Novak Got Plame’s Name From A Book?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Bad Decisions, Partisan HacksHe won’t say for sure, but he’s certainly hinting at it.
From the NY Times, comes more on the Plame case:
Why did the syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak identify her as Valerie Plame in exposing her link to the C.I.A. in July 2003 when she had been known for years both at the agency and in her personal life by her married name, Valerie Wilson?Mr. Novak offered a possible explanation for the disconnect on Monday, suggesting in his column that he could have obtained Ms. Wilson’s maiden name from the directory Who’s Who in America, which used that name in identifying her as the wife of Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador.
Mr. Novak did not explicitly cite the directory as his source. Nor was this his first public reference to the Who’s Who listing. In a column in October 2003, three months after he had first disclosed Ms. Wilson’s name and her role, Mr. Novak cited the published listing as evidence that Ms. Wilson’s identity was “no secret.”
My only reaction here is “so what?” The issue is that Joe Wilson’s wife was a CIA operative and he exposed that fact publicly. Whether or not he could have found his wife’s name is irrelevant.
Novak disagrees.
Any request that he withhold Ms. Wilson’s name from his column of July 14, 2003, would have been “meaningless” once he had been told she was married to Mr. Wilson, Mr. Novak wrote on Monday, because she was openly listed in the directory. But Mr. Novak also wrote that he would never have used Ms. Wilson’s name had anyone from the C.I.A. told him that doing so would endanger her or anyone else.
I still hold to my statement above. Just because he, as a journalist and privvy to a lot of “known” secrets around Washington, could put two and two together still doesn’t protect him from knowingly revealing the identity of a CIA agent.
And I must say that, frankly, I’m pretty much fed up with your games, Novak. Either admit that you got your information from this book or don’t. This “hint” tactic makes you look like a liar engaging in a very transparent display of CYA.
UPDATE: 4:54 p.m. CMT
Reader goy keeps me on my toes by calling out the fact I didn’t link to Novak’s recent column where he made the above comments. Bad oversight on my part. Thanks for the heads up.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 2nd, 2005 and is filed under Bad Decisions, Partisan Hacks. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 2nd, 2005 at 1:39 pm
Only hear-say, but the Who’s Who book lists her occupation as CIA
August 2nd, 2005 at 2:36 pm
Fair enough. Then he should just say he got it from there and spare us the games.
August 2nd, 2005 at 3:59 pm
IMHO, this is more of the same ol’ same ol’ from NYT: obfuscation. It’s wholly in line with the “authorized” vs. “suggested” misdirection, and until we see some actual facts produced by Fitzgerald’s investigation, it qualifies as just one more attempt to draw attention away from Wilson’s lack of credibility (i.e., his statements about who suggested him for the Niger trip) by focusing on the “who ‘outed’ Plame” canard.
Novak’s column was a response to questions of accuracy concerning his 2003 piece, not an explanation of where he got Plame’s name. It’s available here: http://tinyurl.com/e3lgc and I’m surprised it wasn’t linked in the interest of evenly presenting this issue.
August 2nd, 2005 at 5:06 pm
Then why does he talk about it?
Again, this is a situation where I think you’re firmly planted in one camp and I’m in the other. I read Novak’s column and agree that he’s trying to clear up inaccuracies, but he also uses the opportunity to tell people that he’s not responsible for outing Plame because anybody could have done it. Sure, anybody writing a story about Joesph Wilson who was talking to the CIA about WMD trips could put those things together.
Ask yourself why didn’t we hear about Plame before Novak wrote about her, and you’ll understand where I’m coming from. It’s clear he made a judgement call, and he’s using the Whos Who to cover his tracks. Again, I think it’s a weak move by a partisan hack. If Paul Begala had done the same thing, I’d call him out on the mat too.
August 2nd, 2005 at 6:43 pm
I don’t think we’re far apart on this issue Justin. My sentiments toward Novak are similar to yours (pretty fed up), and I also think he’s trying to cover his own butt – but for his stupid error in judgement, not for doing anything illegal.
I just don’t limit that sentiment to Novak, as I’ll explain.
First – why does he talk about it? It comes up in the context of explaining why Harlow’s statements made no sense:
“He told the Post reporters he had ‘warned’ me that if I ‘did write about it her name should not be revealed.’ That is meaningless. Once it was determined that Wilson’s wife suggested the mission, she could be identified as ‘Valerie Plame’ by reading her husband’s entry in ‘Who’s Who in America.’”
“Who’s Who” games aside, Novak made an enormously stupid, arrogant, partisan hack error by dragging Plame into his original column, IMHO. One can remove the first sentence of para. 6 from his “Mission to Niger” column, and it carries no less weight – think for a moment how THAT might have changed things! Unfortunately, by mentioning her name AND her employer all Novak did was provide an avenue of obfuscation. Stupid, stupid Novak. The “Bush lied” folks have been exploiting that avenue ever since. In the process, they’ve successfully drawn public attention away from Wilson’s erroneous assumptions and, conveniently, away from the press’ complicity in misleading the electorate about the “16 words”.
So I’m fed up with Novak, but I’m also fed up with the Times and ilk incessantly trying to cover *their* butts. They blindly kowtowed to Wilson’s original claims solely to create public doubt over the validity of ousting Saddam and, by extension, the validity of re-electing George W. Bush. Wilson then conveniently dropped out of the picture after the SSCI revelation that his credibility was less than solid.
I know we have differences here regarding what the SSCI proves about Wilson’s credibility. But the official record, currently, is that Wilson (at best) assumed one conclusion by the CIA based on his report, when a very different conclusion was actually drawn. With the gushing help of the press, he very publicly attacked the Bush Administration based solely on that erroneous assumption. That is the issue that’s been pushed aside while people endlessly and pointlessly speculate over who ‘outed’ Plame. At least that’s how I see it.
August 2nd, 2005 at 7:49 pm
Let’s not forget where Novak comes from … Back in the day, when he teamed with Rowland Evans and they penned the column ‘Evans & Novak, they were commonly derided as “Errors and No Facts”
Peace
JTD
August 4th, 2005 at 7:30 pm
Speaking of pretty fed up, Novak was just suspended by CNN for calling bull—- and walking off the set of “Inside Politics”.
http://tinyurl.com/8xk6x
August 4th, 2005 at 9:12 pm
Yeah, that was weird. Just a bunch a partisan hack throwing temper tantrums. Oh well. Funny video though.