in today's Chicago Sun Times. I just had a message from an associate, suggesting that people of good will respond in an appropriate manner.

[tsuki]

17. And I should believe him...why?

[Justice]

18. Novak is fighting tooth and nail

Novak basically calls Harlow a liar. Who do you believe? Actually, as I re-read what Novak is saying - he is saying that Harlow may have said things to him, but that he didn't believe Harlow ultimately - he believed he had the facts right, that Harlow had the facts wrong.

Novak supports his belief by giving us "facts" that were determined well after he wrote the article.

Novak is trying to change the subject from the false Niger claims to Wilson and Harlow.

His selective quoting (even from the WP article) is remarkable. No where does he mention that Harlow said that he warned Novak in the strongest terms possible - that context helps inform us about the tone of Harlow's voice. Also, Novak conveniently leaves out that Harlow called him back to say it again.

I am also struck by an irony. Novak wrote this column to put his version of the truth out there, defend himself. Wilson wrote his op-ed piece to put his version of the truth out there.

I don't think we can let this one go by. Novak again relies on the unanimous Senate report and suggest Kerry dropped it b/c it was afraid Wilson was not right. Wilson never went away, yet Novak suggests Wilson re-emerged.

I think the points that need to be addressed in Novak's piece are:

1. Harlow called basically a liar.

2. Senate report was unanimous (fact that republicans would not allow Democrats to include information that showed truth of Wilson's story).

3. Novak trying to change the real story - Bush lied about Niger and yellowcake - used that to go to war.

On edit - I predict this Novak column will provoke a substantial leak of new information in order to keep the focus on the wrong doers (ie WH).