Strap yourselves in, folks. I'm about to defend Bob Novak.

[WilliamPitt]

He's a wanker. A dick. A defender of the indefensible. His eyebrows fall off all the time. He's a pompous windbag who defended the Vietnam War as late as 1973 in print. He's a total spud, a blight, a pimple, a goiter on the arse of journalism. For revealing Valerie Plame's status as an operative, he has proven himself to have all the ethics of a bag of manure.

No, the defense hasn't started yet.

Bob Novak is also a part of a larger whole. That whole is the journalistic realm. Don't mistake print journalism and TV journalism as being the same thing. truthout puts out slam-bang editions every day because there is still a mountain of credibility within the print media, if you take the time to find it. We run ten articles a day and have to turn down 200 worthy ones. Hell, LBN would be boring as death if the print realm had no sauce.

Novak is a total shank, but if he is compelled to reveal his sources, it will cause a chilling effect upon the entire journalistic realm. We NEED people to believe they can come forward and speak anonymously, and be whistleblowers, without fear that someone will pull their names out of the journalist they trusted. Now more than ever, we need that. If they break Novak, they break the trust.

Was getting Hussein worth the bloodbath and the insanity? No.

Is getting Novak worth it? No.

He is fortunate in the company he keeps. I'd go to the wall to defend Bob Novak from getting the screws put to him, not because I think he is worth it, but because the integrity of the journalistic whole is far more important than one man.

Get the information another way. It's already coming. Those other journalists are gonna come out, thanks to Julian Borger. Ask them; they ran no stories, and therefore have no sources to protect.

Leave Bob alone. Captain Eyebrows is a small part of a vital whole, and that whole needs to be defended.

[Dookus]

1. No argument here...

I've been defending him for two days against some pretty vicious attacks.

He shouldn't be arrested. He shouldn't be fired. And he shouldn't be executed, like many have proposed.

[grasswire]

7. okay.....

....I'll go along with that, but only if he recuses himself from arguing the story in partisan mode, now that he's part of it. He was practically stroking out on crossfire, cheering himself on as he spoke the RNC talking points.

He needs to stop talking about it now.

[ShaneGR]

140. I totally disagree with Will, and here's why

I recognize the right of any reporter to hide their sources. But I don't think a lot of print journalists are thinking this whole process through. Basically the argument for Novak keeping his sources says that somehow there would be this major chill over the entire journalistic process. I disagree. This particular case is far different because of two reasons:

1. The journalist was used as a pawn by an official in order for political revenge.

2. In seeking this political revenge, a crime was clearly broken.

How many times does a journalist receive information from a source that involves violating a federal offense? When that source is an official in the White House? Not very often. So in my opinion, I think this should be treated as a special event. I think Novak should be forced to reveal his sources, and if he refuses I think he should be jailed just like Susan McDougal was.

[frank frankly]

2. yes and very important

novak is a distraction.
and freedom of the press is not something you toss when inconvenient.

[realFedUp]

3. I still think he's getting his just desserts

I don't know what just desserts are but he deserves them.
Tough beanie weanies Mr NoFacts.

[roguevalley]

4. He has a chance to be a man, actually.

Chances are he'll get suppeoned to tell. Then he can go to jail.
Now's your chance, Bob. You broke the law. Decide if you'll disclose.
Lots of better people have rotted in jail rather than tell. Now is your turn to be a hero.

[WilliamPitt]

That will be interesting

Bastard better go to jail before he reveals his sources.

[Dookus]

28. except

Novak BROKE NO LAW!!!!

[WilliamPitt]

30. If a judge orders him to reveal his sources

and he says no, he will be in contempt. That will land him in jail.

[Dookus]

44. yes...

that's the only way. And I doubt it will ever come to that. There are plenty of OTHER people who know the identity of the leaker(s). I don't think they'll have to squeeze it out of Novak.

[WilliamPitt]

47. Which is exactly my point n/t

[proud patriot]

5. I completely Agree 100%

:thumbsup: It's not about Novak , it's about
people having trust ..

Watch the Movie "The Insider" it touches upon this very
issue .

Thanks for this William

[Stupdworld]

11. New York Times v. United States

Novak enjoys a higher standard of immunity as a member of the press. His printing of the information should be no criminal act, under the 1st amendment. The person who leaked the information however, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

[bleedingheart]

6. journalist and novak in the same sentence just doesn't sit well

with me...but I do see what you are defending and it makes sense.

However with the "analyst" word play about...its hard not to want to see Novak nailed to the wall...but then again he is just and old man who was fed information from someone who knew better than to do it....

[WilliamPitt]

13. Tell me about it

:grr:

[NashVegas]

20. Doesn't Matter in This Case

The focus NEEDS to be on the White House, not Novak.

Sure, we can take political potshots at the wanker, but in the end it all comes back to Rove and company.

Another FUN thing to keep in mind: If the White House doesn't produce its own investigation and offer up some heads on a platter, they are going to lose those delusional swing voters who put him in office because they made the mistake in believing Bush when he said he was going to restore dignity to the Oval Office.

[nolabels]

82. I hope they keep all the heads together

http://www.atwitsend.org/lisa.html

http://www.vagabonding.com/travelogue/000060.html


(snip)
Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge, and Genocide in Cambodia

Like the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge kept obsessive records of their victims.

During their three-year, eight-month, and 21-day rule of Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge committed some of the most heinous crimes in modern history:

The entire population of Cambodia's urban areas was evacuated from their homes and forced to march into rural areas to work the fields.
Every man, woman, and child was forced into slave labor for 12-15 hours each day.
An estimated two million people (21% of Cambodia's population) lost their lives. Many of these victims were brutally executed; many more died of starvation, exhaustion, and disease.

The Vietnamese army found a number of hastily-killed victims when they liberated Phnom Penh.

That these crimes were committed so recently (1975-1978) makes them all the more sickening. The country's scars are still plainly visible:

The population is suspiciously youthful (50% is under the age of 15).
The economy is in shambles. This is partially thanks to the Khmer Rouge's execution of the upper and educated classes. The fact that they destroyed most of the vehicles and machines in the cities can't have helped.
New human remains turn up around the exhumed mass graves of the Killing Fields of Cheoung Ek on a daily basis. Silent reminders of the tragedy, these bones and teeth are ceremoniously placed into makeshift shrines in tree hollows and cement planters.

The Memorial Stupa at the Killing Fields of Cheoung Ek.

It's hard to comprehend the
(snip)

Part of the legacy of one of *'s buddies, the infamous Henry Kissinger

Is Henry Kissinger a war criminal, fascist or just misunderstood
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=345935

[sandnsea]

8. Yes, but

I reject HIS self-defense that the CIA didn't tell him he'd be putting lives in danger. THAT would be admitting she was an operative and thereby outing her themselves. I think he is aware enough on the ways of D.C. to know better. And, as Wilson states, her name did NOTHING to further the story. I respect journalists not revealing their sources, but I don't respect his reasons for printing her name and pretending he didn't know what he was doing. I think he did.

[roguevalley]

21. he got the nod from Rove.

The story was about her husband. if they wanted to assert that there was a nepotistic reason behind choosing him, then they should have said someone else's name. she wasn't part of this. This was revenge. I revere the constitution and bill of rights, but there are certain responsibilities that go hand in hand with journalistic freedoms and the freedom of the press. He in essence yelled fire in a crowded theatre and people are in all likelihood going to be dead. I am SICK of conservatives breaking the law with impunity. There has been two tiers of justice and punishment in this country since Ford pardoned Nixon. Novak needs to be subpeoned to tell and if he chooses to uphold some journalistic ideal -which he already betrayed and does every single day he writes and spews- then let him be a hero and go to jail.

He's a criminal. There is no two ways about it. IMHO.

[sandnsea]

80. I don't know

I just really don't. I strongly believe in a journalists right to not reveal their sources. I think it is just critical to journalism, if we ever get any in this country again. At the same time, printing information that puts national security at risk seems to rise to a different level. I'm conflicted on that part of it.

But I'm not conflicted on whether Bob Novak knew what he was doing. On that I am convinced he clearly did and ought to be fired for it.

[ewagner]

9. grumble, bitch, grumble

yeah, yeah, I know. I begrudgingly admit that you're right.

But please Will, can't we at least hope that he becomes a pariah to the rest of the profession?

[WilliamPitt]

10. That is my hope

He doesn't deserve the protection of the integrity of others. But he's got it.

[jiacinto]

12. I disagree on one level

I believe in freedom of the press, but Novak's actions--if proven to be true--have undermined national security. There is the famous example of not being allowed to say "fire" in a "crowded" movie theathre. That applies here.

[WilliamPitt]

14. Wrong

See US v. New York Times above. The legal standard protects him. The criminal is the leaker, not the leakee.

[imhotep]

40. I agree

however, how can the sum of information leaked be proven?
In Daniel Ellsberg's case he made sure to edit out sections that affected names and national security. So, how can we know that maybe Novak leaked more than the leakee intended?

[WilliamPitt]

45. That'll have to come out in the wash, I guess

No good answer from me on that at the moment.

Hey! We just had a civil exchange! Someone ring a bell or something!

:)

Bush = uniter, and this is the proof.

[Zhade]

69. What if he actually revealed LESS?

I'm just blue-skying here, but what if Novak et al were actually told, "Yeah, she's deep cover, and oh by the way she works mostly in ____ (insert country) and regularly meets with ____ (insert high-ranking terrorist) on Tuesdays at noon at the Squawking Parrot Bar and Grill, located here (hands Novak a map of location)"?

I doubt it, but if that did happen, wow, I'd actually have a little less vitriol toward Novak.

Still, may we all hope no one ever speaks with him again for a story.

[punpirate]

64. Some don't realize it, but...

... the law is fairly specific about where responsibility lies, as you say.

What irks me is that Novak has been doing this sort of thing, out of pure political partisanship, for a long time, and I don't recall Novak making any strong statements in furtherance of press protections in, say, the Vanessa Leggett case (even Joseph Farah, right-wing crazy that he is, wrote in favor of her release).

Novak is to Rove as Safire was to Nixon--they'll leak anything they're asked to. That makes Novak complicit, even if the law says not.

Just a prediction, but if this goes to a grand jury, and he's asked about his sources, he won't spend a day in jail to protect a principle. I don't think he knows what they are.

Cheers.

[Dookus]

32. except...

no law applies.

He did NOT break any law.

[Skittles]

38. You CAN say FIRE in a crowded theater

just not FALSELY.

[ewagner]

63. and...

you are liable for the consequences...........

[annagull]

15. I just want him off Crossfire

and I think what he did was despicable. There was really no reason to reveal this woman's name. He is Rove's hitman, and he was carrying out the hit. I agree, there is no reason to put the screws to him, too many people already know. I just think he should be run out of town for what he did to Plame and the other unknown people she worked with who could be dead now.

oops, spelling

[quaker bill]

125. I do to

But it has nothing to do with this matter. I have wanted him off the show and for that matter off TV in general for quite some time. It is the lack of clear thought and integrity thing for me.

[kayleybeth]

16. Well said n/t

[starscape]

17. I agree - just wish he would be smart and shut up.

Your points are well-noted and far-sighted. I agree. And to "get" Novak does us no good anyway, nor does putting pressure on him.

What burns me up is that he won't shut up! He's lying, changing his story, lying some more. I would have more respect if he was keeping mum about the whole thing, perhaps on the grounds that he won't comment on it or feed the issue any further. It's making me even more suspicious and angry at him to see him on TV re-writing his own story.

ahh well.. JMHO

[WilliamPitt]

22. He's digging his own grave

The truth will out, and he will look like the spinning little dipshit he is. Christ, go read the original article. He's basically blowing his own balls off.

[gristy]

18. That doesn't sound right, Will.

Ask them; they ran no stories, and therefore have no sources to protect.

That makes no sense. So if a source spills some beans to a journalist, all he/she has to do is not run the story and he can out his source? Nah, that can't be right.

[WilliamPitt]

25. It is right

They got a call, they ran no story, so there is no connection between the source and the story, so there is no trust. Borger already has these journalists saying it was Rove.

[gristy]

27. So why would a source ever talk to a journalist ever again

if it is so easy for the journalist to out the source?

[WilliamPitt]

34. You misunderstand

The connection and the trust is made if the journalist writes the piece. 99 times out of 100, a call would not be reported and the caller is safe. In this matter, there is no ethical connection between the caller and the journalists.

[gristy]

43. Well, if that is true, then I come to the conclusion that Rove

(if indeed it was him) was very stupid by contacting so many journalists. If he understood what you seem to be saying, he would know that if ANY one of the six chose NOT to run that story, he would be outed. He's dumb, but is he that dumb?

[WilliamPitt]

53. Well

Think about it. Be Rove for a minute. The investigative wing of Congress is in your left pocket, and the Justice Department is in your right pocket. Maybe he thought he didn't have anything to be afraid of. At the time this popped, the CIA was not at war with the White House, either, so that foe was not on the radar. Remember who started this. CIA.

[wtmusic]

116. Correction: Rove is not dumb at all

Rove put a C-student AWOL lying alcoholic in the White House.

He just overestimated his influence, that's all. This will be his end.

[Pallas180]

145. Nope. On Borger, a former CIA fingered Libby in Cheney's office -

but don't forget, originally Novak said it was TWO WHITE
HOUSE Officials...now he's saying it wasn't. Stupid ass.

[leftofthedial]

19. I agree he should not be forced to reveal sources--BUT

"leave him alone" ? No way.

If his announcement proves to have been the treasonous outing of CIA operatives (actually an entire network, not just an individual), he should be punished. I don't care if he is a "journalist," an evangelist or a pugilist. He's a fucking traitor and having a few dozen drinks every day at the reporter's club doesn't give him immunity.

As you say, the information can and should be gotten in other ways.

[LizW]

23. So you're not really defending Bob Novak

the person, but rather the rights of Bob Novak the journalist, right?

Reluctantly, I agree with you. Novak is a pig, and all his contortions to make excuses for outing Plame make me puke, but I don't think he should be forced to reveal the leakers. Fortunately, there are others who can do so.

Will, what do you think about the leakers calling six journalists? Why would they do that? Do you think they just called until they got a bite and Novak was #6 on the list? It seems incredibly dangerous. They had to know someone would talk. Are they that incredibly arrogant?

Or did they really not know Plame's position in the CIA and not understand the danger of outing her?

[WilliamPitt]

29. Bingo

As for the six, I think Rove spun his rolodex and tried to broadband the story. Look at the way the White House spin appears across all TV and print spectrums simultaneously. That isn't magic; it's a bunch of phone calls.

[roguevalley]

33. they knew

this is about revenge.
this is about repug dirty tricks stretching back to nixon
I wouldn't doubt that wilson will be audited by the IRS next.
we have two systems of justice here. if you are a repuke, you
walk. Out a CIA agent? Kewl. Hide behind the constitution.

Do you wonder why the people don't care?

[Terwilliger]

24. How about condemning him for his lack of ethics?

He's been in Washington for 46 years, he SHOULD have known that this person could likely have been a CIA asset. Novak has fucked himself, and he should at least be fired and shunned.

As for revealing his sources...OH FUCK HIS SOURCES! They're White House PUKES, who told Bobby they wanted to slam someone who discredited Bush, and Bobby went *pant* *pant* *pant* oh yeah! *pant* let's do it! *pant* get those liberal, capital-gains-tax-cut killing pinkos! *pant* *pant*

[WilliamPitt]

26. I did my part

"He's a wanker. A dick. A defender of the indefensible. His eyebrows fall off all the time. He's a pompous windbag who defended the Vietnam War as late as 1973 in print. He's a total spud, a blight, a pimple, a goiter on the arse of journalism. For revealing Valerie Plame's status as an operative, he has proven himself to have all the ethics of a bag of manure."

[Terwilliger]

41. He should be compelled to reveal his sources

[WilliamPitt]

55. I just so totally disagree

[Terwilliger]

59. I see that

but I still think this partisan political shit should not excuse Novak...whether he's protected by law or not, he's guilty of a crime

[WilliamPitt]

65. The partisan shit does not excuse him

The fact that he writes publicly in newspapers should...not for him, but for the next poor slob who publishes the equivalent of the Pentagon Papers and then gets wrecked because of the precedent set by wrecking Novak. Bad law lasts forever.

[Terwilliger]

72. ok, so he can't be compelled to reveal his sources

If the source (say Rove) is brought to justice and says that Novak KNEW that Plame was an undercover agent...can they throw the book at him then?!?!

[WilliamPitt]

73. Of course he knew

He wrote the words "Valerie Plame" and "CIA operative" in the same sentence.

[Terwilliger]

87. if HE knew, then the hell with his sources

charge Novak separately with treason

[nolabels]

103. Yea, maybe he can plea bargin his case to a lesser charge if he.....

cops to all he knows? Opps, dang just remembered, the AG wants criminals charged to the fullest extent, forget about him turning over states evidence

[Zhade]

111. Hmmm. This is going to be one of their angles, I fear.

BushCo may actually attempt to claim that Novak is the leaker, when he actually leaked the leak (I know, odd phrase). Hence, they may try to pin it all on Novak, and self-righteously demand he be thrown in prison.

Or I could be way off.

[candy331]

138. I Agree

Conservative want to taut out the ten commandents, but has he not heard that the same book says to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? Would he want this done to his wife/family member?

[Dover]

31. The NYTimes outed Leopold's sources over that story he did

on White as I recall, because Krugman...ummm..."mistakenly" let that information be discovered. I think Salon played a role in that too.

It was an assault on writers, and I certainly understand your point...but that wasn't the end of the world. If the sources Novak is withholding proves that someone high up in the WH committed a crime, it seems that it should be revealed at least to a confidential and inpartial third party.

And who was that writer in Houston who went to jail because she wouldn't reveal her sources?

[WilliamPitt]

37. Find me an impartial third party in this one

:)

[Dover]

61. An investigative committee of both Dems and Repugs....

They keep sensitive stuff from the public all the time. But if someone should be arrested due to that information (or fired) then of course the name would become known.

[WilliamPitt]

62. Wanna bet me whether the GOP congress will go for that?

It took 18 months of brawling to get a bipartisan committee to investigate 9/11, and that committee got its findings raped the second they came off the presses.

[Dover]

74. I think there may be a lot of repugs upset over this.

Whether they could agree on a committee I can't say.

It's similar to the question of whether a priest should turn in someone who has confessed a terrible crime. I think they probably should although it's a very tough decision. I'm guessing you would disagree. IMO nothing would be lost regarding confidentiality if those confessing knew in advance that certain crimes discussed in confession would be made known.

[revcarol]

77. One station was recommending George Mitchell

or Warren Rudman. MSNBC?

But they would probably have to work without budget(9/11) and without subpoena powers, so what do YOU think the results would be?

And I understand why you are defending his journalistic rights. I am one of the elders who was around for the release of the Pentagon Papers, which showed the lies that took us into Vietnam, and they were classified TOP SECRET. And I thought that the journalist should have been protected then, too.

Civil rights are for all, and if they are abridged for some, we all lose.Hey, repeal the Patriot Act while we're at it.

[VelmaD]

35. That must have hurt to do...

hope you didn't sprain anything. :-)

You are absolutely right. But god he doesn't deserve to have someone like you to defend him. Lord knows I doubt he'd return the favor if the situation was reversed.

Ok, if it isn't ok for us to want to see him subpeonaed til he glows and prosecuted in the dark...can we at least hope that a small meteor lands on his head or that he develops painful hemmoroids or an embarassing body odor or loses his job and has to survive in the bush* economy? :evilgrin:

[Skittles]

36. he is NOT a small part

he's part of the biggest threat to democracy this country faces - A FASCIST PRESS. That SOB knew DAMN WELL he was playing the role of BUSH TOOL. He's SICKENING and has strayed SO FAR off the path of journalistic integrity he deserves to be shown for what he is.

[WilliamPitt]

39. Absolutely right

But not by forcing him to reveal his sources. There are other ways to skin this old tomcat...hell, by trying to spin his way out, he is pretty much skinning himself.

[Skittles]

48. oh

I agree he shouldn't be made to reveal his sources. And his "friends" probably have as much integrity as he does. People will spill their guts so as not to be be part of TRAITORGATE

[dudeness]

42. a couple of quick questions?

I have not been on DU for a few days..plus the tyranny of distance (australia here)..this story has not been huge news in oz..we have our own leaks scandal..look up andrew bolt and office of national assessments if you get a chance..however to my question..was wilsons wife a CIA agent whilst he was serving as an ambassador?..and if novak revealed his source..would it cause the regime embarrassment?

cheers

[WilliamPitt]

56. Here's the skinny

http://truthout.org/docs_03/093003A.shtml

[dudeness]

75. thanks will

great article..based on your observations in your piece..every country in the world that hosts a United States embassy would be well within their rights to expel all US ambassadors and spouses (spies)..the only part I disagree with you in your article is the implication the CIA was "doing good" protecting the US from WMDs..based on its past record..I would reject the CIA has EVER done anything good..

[Scairp]

46. I have to say something

Yes, I understand the journalistic principle of protecting confidential sources. But Novak is no longer a journalist. He has moved up (or down some might say) to being a spokesman for the Bushies. He didn't need to name this woman to write the story. He could have left her out of it and it would not, IMO, have compromised his story on Wilson's trip to Niger and what Wilson concluded about the uranium matter. The fact is, he lied, either then or now, about what he knew her status to be in the agency. He says now he was told by the CIA that she was an analyst, but he wrote then that she was an operative. He is a foot soldier for the Bushies, pure and simple. He knew exactly what he was doing, and he was doing it, again IMO, at the behest of Rove. I frankly cannot see how you can even call the man a journalist at this point. He is anything but, and he should be compelled to disclose who gave him this information and fired from CNN.

[WilliamPitt]

57. Fired from CNN? Yes.

But he is still part of the larger journalistic realm, imho.

[stevedeshazer]

49. Vanessa Leggett

Unjustly jailed. Same thing, eh?

Point taken. Dammit.

[WilliamPitt]

58. Bingo

[J B]

50. Uh Will. Look...

Novak's acting as a political operative in misreporting his own reporting on the Plame story to improve the chances of the White House suffering little effect from the scandal.

If you wanna call that integrity, fine. I wouldn't, that's all. To me, integrity is sticking by your story, not misrepresenting your story because it's convenient.

[WilliamPitt]

60. It is not integrity at all

He's a fuck. It is not his integrity I am concerned with. I am concerned about the next poor slob who publishes the equivalent of the Pentagon papers, and someone used the Novak precedent to break him.

[TroubleMan]

51. The real test is "The shoe on the other foot" test

If one of Clinton's aides was accused of doing this with, let's say....David Corn, would you react the same?

Personally I don't know.

There's a delicate balance to be maintained here. Freedom of the Press versus National Security.

I think the deciding factor is the motive behind the outing, and whether or not that outing was integral to the rest of the article he wrote.

Was the motive to enlighten us about something bad, or was it a political drive-by?

Could Novak have gotten his point across without outing her, or was it a key element in the story?

From reading the article, outing the agent added nothing to the story, and seemed to be no purpose except to harm the Wilson family - personally. That's why I think Novak should go down.

[Zhade]

98. I'm fairly certain Novak wrote the piece specifically to out Plame.

That's my gut feeling.

Still, I have to agree with upholding the larger construct of trust. If Novak is forced to reveal his sources, that will chill whistleblowing to an extent we haven't seen in a while.

It's like this: I support the Constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment, and that extends to everyone. I'd love to do horrifically painful things to someone like, say, Hitler - but if I break the principle for the worst, it can be broken for the best.

That does not mean people can't make life hell for Novak outside of precedent-setting legal processes. Look at the judge who blocked the no-call legislation - his phone hasn't stopped ringing since that decision.

I want Novak to go to prison. For the greater sake of democracy, however, I'll settle for his life and career being ruined.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

52. Although I totally agree in principle...

There's a difference between protecting sources for revealing information important to the common cause and for revealing something that achieves a political objective.

Either way, I support Novak being able to protect his source and his ass, but the moral bankruptcy is disturbing.

[Zhade]

54. Hell, I agree - and I DESPISE Novak.

I even had a tinfoil moment - what if the WH wants Novak to be forced to reveal his sources, so they can set a precedent?

Like I said, tinfoil. But you know these guys, they're completely insane.

[imhotep]

94. that is scary

I hope that is not true.

[rucky]

66. Printing the story was unethical, if not a crime

ask yourself: ever had a story spiked? why was that?

I'm a former journalist. I'm a big advocate for freedom of the press, 1st amendment, etc, but i understand when a story should be spiked, and so did 5 other reporters. It was terrible judgement on the part of Novak and every publication that printed the column. This is not a typical case of protecting sources whose actions may implicate a crime. The story IS the crime: public release of the identity of an active CIA operative.

When you get some juicy information from a source, you don't just run with it - you scrutinize the hell out of it - especially when that source wants to remain anonymous. Why is the source coming to me with this information? What purpose does it serve? Who will it impact? Is it newsworthy?

I use the Star Trek prime directive as my journalistic guide: non-interference. Novak played interference big time.

And he knows he's been bad. Why isn't he standing by his story?

I agree, he doesn't necessarily have to burn his sources, but he has to answer to what he's done - at least to test the case.

[WilliamPitt]

68. US v. New York Times

It is a crime, but one committed by the leaker.

[ramblin_dave]

67. Whistleblower vs conspirator

A whistleblower is normally an innocent insider wanting to expose wrongdoing without risking reprisal. We should protect journalists from pressure to reveal sources in this case even if such knowledge might faciliate an investiagtion into the alleged wrongdoing.

But Novak was essentially solicited to become an accessory to a crime and he went along with it. He served as a conduit for revealing classified information. His "sources" were not whistleblowers but conspirators. He should have refused to participate in committimg a crime. He is responsible for his actions and should be prosecuted for it.

What's wrong with this argument?

[WilliamPitt]

71. You could say the same thing

about the guys who released the Pentagon Papers.

[ramblin_dave]

91. Wasn't this a whisltleblower case?

The leak was from an insider wanting to expose wrongdoing by the gov't.

The WH insiders in the Plame case were not exposing wrongdoing but actually comitting it with the help of Novak.

[WilliamPitt]

96. It was

But take the next step. An 'anonymous administration official' basically blew this out of the water by talking to the Post, because it was the right thing to do. Whacking Novak means that anonymous insider is also fair game. It won't stop with Bob.

[Scairp]

76. "Solicited"

That's a good word. That's what happened. Rove solicited Novak and Novak prostituted himself.

[Scairp]

70. "He's a wanker. A dick. A defender of the indefensible"

He is all of those things, but one thing he is NOT is a journalist. Not anymore. He became, as someone else said, an operative for the administration. You have yet to address his lying Will. Did he lie then or is he lying now? Did you, or would you, defend Jayson Blair? He is not a journalist either. They can call themselves anything they want, doesn't make it so. And simply because they can construct a sentence doesn't make them journalists.

[roguevalley]

79. Let's look at it this way.

If people were killed, try him for accessory to murder after the fact. I am TIRED of people committing MURDER and walking. What the hell kind of country are we anymore????

I am just so tired of this. Tired. Tired. Tired. I go steal a tooth brush and go to jail for two-three years and he outs an agent, kills all her case people and only gets the approbrium of a few people who hate him already.

This is not the world I want to live in.

[Zhade]

110. There ya go.

There's no need to force Novak to reveal his sources, because:

1. We'll likely get the info from others who won't be forced to compromise their sources after having run a story based on info from those sources, or from other records;

2. He can be tried for any crimes or (God forbid) injuries/deaths resulting from his having printed the leak, a leak which may have done no damage had it not been available in public media thanks to him;

3. If he is called to reveal his sources, he'll flip. You think this fucker will do jail time for the leaker(s)? Unless, of course, to reveal would be to sign his own death warrant - but then, he would be doing the CIA a favor by spilling his source, and they're an effective group to have watching your back.

My suggestion to Novak: don't fly anytime soon. My advice for those doing the inquiry: hook the WH sharks using Novak as bait. Any way this plays out, Novak's finished in this business.

[Pallas180]

146. "Novak finished.." Unfortunately I dont think so - unless we all email

CNN to fire him and get him off tv for a lack of integrity
and morality and endangering the safety of an agent and those
the agent ran - pointing out he's been around long enough to
know better......as did the other 5 journalists know better.

FIRE NOVAK

e mail em and Time magazine too. CNN-Time-Warner remember?

[WilliamPitt]

81. He's definitely lying now, imho

because he is also an operative. But SO MANY journalists are 'operatives' or at least have an agenda. Hell, look at me. I would not defend Blair, because he made shit up. Novak told the truth in his column, albeit in a smear.

It is not about Novak, anyway. Getting him will be a waste of firepower.

[Scairp]

99. Okay, let's try this

He says he called the agency. He says they told him she was an analyst. Let me type that again: He says the agency TOLD HIM SHE WAS AN ANALYST. He says this was BEFORE the article was published. But he wrote "operative" anyway. See the problem? If the agency told him she was an analyst (he says NOW), then why did he call her an operative? He's a phony. He is not a journalist.

[WilliamPitt]

102. DEFENDING ASSHOLES IS EXHAUSTING

For the record, I think he should be drummed out of the business and made an example of.

Bedtime.

On edit: I meant this to be down at the bottom. Sorry if it seems like I am replying to you. I'll catch up tomorrow.

[Robin Hood]

78. This is the second time Novak has done Rove's dirty work .

Is this Journalism, or just journalistic assasinations? Would you have defended Novak if he had printed Nulcear secrets just because he heard them from a source?

I'm out front for freedom of speech, but I'm not sure this applies in this case.

[w4rma]

83. Wilson … said … would be a violation … by the officials, not the columnist

CIA seeks probe of White House

WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — The CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate allegations that the White House broke federal laws by revealing the identity of one of its undercover employees in retaliation against the woman’s husband, a former ambassador who publicly criticized President Bush’s since-discredited claim that Iraq had sought weapons-grade uranium from Africa, NBC News has learned.
…
http://www.msnbc.com/news/937524.asp?0cv=CB10
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=135657

Rice 'Knew Nothing' About CIA Agent Leak

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said on Sunday she knew "nothing of any" White House effort to leak the identity of an undercover CIA officer in July, a charge now under review at the Justice Department.

On the "Fox News Sunday" program, the top aide to President Bush said, "This has been referred to the Justice Department. I think that is the appropriate place for it."

Rice said the White House would cooperate should the Justice Department, headed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, decide to proceed with a criminal investigation of the matter, which centers on the alleged public disclosure of the wife of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Wilson was sent by the CIA to Niger in 2002 to investigate a report that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from Niger, but returned to say it was highly doubtful.
…
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030928/ts_nm/iraq_intelligence_probe_dc&cid=564&ncid=1480
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=136932

A White House smear

Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security—and break the law—in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?

It sure looks that way, if conservative journalist Bob Novak can be trusted.
…
The sources for Novak’s assertion about Wilson’s wife appear to be “two senior administration officials.” If so, a pair of top Bush officials told a reporter the name of a CIA operative who apparently has worked under what’s known as “nonofficial cover” and who has had the dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material. If Wilson’s wife is such a person—and the CIA is unlikely to have many employees like her—her career has been destroyed by the Bush administration. (Assuming she did not tell friends and family about her real job, these Bush officials have also damaged her personal life.) Without acknowledging whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee, Wilson says, “Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames.” If she is not a CIA employee and Novak is reporting accurately, then the White House has wrongly branded a woman known to friends as an energy analyst for a private firm as a CIA officer. That would not likely do her much good.

This is not only a possible breach of national security; it is a potential violation of law. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent. The punishment for such an offense is a fine of up to $50,000 and/or up to ten years in prison. Journalists are protected from prosecution, unless they engage in a “pattern of activities” to name agents in order to impair US intelligence activities. So Novak need not worry.

Novak tells me that he was indeed tipped off by government officials about Wilson’s wife and had no reluctance about naming her. “I figured if they gave it to me,” he says. “They’d give it to others....I’m a reporter. Somebody gives me information and it’s accurate. I generally use it.” And Wilson says Novak told him that his sources were administration officials.
…
http://thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=823
http://www.arbiteronline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/07/23/3f1f5fa79c206
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=18072&mesg_id=18072&page=
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=5913&mesg_id=5913&page=

…
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.”

Wilson and others said such a disclosure would be a violation of the law by the officials, not the columnist.

Novak reported that his “two senior administration officials” told him that it was Plame who suggested sending her husband, Wilson, to Niger.
…
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscia0722,0,2346857.story?coll=ny-top-headlines
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=2326&mesg_id=2326&page=

A War on Wilson?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,465270,00.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=18113&mesg_id=18113&page=

White House striking back?
http://www.msnbc.com/news/942095.asp?0cv=CA01

Schumer Urges FBI Probe Into Iraq Leaks
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030724/ap_on_go_ot/schumer_agent_1

Probes Expected in ID of CIA Officer
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscia233384176jul23,0,5461415.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-print

The Bush Administration Adopts a Worse-than-Nixonian Tactic: The Deadly Serious Crime Of Naming CIA Operatives by John W. Dean
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030815.html

[dweller]

84. I think he's lying

but i'd not hang him for it at this point. And as hard as it is to say it, i'd have to thank him for what he has written.
otherwise, this would not be news, for it would be unknown except in some nether region of cia spookdom.

perhaps that old furred brau knew what he was doing by stepping over, rather than toeing a line? Putting an accusation out there that would reveal, what?

look at what has come from it.

?
dp

[Zhade]

117. If so, he's playing fast and loose with people's lives.

He's definitely not a hero.

What a mess!

[Corgigal]

85. Ok lets play

Remember back a year or so ago with the sniper shooting people in Maryland and Virginia? Well how they got those assholes is because one of them called a Catholic Priest to basically confess. Priest contacted law enforcement twice until they got the information and shortly after that the case was cracked. The Priest, I believe didn't have to turn this over either.

Thank goodness he did because if he called a journalist he would still be running around shooting people. Sorry this too big to protect Novak. I understand protecting journalist for the public good, not using them as journalist hit men.

[Kenneth ken]

86. Grumble, Grumble

ok, I had to go read up on NYTimes v US - I guess I will concede Novak has 1st amendment rights to hide behind; although it's tough to concede, as I don't think he served any useful purpose by outing the CIA person.

" Those other journalists are gonna come out, thanks to Julian Borger. Ask them; they ran no stories, and therefore have no sources to protect. "

While they didn't publish anything, it seems to me, they still need to withhold whatever information they have. They still got the information from sources, and so the general idea of protecting a source would apply.

Otherwise, a potential leaker has to decide
a) can I trust this person?
b) what happens to my confidentiality if this person decides my story isn't important enough to publish?

ps - how do you support the non-publishing journalists outing their sources? ( I have something very important to tell, but I certainly can't trust Pitt; he might not recognize its importance and so would out me in a heartbeat.)


edit: spelling

[WilliamPitt]

89. I promise not to out you

:)

Seriously, though. If you're serious.

[Kenneth ken]

112. no I really don't have anything

I'm just saying that if as a journalist, one is going to embrace a view of source confidentiality, one needs to completely embrace it. It's why I don't think the non-publishing journalists should out their source on this matter either.

[Dover]

88. Will, was it you who did a story a long while back about Condi Rice

calling the NYTimes and other papers in reaction to this or that story, and influencing their outcome? Is that a crime? If not it should be, and it seems like this was what Rove was doing...only he was feeding them stories, and Novak was his conduit. Is that really a "leak"?

[WilliamPitt]

93. No, but I remember what you're talking about

Condi and the admin asked the TV media not to play Osama tapes because he could be 'passing code' to operatives. I'm not sure the same standard applies. This was broad, very public pressure, and the networks very willingly and publicly went along.

[Dover]

104. No, I'm talking about a story that claimed she called the NYTimes

to apply pressure. It wasn't public until the writer told the story.
Wish I could dig that one up. But my point is that this administration contacts the press often to influence it's material (or they go through other channels). So Rove calling Novak is like contacting someone who regularly does your bidding.

[Must_B_Free]

90. Captain Eyebrows is a small part of a vital hole

the kind that shits

[cliss]

92. 2 comments:

1) Everyone is chattering about "who are the blabbermouths from the White House?" The media suspense is huge, and it's only growing with each passing day. Soon, the ranchers in the Australian Outback will be taking bets on who it is. So if No-Tact ever wanted notoriety or fame, he got it by keeping his lips zipped.

He doesn't have to divulge the names. The US is filled with Enquiring Minds, and they will not let it go until they find out who they are. The pressure will become unbearable, and Good Ole George will have to hold onto his hanky and wish Rove a Boy Voyage before he's ready to unload him. The media will ferret it out anyway.

2) Not defending No-Fact, however: there can be no denying that No-Yak caused a huge amount of damage to our intelligence operations, not even mentioning her contacts overseas. I'm assuming they're on their own. It damaged a woman's career, damaged a couple, and it certainly damaged the CIA. HOWEVER, who can feel bad about what's happening right now? It's terribly tragic that two people have to pay such a huge price for all of us to feel vindicated, that justice is finally going to exact a price.

[markses]

95. Bullshit

The Project for Excellence in Journalism guy on PBS today - while he argued for confidentiality on the part of journalists -- replayed the oldest lines in the biz, when the biz thinks about ethics at all.

He basically laid out the conditions on which you make the kind of ethical decisions you need to make to print; he called it the 'civil disobedience test':

1)What's the public good of the story - Does revealing a piece of information provide some public good?
2)What is the balance of the public good to the danger to the people involved? If there is some danger, is it offset by the larger public good?
3) Is there any other way to produce the public good without releasing the information? If you have a third way, then you don't have to make a difficult decision on, say, point 2.

So, in the case of the Pentagon Papers (for instance), releasing the information passes muster on these three conditions, since the clear public good outweighs any specific danger to people involved.

Point 1, then: is that Bob Novak flouted these basic standards. In fact, not even the pro-source protection guy from the project for excellence in journalism defended Novak specifically, using his time to defend the unnamed journalists right not to divulge their sources.

If Bob Novak didn't hold to even the basic tenets of the craft, then he was not acting within the spheres of the profession. In fact, he is using the protection afforded to the profession for the purpose of breaking the law. He is therefore a criminal and accesory, and should be treated as such legally.

Point 2: We develop these conditions precisely because life isn't black and white. If we work hard at developing ethical standards and benchmarks, it is because thew world is more complicated than the absolute you provide us with, Will. This is not an in/out, black/white, protection/no protection operation. This is an operation that is nuanced, and a system that can be gamed. If you are concerned for the profession of journalism, and its public good, then you should not allow the profession of public good in bad faith to cloud your judgment.

You, more than anybody, should be outraged that Novak haides behind the shield of journalism to aide and abet the criminal actions of the so-called "sources" - who are, in this case, no more than accomplices.

[WilliamPitt]

100. I am outraged

and disgusted. But if they can whack Novak, they can also whack the 'anonymous White House official' who blew this wide open the other day by talking to the Post. It won't stop with Bob.

[markses]

108. Nope to the Slippery Slope

If journalists are acting as a journalists, they should be able to show that they AT LEAST CONSIDERED the ethical benchmarks that constitute the profession as such, that they can make a positive argument for that consideration, and for meeting those benchmarks. That is impossible in this case, indicating that Mr. Novak was not acting within the spheres of the profession, and should therefore be afforded no protections.

Furthermore, journalists CAN be cited for breaking the law, as can other figures in priest/penitent-like relationships. So the slippery slope isn't working here, anyway.

[TA]

97. Too late, I already sent my e-mail to CNN

I fired off an e-mail to CNN asking for his head because he wrote one thing in his July artical and then says something else on Crossfire. In the artical he said Wilsons wife was an Agent Operative then on Crossfire shes only an CIA Analyst. To me he's trying to protect his rear.

[WilliamPitt]

101. I'm not saying he shouldn't be fired

Of course he should be fired. Like yesterday.

[KoKo]

105. No argument...if his "pasties" fall off , O.K. but he shouldn't reveal

his sources......definitely.....but for him to appear on Crossfire....trying to defend himself against a lawsuit...well.....that's a different problem....maybe ego..for him........but NO he SHOULD NOT reveal his source............!

[Zorra]

106. yeah, good point

journalists need to be protected. Bust the source, not the messenger.

[LevChernyi]

107. quite right

How many things do people here know because anonymous sources talked off record.

Without these sort of protections (the lack of such effectively killed David Kelly and Blair is regularly and rightly crucified for it here) is not worth any sort of pyhric PR victory over a few neo-con weasels.

This is not to say they will be let off the hook. There are a number of ways the leaker may eventually be known and if things get hot enough Bush, Inc. will start sending out sacrificial lambs who can be leaned on or who may entertain their own revenge fantasies but making Novak a free speech martyr is unacceptable.

[Julien Sorel]

109. You aren't defending Novak, but journalism.

Big difference. There is no defence for what Novak did. It was stupid and immoral. He whored himself out, and now he has herpes. I hope he likes it.

[coda]

113. They supposedly went to 5? other reporters too, right?

So if Novak hadn't printed it, no one (aside from Wilson and the reporters) would be the wiser?

I'm not trying to imply that Novak printed it to out the "offender", nor do I think it worth risking peoples lives to get to these bastards, but the fact remains: If Novak hadn't printed it, all that Wilson knows about the attempt Rove (or whoever) made to make his wife "fair game", would probably fall flat and Wilson and wife would be left with their rage.

I agree about Novak, it isn't worth it. In all honesty he is now, for all purposes relating to the alleged crime, almost irrelevant.

He can't scrub his story now and the fact that it exists is all that is necessary.

Novak need protected, if only because lackeys that deal in RW leaks are necessary. Why? Because they give insight as to what the leaking side is nervous about, but also (and this is 1# on the top ten list:

*drum roll*

Because their leaks :bounce: sometimes :bounce: backfire. :-)

[KaraokeKarlton]

114. He needs to go to jail, but not for not revealing his source

He needs to go to jail for writing the damn article and putting so many lives and our national security in jeopardy. If he wants to bargain down his time by revealing the sources, then fine, let him. But what he did was the most journalistically irresponsible thing I've ever heard of. A strong message needs to be sent to other reporters about how severely WRONG it is to expose US undercover intelligence personnel. That's treason in my opinion, and should be punishable as such for all those involved. There are certain things you just do NOT write as a journalist and this was one of those things. There are ethics in journalism for a reason. You don't name rape victims, minors and you sure as fuck don't expose undercover CIA operatives working on terrorism intelligence...especially after 9/11. That's totally screwed up!

[ryharrin]

115. I disagree completely.

You say that if Novak reveals his source, it'll have a negative effect on future whistleblowers. How is that? The source in this case is not a whistleblower in any way. What they did was try to get back at someone they disagreed with politically, in a manner which compromised national security.

[Ksec]

118. Well no, not really

He gave out her name even when they told him not to. Hes a yellow journalist that has no ethics. Surely you dont condone this?

[Robin Hood]

119. I find it ironic that you're defending Bob Novak's rights

But support the new GD rules. Will wonders ever cease.

[FlaGranny]

120. Before reading the

rest of this thread, one thing you said caught my eye. Coming forward, speaking anonymously, and being a whistleblower, is not really the same thing as deliberately breaking the law, is it? It would seem that what should have happened is that Novak should have reported the crime and he should not have published the name.

[opihimoimoi]

121. The other 5 should be given medals for their principle and reluctance

to put some elses life in harms way just for a story.

Novak is a typ Pub, money and fame above what is right. He should be buried to the neck

What he did was EVIL..... nothing less.

[Dover]

122. Will..............a question (off topic)

Did you do the interview with Kucinich yet? If so, where can I find it?

[Capn Sunshine]

123. OK Will, I'll buy in

But first can we throw a blanket over him and whack it with baseball bats for 30 seconds?

Then he's free to go.

[salmonhorse]

124. There is far less a defense of ilk such as Bob Novak...

Than the lofty poetry of America The Beautiful has already blithely afforded by proximity to it wherein are wrapped them pompous, bombastic wind-bags in The Star & Stripes Forever having long sense been spilt here & there upon landscapes strewn if not dumped with blood & treasure already defending said noble thoughts and for this the un-embedded old hackle "a chilling effect upon the entire journalistic realm" has regardless occured yet in spite of any as such hemp woven document indeed not out of ignorance clearly where there're known to be cognizant better angels then indeed not so for these ideology these scoundrel-esque Bob Novak.

Spare him his cake this: Bob Novak?

Then if you would please...notify George Carlin on my behalf for we may have such a moment at once both Fine & Dandy while we let him eat dry toast without jam instead ~

[quaker bill]

126. I concur

With both your assessment of No-facts and the reason to support his first ammendment claim.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

127. Oh..I thought you said

strap yourself ON....


that's different....













nevermind :evilgrin:

[BackDoorMan]

128. Never sell.

Don't fucking have to...your gooooooddd dude!

[GalleryGod]

129. He can write for the Weekly Newspaper at ALLENWOOD,Will!

:pals: He should do the "Perp Walk". If Clinton's Secret Service Detail can be compelled to give testimony- Bobby the Vak can be compelled to sing,too.

[RapidCreek]

130. Complicity

I disagree with you Will. Here is a hypothetical situation for you to ponder.....Let's say that I am a reporter and a couple of buddies and I get together and discuss a plan to commit a kidnapping. Two days later my buddies do the deed. While not physically involved, I go along for the ride. The next day I print a sympathetic story outlining their ransom demands in my newspaper column. When John Law knocks on my door and asks me who the kidnappers are, I decline to disclose their identity and sight the First Amendment protection of journalistic sources. Would I be protected? No.

The protections offered a journalist by the First Amendment in no way make him or her any less accountable for abiding by the law than any other citizen. Mr. Novak's actions are, by legal definition, those of an accomplice. He knowingly, voluntarily, and with a common interest with others, participated in the commission of a crime as an accessory, and an aider and abettor. It would not have been wrong of Mr. Novak to report the name of an individual who committed the federal crime of disclosing the identity of a CIA agent along with the reasons why it was done. It was wrong of him to aid and abet that person in the furtherance of that crime, while protecting his or her identity in the process. Mr. Novak's actions have nothing what so ever to do with journalism...they are, quite simply, criminal behavior. I'm sorry Will, but I fail to see how journalistic integrity and criminality go hand in hand.

Mr. Novak's actions have removed him from the realm of the journalist and placed him firmly in that of a propagandist. They are not the same, my friend. The latter group should be dealt with severly, to the fullest extent of the law, when applicable,....for if they are not...the definition of journalism, we as a society have traditionaly held, shall continue to devolve into its antitheses.


Rapid Creek

[Scairp]

131. Thank you

This is the point I was trying to make last night, albeit much less articulately than you have. How can any journalistic ethics or standards apply in this case when he has lied with regard to this story? I say none do.

[RapidCreek]

150. You bet! thank YOU!...Pitt...anyone....Pitt...Pitt....anyone?

Come on Willy Boy.....

RC

[Best_man23]

132. Would ask Novak for the names of the other journalists

Then go to them and get the name of the leaker, since they have nothing to hide. Each day Novak talks about this, he is putting another nail in his coffin. No need to go after him legally, as he has too much protection in the form of the First Amendment and more than one legal ruling.

Of course, my theory is all the other journalists will turn out to be repug mouth pieces, such as Safire or Hannity. Perhaps this will finally prove that there is no "liberal media" in this country.

[robbedvoter]

133. Perversely, Novak did us a favor. He flaunted Rove (and Dick, I think)

The others covered for them. Yes, his judgement is poor, is ethics non-existent - but the criminal is still "the caller"
I want the two senior administration officials, not old Bob.
He'll remain as a symbol of this decay - I like that he's so disgustingly unapologetic as the DMC chair sez: "Bigger than Watergate". Novak started the story and keeps it going...

[nannygoat]

134. I thought it was great that Tweety (first time I've watched

him in about 6 mos.) got Ed "Slime" Gillespie to admit that if this is true it IS bigger than Watergate. HA! Lousy bastards...

[rocktivity]

135. That's all very well and good as long as you believe his "alibi"

From the 9/29 Crossfire transcript:

I have been beleaguered by television networks around the world, but I am reserving my say for CROSSFIRE.

Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July, I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing.

As a professional journalist with 46 years experience in Washington, I do not reveal confidential sources. When I called the CIA in July, they confirmed Mrs. Wilson's involvement in a mission for her husband on a secondary basis, who is -- he is a former Clinton administration official. They asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else.

According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, and not in charge of undercover operatives. So what is the fuss about, pure Bush-bashing?

Well, if she's not an operative, Bob why did you print that she WAS? And if you're not being truthful about that, why should I believe the rest of your story?


rocknation

[Q]

136. Novak can't protect sources that break the law...

- Novak had a choice not to reveal the information that he should have known could harm others. He chose to do it to boost his ratings and help the Bush* government.

- Normally I would agree...but Novak knowingly participated in a felony thinking he would be protected from prosecution. This has little to do with 'journalistic integrity'. It's about using information for political purposes in order to hurt the opposition.

[srpantalonas]

139. Novak--seems like he works for the administration...

...so we want to villify him, naturally. But he is in the press, and we do have a free press. Prosecuting him would have a chilling effect on journalistic freedomand thus on democracy. In Guatemala they imprison you for failing to reveal sources. We can't allow the same anti-democratic behavior by the US government, though I'm sure Ashcroft would be happy to offer up Novak as the sacrificial lamb.

Will's right.

[Ugnmoose]

142. Amen

You have drawn the right conclusion imho. Novak is an experienced journalist. He knew that his disclosure was going to compomise the identity of a seasoned intelligence officer who works under cover. Why is it that six other journalists chose to pass on this story?

No Will, while I respect your opinion I have to disagree with you. Novak knowlingly aided and abetted in a felony and should not be allowed to hide under the protection normally afforded legitimate journalists in protecting the identity of their sources.

He should be subpoenaed and asked to reveal his source or face prison. Case closed!

[GabysPoppy]

137. Will Pitt - I would like to hear your comments on this video

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=442676

I can understand and appreciate your arguements. When does a principle become more important than a human life or lives?

It is not enough to say that in this case a human life is not at stake because you don't know whether or not that is true or not. It also can affect lives in any future incidents.

I hope you will take the time to review this short video.

[DemLikr]

141. Isn't Novak's case different in that the info he published came to his

possession as the result of a felony (the "leak" itself)?

Ninety-nine percent of leaks are not crimes. Why would the typical government leaker transmitting non-felonious information be intimidate by Novak going to the slammer?

[Pallas180]

143. WRONG. Novak has been around long enough to know you dont expose

a CIA agent, verbally or in print. He should be FIRED
He should go to JAIL for violating the espionage laws.

AND - you are defending the indefensible. How is it that
not one of the other five journalists who were "tipped" off
published the secret????? HMMMMMMMMM?

Because they knew damn well you dont expose a CIA operative.

NOvak has been the mouthpiece of the republican party since
Lincoln. And he knew better, but wanted to do his masters a
favor. Well let him get fired and go to jail the same way
anyone else would.

[JanMichael]

144. Fuck you Will!...But dammit I agree with you on this one.

There has to be a certain protection given to ALL journalists no matter how fucking scummy some may be.

Without that protection the Left loses WAY more that the money whores, we're doomed if that weasel hangs, DOOMED.

What a good, yet distasteful, point.

[MUAD_DIB]

147. Putting head on chopping block...

I can understand how you would wish to defend a relationship with a source, but I don't see how your position falls into the realm of protecting anonymous whistle-blowers.

A whistle-blower, as I understand it, calls attention to corporate, political and general misdeeds and criminal activity because what they see happening they know is just dead wrong.

Bob Novak is not a whistle-blower. He outed an agent of the CIA whose life could have been forfeit had she been under cover.

In times of war that, I think, is treason.

What I find surprising is that this outing is nothing less than political payback/intimidation for her husband's efforts at being a whistle-blower on the administrations false claims on Nigerian yellowcake.

...sorry, that can't be proven just yet. Absent malice.

Regardless of that Novak has fit snugly into his role as a republican pawn and has been used to fulfill the ends of someone in the know, with enough connections and a score to settle.

You see Novak has already directed us as to where the source of information has come from: the * administration. He didn't say that it was just any old anonymous source.

Had he not divulged that official attestation to us then he could claim any level of journalistic ethics (I laugh as I write that...right) and integrity and the matter would be closed for the time.

I agree that reporters should protect their sources when it is to the benefit of revealing wrong and protecting those that have no voice of their own, but what Bob Novak has done is an inherent perversion of that rule. He has taken the very act of using an anonymous source for good and twisted it into a useful evil.

If they break Novak, they break the trust?

I thought that is what they do 24/7. No?

Tell me which media doesn't break the trust every day either by omission, innuendo or jut plain and outright fabrication. To me this is just another plateau that will be breached...another taboo broken for the news media to claim as their right.

It needs to stop. If the media are incapable of using the basest common sense, in their role as the stewards of the fourth estate, then eventually they will be made to through legislation, and that won't help anybody except those who wish to muzzle free speach.



This isn't an attack by any means, and I would like to hear your thoughts.

[SteveG]

148. I agree with you

I hate what he said, but I will defend to the death, his right to say it.

As a practical matter, the law is aimed at the leaker, not the Reporter to whom the leak was made. Novak isn't in any real trouble from the law itself. He may be in some trouble because of the Patriot Act. (Refusing to answer questions in a National Security issure is now a crime)

[RapidCreek]

149. Indeed it is.....under the patriot act

something which I belive Mr. Novak has defended as rightious. Is it valid only in the event that it does not apply to those who defend its merits? Karma is a bitch...especially when it bites you in the ass. Mr. Novak has some very big teeth marks in his.

If you fly with the crows, you get shot with the crows.

RC

[salmonhorse]

151. Hence indeed no gaggle and so it is they're in these carrion realms...

A Murder of Crows ~

[MUAD_DIB]

152. Are you sure of that?

What all the hubub is about is the fact that knowingly outing any active CIA operative is a federal offense.

And why tell me is Bob Novak above the law? Does Novak's journalistic credentials give him a free pass at undermining the security of this country, any group or of any single individual?

And who is he hanging around with that happens to be fast and loose with classified information?

That's it! That's my point! Yes, you do have the right to free speech (typo in last statement) and to say virtually anything that you want to as long as it does not cause other people harm in the process.

Sure. Protect deepthroat at all costs when it is a matter of right and journalistic integrity, but Bob's source isn't a deepthroat and there is nothing commendable about playing god with other people's lives for ratings and notoriety.

Novak is either very arrogant or very stupid.

[salmonhorse]

153. You're right; Rove & Novak have been here before if not routinely...

They are two jowls on the same 'one trick pony'. Pitt needs to defend these mechanism because he is part of the machine; earning a bit of coin here & there in that process so he has to step forward with the antiquated rights of long dead white men, long since circumvented or ignored by proxy and neglect but yes: Pitt's as such gist is that, "Novak's journalistic credentials give him a free pass at undermining the security of this country, any group or of any single individual..."

Your reference to deepthroat (a timely political figure having welled up at the cross-hairs as an otherwise virgin, alluvial moon-pool requiring annonimity to have done so) is well taken therefore agreed; we aren't talking deepthroat here now are we? We are talking people circumventing allegedly inalienable rights bestowed by a Creator and not the likes of Karl Rove, Bob Novak, or for that matter: William Rivers Pitt.

The system is turned on it's ear. It's tin-ear in many case'. Where it is they still may exist: let the crime/punishment axiom then fit perhaps any circumvential radius to these rights we hold so dear regardless. Up-to and including 'frog-hopping' Bob Novak where applicable for being a shill of the greater unraveling of our American Tapestry if nothing else.