Novak is a TRAITOR! Novak Bashing thread!

[Nottingham]

He was asked by the CIA not to use her name but HE DID ANYWAY

He is a Traitorous Scumbag! :bounce:

I thought he was way to smug on TV!
I wonder if he would be smug if he was on the stand!

[Nottingham]

1. Oh One more thing is HE IS A LIAR! TOO!

and can he be a journalist after this fiasco!

:bounce:

[Scairp]

10. I think we can describe him more accurately

LYING SACK OF DOGSHIT would be my description.

[Cha]

2. Wilson graciously said this morning on c-span that novak was

within his free press rights to do it!

Wilson is too nice for these jackals ...but I still wouldn't want to have Wilson going after me!

[eileen_d]

3. But he's so cuddly...

WHO CARES! ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES!

[shockingelk]

29. aren't these good consequences?

Like - isn't it good that a hell storm is whirling around the White House?

[Brucey]

4. Novak

is so pathetic and slimy that it would be impossible for him to have any job other than a reichwing journalist whore. He gives mental blowjobs.

[Dookus]

5. I'll defend Novak...

I disagree vehemently with him on most issues.

But...

a) He is a good reporter. Seriously.

b) he committed absolutely NO crime in this matter.

c) ALL journalists need to be free to publish what they know without fear of incarceration. It's the very basis of our free press.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. I agree with C completely and am undecided on B.

A) is total bullshit.

[Dookus]

12. heheh..

I've read his columns for years. He actually very often breaks real news, and he's NOT a mindless shill. He's also a good writer. Yes, he's a johnny-one-note on taxes, but on other issues, he shows some independence.

Again, all that being said, I don't like the guy. But I defend his right to publish whatever he finds out.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

15. Your point on C cannot be overstated.

Was he being a shill? Absolutely.

But it's more important to protect sources that are willing to divulge information important to the undermining of Democracy. Even if that's not the case here, the ramications for others are multitude.

[mndemocrat_29]

31. He's a complete Repuke

But he does break real news, I have to give him that. However, if he's broken the law, then he should have to go to prison.

Does anyone know the exact law that he's accused of breaking?

[Dookus]

33. He's not accused of breaking any law...

outside of this forum.

See post 27 below.

[NicoleM]

9. I agree but

I don't see why he had to use her name. I know anybody could have found out who Joe Wilson's wife was, but it just seems wrong to me that he printed her name.

[Dookus]

14. I agree...

I don't know why he did it, either. It was certainly unnecessary. But nonetheless, he had every right to publish it if some jerkoff in the white house was too stupid to leak it to him.

[bonrev]

17. About using her name...

According to what Novak said, he knew that there were at least two other sources who had her name, and he figured that if he didn't use it, one of the others would. It was out, and nobody could stop it.

Just the reasons he gave...and he was right, there were also others who had her name. The 'source' was determined to strike back against Wilson by outing her, one way or the other. If Novak hadn't published it, they would have found someone else who would.

[newyawker99]

35. Hi bonrev!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Cha]

16. Wonder why our US media is so damned scared to write the

freakin' truth then? :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

[Fish Eye]

24. this is a crime

The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act of 1982

hate burtsing bubbles...although maybe we can see him report on his own stay at Guantanamo......

ever hear of yelling fire in a crowded theater? He endangered someones life. Freedom of the press doeas not protect the press from harming others.

[Dookus]

25. *shrug*

it's not a crime, no matter how much you want it to be.

[Dookus]

27. Here's the relevant part of the

Intelligence Identities and Protection Act of 1982:

Sec. 421. - Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources


(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent


Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information

Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents

Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.


*********************

Novak does not meet any of those requirements. He did not have access to classified information, so that rules out a) and b). He did not engage in a pattern of trying to uncover the identities of covert agents, so c) doesn't apply either.

[MoonAndSun]

6. He is a rightwing repuke enabler. If he suffers professionally for

this, then all the better.

[stickdog]

8. The man is an ENEMY COMBATANT if one ever existed.

His traitorous actions helped terrorists to disseminate WMDs.

[Ilsa]

11. Smug liar.

I used give him some respect, especially over the settlements issue in Israel, but he's dogshit to me now for back-tracking on his story. I'm waiting for another dog like Rove to turn on him and chew him up with a shit-eating grin.

[bonrev]

13. I'm not a fan of Novak, but.......

I have to agree that he has the right to protect his sources. If not, he will never get any information, and then nobody will.

This is a long standing rule, to protect the reporters from retaliation. I agree with it.

But I'm NOT a fan of Bob Novak.

[chookie]

18. On Crossfire today

I watched to hear what he had to say, and he pretty much dismissed the uproar over the outing of this agent. After all, he said, we don't even know what her job capacity was, and his Republican guest piped up -- "Yeah, maybe she's just a glorified secretary!"

If that wasn't bad enough, the Republican guest said, "well, this info came out months ago, and like, nothing happened to her, so what's the big deal?" Huh?

He concluded the segment by characterizing this episode as just another example of liberal whining.

Huh? We're supposedly in a war against terror after our country sustained a horrific attack, and an agent of the CIA, whose specialty was WMD is outed, and since I am outraged, I am a whiner?

I have noticed that a part of the Republican strategy is to trivialize concerns -- i.e. GIs in Iraq are safer there than in CA, the war in Iraq costs less than what Americans sppend on cosmetics, casualties in Iraq are NOTHING compared to D-Day and Dunkirk, and now "Well, she wasn't killed, was she?" I wonder -- just WHO is this condescending trivialization is played to. Are families of soldiers serving in the field happy to hear their loved ones are safer than they would be in CA? Are we supposed to giggled about all the crybabies upset about an agent in a highly sensitive field being compromised just because she wasn't kidnapped, tortured and murdered?

It must be a successful message, if they keep sending it out. I just can't imagine who thinks this stuff is okay to say!

[liberalmuse]

19. He was irresponsible...

for printing the name of a CIA operative in his column. Because Novak chose to 'out' her in his column, some of her contacts were likely killed, and her work in helping to stope the proliferation of WMD's has been seriously jeopardized. It was a poor decision on his part and it served no purpose whatsoever to mention her name, other than to punish Wilson. He did all the work for the vindictive White House. I think Novak should be censured by his colleagues for what he did (which would be a joke, considering he probably has more integrity than most of his colleagues, but in this case, he threw his integrity out the window for the Bush administration), but whoever leaked this information to him should be tried for high treason. If this isn't investigated, there should be an outcry from the American people.

[damnraddem]

20. He doesn't have to be prosecuted or prosecutable ...

to be known henceforth as 'Novak the Traitor.'

[Walt Starr]

21. He needs a walk to a gurney in Terre Haute

Death is the penalty for traitors in a time of war.

[stickdog]

23. A swift death is too good for him.

He needs to get the full gonad electrode treatment until he comes clean with the critical anti-terrorist information he's withholding.

After that, he can just be held indefinitely at Gitmo without any rights like the enemy combatant he is.

[ima_sinnic]

22. he is a WITNESS to a CRIME

okay, fine, he committed no crime himself but he knows perfectly well who did. He is an opportunistic slimeball asshole, sitting smug behind his journalistic immunity. F*K HIM.

And his rationale that "others also knew"--?? at least those "others" had some ethics and didn't out the woman in print for the world to see. perhaps one of them will have the balls to testify who the perp is.

gee, real "brave": print the woman's name and then hide like a cringing cur behind his "right to immunity." :wtf:

[RC]

26. Change the names and this thread would read like Freerepublic.

Come on folks, get a grip. If Novak had kept quiet, bu$h&co would have gotten away with this also. Novak is the trigger here, hopefully to bring this administration crashing down. :mad:

[stickdog]

30. That's the point. Repukes think they are immune to the abuses of

executive power because they know only they would abuse power so wantonly.

I say give them some of their own medicine for a change.

[RC]

32. And this thread is giving the repukes

some of their own medicine? How? By droping to their level? How does that make us better?

[screembloodymurder]

28. I never liked the man

pompous, arrogant ass.

[Booster]

34. Something missing here.....

Instead of going after Novak's head (I do not think he should have to reveal his sources), why isn't anyone asking who the 4 or 5 other reporters were that were involved in this? Couldn't they reveal who called them without it being a case where they revealed a story because, after all, they didn't write a story? If everybody knows there were other reporters involved, then you can bet everybody in D.C. knows everything there is to know about this whole mess. Again, we the people are being dupped by both sides. I'm beginning to believe that story about people in D.C. being blackmailed so they will keep their mouths shut. Somethin jus ain't right.