CNN: David Ensor again sticks it to Novak! She was an Operative

[Cush]

Novak, just remain silent, you're out of your league here

Ensor says that this wouldn't have been sent to the DoJ if it wasn't serious. She's not an analyst, she worked for the part of the CIA that had SPIES. She was an operative for many years, and worked overseas and undercover

[annagull]

1. Maybe these guys should duke it out?

For the past 3 days, Novak basically says she's a secretary, and then Ensor comes out and says she's a covert operative. They really need to settle this mano y mano :evilgrin:

[Cocoa]

2. Novak might be making a big mistake

His statement on Crossfire wasn't very good at all, it had a lot of contradictions, but he gave it very LOUDLY and forcefully.

The loudness didn't make up for all the stuff that didn't make sense.

I guess what could save him is that people like him. Even Wilson didn't hold any of it against Novak.

[GOPFighter]

4. Do people like him?

The way he looks and talks give me the impression he's a very mean-spirited person

[SeveneightyWhoa]

5. I can't imagine ANYONE liking Novak..

..other than the Republicans he so patriotically defends. :think:
The guy is nothing but a bitter, drooling old man with connections. Unfortunately, these "connections" don't include neural circuits in his decaying brain..

[Cocoa]

8. I get that idea

even people criticizing him are giving props for his "good reporting."

[Cush]

3. But Novak has sources!

he said so on Wolfie! Oops, too bad his sources are just GOP Operatives

[Tansy_Gold]

6. I think Novak is responsible and should admit what he did. . . .

. . . .was unconscionable and just plain wrong. Even if he doesn't divulge who his source was, which he can claimis privileged information under the rubric of journalists protecting their confidential sources, he should admit that he had no legitimate reason for divulging this woman's identity.

Ok, so he claims he asked the CIA if she as a spy and they said "no, she's just an analyst and please, Bob, don't reveal her name but nothing really bad will happen if you do." Now, as an experienced journalist, shouldn't he have KNOWN beyond any possible wisp of a doubt that not even anyone in the CIA, not even his most trusted sources, was at liberty to tell him who was and wasn't "a spy" or even "an analyst"??? Wasn't he wrong, totally and completely wrong, to reveal this information regardless how much he trusted his CIA sources?

I watched the Jim Lehrer News Hour last night and taped it to watch again. I then watched it a third time with my husband this afternoon. I don't remember the analyst's name who was on with Larry Johnson, Rosenstiel???, but even when he defended Novak's right to protect confidential sources, he pulled no punches when stating there were three criteria to meet before revealing potentially dangerous information like this woman's identity, and Novak didn't even come close to meeting any one of the three.

I don't claim to know what Novak's motive was. Certainly his revealing this woman's identity didn't score him any journalistic points, and it didn't contribute to national security, or shine a glowing light of righteousness on the administration. I don't know if he was just pissed at Wilson for not supporting the shit-for-brains in the white house or what. But regardless of motive, what Novak did was wrong. There is no justification for it. Even if he doesn't reveal his source, he owes Ambassador Wilson, Ms. Plame, the CIA, and the American people -- hell, the whole world! -- a sincere apology and the admission that what he did was simply wrong.

As for who leaked the info to him, well, that person is even more wrong, but I think that person had really ugly motives.

Not that I think it will happen, but we can hope.

[MrTriumph]

7. Novak blusters over Blitzer

Blitzer read from Novak's column appearing in today's papers.

In it, Novak writes a long sentence ending with a note that Valerie Plame would have difficulty traveling overseas if exposed as a CIA operative. If you read the sentence it is obvious Novak attributes this thought to his source, thus forewarning Novak of the consequences of uncovering Valerie Plame. Blitzer understood it this way and stated so.

Novak insisted that Blitzer misunderstood the sentence and demanded he carefully read it again. Novak explained the thought about causing Plame travel problems was HIS thought, not anyone elses. Blitzer looked confused, and did not pursue it. (What a wuss! All Blitzer had to do was take Novak up on the bluff and READ IT ALOUD, but he did not).

Although it was a long sentence, it wasn't THAT long. Novak may think he wrote otherwise, but the sentence was clear: Novak was told by others that he would cause the operative problems if uncovered.

Shame on Bob Novak for writing the July piece. And shame on him for doing so knowing the problems he would cause someone in the service of our country. Treason is not too strong a term to use.