RICHARD NIXON'S REVENGE

I'm blase about treason? I don't think so. Am I going to assume the worst re motive or what actually happened when there are zero facts to support them? No I am not.

What definition of 'treason' are you using and how does this apply even if somebody did intentionally 'out' Ms. Plame? There is zero evidence that anything happened here other than one of those ordinary comments that gets blown all out of proportion.

Here is what Robert Novak, where this all started, says about it. Do you have any information by which you can show that Mr. Novak is lying or in error? And why is it so important to you to believe that he is lying now if you are going to use his own words as 'proof' for your beliefs?

The CIA leak
Robert Novak

October 1, 2003

WASHINGTON -- I had thought I never again would write about retired diplomat Joseph Wilson's CIA-employee wife, but feel constrained to do so now that repercussions of my July 14 column have reached the front pages of major newspapers and led off network news broadcasts. My role and the role of the Bush White House have been distorted and need explanation.

The leak now under Justice Department investigation is described by former Ambassador Wilson and critics of President Bush's Iraq policy as a reprehensible effort to silence them. To protect my own integrity and credibility, I would like to stress three points. First, I did not receive a planned leak. Second, the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else. Third, it was not much of a secret.

The current Justice investigation stems from a routine, mandated probe of all CIA leaks, but follows weeks of agitation. Wilson, after telling me in July that he would say nothing about his wife, has made investigation of the leak his life's work -- aided by the relentless Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. These efforts cannot be separated from the massive political assault on President Bush.

This story began July 6 when Wilson went public and identified himself as the retired diplomat who had reported negatively to the CIA in 2002 on alleged Iraq efforts to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger. I was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council (NSC) was given this assignment. Wilson had become a vocal opponent of President Bush's policies in Iraq after contributing to Al Gore in the last election cycle and John Kerry in this one.

During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

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

How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry.

A big question is her duties at Langley. I regret that I referred to her in my column as an "operative," a word I have lavished on hack politicians for more than 40 years. While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is "covered" -- working under the guise of another agency. However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations.

The Justice Department investigation was not requested by CIA Director George Tenet. Any leak of classified information is routinely passed by the Agency to Justice, averaging one a week. This investigative request was made in July shortly after the column was published. Reported only last weekend, the request ignited anti-Bush furor.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20031001.shtml

Thanks for putting Bob Novak's column of Oct 1 in print here. College students and husbands should study it as the perfect example of both covering one's ass while explaining that while he seemed to understand he just wasn't listening well enough.

So let's look at what he said in October.

Mr. Novak words in black, my remarks in blue.

Mr Novak writes:
The leak now under Justice Department investigation is described by former Ambassador Wilson and critics of President Bush's Iraq policy as a reprehensible effort to silence them. To protect my own integrity and credibility, I would like to stress three points. First, I did not receive a planned leak. As if a planned leak is somehow different from your regulation spew. Bob here is trying to show that he was most certainly not the last of six reporters spewed to and the only one who bought. Okay, Bob, settle down. Second, the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else. Uh, check out what he says later in this same column, but first think of what 'difficulties' might mean to a CIA "operative" (Bob's word for her he now regrets.)
Third, it was not much of a secret. This is my favorite. It's a combination of "everybody else does it' and the arrogant sense that he, and not the CIA, shall determine what is codeword and what is not.

The current Justice investigation stems from a routine, mandated probe of all CIA leaks, but follows weeks of agitation. Wilson, after telling me in July that he would say nothing about his wife, has made investigation of the leak his life's work -- aided by the relentless Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. These efforts cannot be separated from the massive political assault on President Bush. No, Bob, they are after you, not George. This is merely an attempt to hook yourself to the White House and they have rowed their boat away from you on this one. Swim, Bob, Swim.

This story began July 6 when Wilson went public and identified himself as the retired diplomat who had reported negatively to the CIA in 2002 on alleged Iraq efforts to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger. I was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council (NSC) was given this assignment. Wilson had become a vocal opponent of President Bush's policies in Iraq after contributing to Al Gore in the last election cycle and John Kerry in this one. Hmmmm. Someone tangentially connected to the word Clinton, must be fishy, right?

During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. Unlike me Robert, who am one. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue. Okay, you were not a dupe.Bob. What else?


This is what else:At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. What the hell did you think he was saying? What do you think difficulties are? Getting your corpse throw off a building might be difficult for some of us. If he had, I would not have used her name. He did, you weren't listening. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.

And now for the completely disingenuous:

How big a secret was it? Secrets are, by the way, classified as secret, top secret and top secret codeword, not big and little, or Novak sanctioned. It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry. How can something be secret and common knowledge? Easy. It's Washington where a lot of people know a lot of things but they are not dumb enough or enough of a partisan gunslinger to put them into print. Did the entry in Who's Who say she was a CIA operative?

A big question is her duties at Langley. I regret that I referred to her in my column as an "operative," a word I have lavished on hack politicians for more than 40 years. While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is "covered" -- working under the guise of another agency. However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations. As if that makes any difference. Classical mealy mouthing though.

The Justice Department investigation was not requested by CIA Director George Tenet. Any leak of classified information is routinely passed by the Agency to Justice, averaging one a week. This investigative request was made in July shortly after the column was published. Reported only last weekend, the request ignited anti-Bush furor. Atta boy, Bob, keep trying to make it look as if they are after George while you are the innocent one.

Now, the question has been raised is this treason? There is no doubt some laws have been broken, some lines have been crossed, some career paths have been altered, but Bob Novak remains as arrogant as ever and he will remain so even while pleading guilty to a violation of the US Intelligence Services Act or whatever and paying a fine. It won't matter to him one whit. Maybe they will throw him off of CNN and he will have to take a slot on 60 Minutes II with Dan Rather. God, I'd watch that, wouldn't you?

Oh, and yes, it is treason to expose the secrets, however insignificant you yourself might consider them, of the US Government, but Mr. Novak will avoid that stain by pleading to the lesser charge. Gunslingers don't plead guilty to murder, they claim self-defense and cop to manslaughter.

Joe(My clearance is still classified Clarence)Nation

So what basis do you have for your version, Joe, other than you seem to want to believe it?

The point is, there is zero evidence that this was anything other than an unfortunate gaffe. I think it was an interesting little story at the time, Novak being a fair to good reporter checked out some facts, an ill adivsed comment was made with no malicious intent, and Novak thinking it was no big deal put it in his column. And others, seeing the opportunity to make politcal hay out of it, made politcal hay out of it.

You were/are in the business? Was there never a time that you wrote or reported a story that was misinterpreted or embellished?

Compared to previous administrations, the Bush administration has been amazingly free of scandal. I think Bush's opponents are getting a little desperate to hang something on him. So, this story will probably continue to be stirred.

Unfortunate and illegal. And it's not my version of events I am using, it's his.

Novak is an old hand at this and he knew better or should have, but his purpose in his original column was to try and piss on Joe Wilson's story and while making Wilson look bad, make George Bush look good. That's the niche that Novak has carved out for himself over the years and he is very good at it, wouldn't you say? But this time he goofed, he went over the line, but we can't ignore that sort of thing, can we?

Is this just about political hay? (which is what Novak harvests three times a week in his column and five days a week on CNN) or is it, as it should be, about the boundaries we keep around our intelligence services?

What the prosecutor is looking at now, I guess from press reports, is whether Bob is telling the truth when he says he was assigned a CHIA spokesman and that what he reported being told was what he was told or was this exposing of a CIA employee connected in any way with the White House? That's why there is all this strongarming of NYTimes reporters. It's one thing if Mr. Novak screwed up on his own, he'll be the one charged, it's another if a White House operative shopped the story around, that's a separate, and more serious, violation.

Novak has actually made things worse for himself with the follow-up column you posted here. He says in it he was asked NOT to publish the name and it was his decision to go ahead. We all pay for our decisions.

Sometimes when you are pissing on someone, the winds shifts and you get your own pantleg wet.

I do know this, this administration is very good about protecting it's message. They avoid using the mainstream press, I can't believe I've started using that phrase, using instead what Ann Coulter refers to as "lots of little elves working away". They do a superb job. At the time of Joe Wilson's report to the CIA, it was very important to the message folks that the Niger yellowcake story stay intact, it was afterall in the President's State of the Union Address. Did someone shop Ms. Palme's name and occupation in order to keep the adage "seldom is heard a discouraging word" as part of the Bush foreign policy message? Or did Bob violate the law all on his own? Not good either way for Bob.

Joe(Shake it off, Bob, take one for the idealogues) Nation

I am not clear on what it is that you contend, here, Foxfyre. Novak wrote that "senior Administration officials" had told him that Valerie Plame was a "CIA operative". These "senior Administration officials" called 6 reporters to make sure it made the news. A gaffe repeated 6 times with 6 different individuals? You really think it's iffy that this was a deliberate leak?

That is precisely what she thinks.

BH - I don't have much of an opinion on the Plame brouhaha. Novak has said he wasn't tipped by the White House, and most of the other things I've read have been speculation or hyperbole. I've seen few hard facts, hence the lack of interest on my part. Do you really think Miller or Cooper would be protecting their source(s) if it truly was someone prominent in the White House? Hmmmm. Nah.

If you really want an answer I'd suggest you ask Joseph C. Wilson IV.

As for your other worries, DeLay has been in the news recently, there was a report just yesterday on your claims of torture being ok'd from the top and trust me, if there's anything negative to be said about this administration, you'll hear it shouted loud and clear by the NYTimes.

Again, it's not the Repubs that are hounding John Kerry to sign that form. So, why do you think he's stalling? Any ideas?

An important story, buried on page A16 of the Washington Post:



Again, this wasn't a case of a few bad apples. We know that, and we've known it for months.

The Post has obtained the documents and statements by the people involved, just as Newsweek obtained the actual flight records for one of the CIA aircraft used in shuffling prisoners through various torture-friendly countries.

It was done intentionally, it was done through explicit cooperation of the military and the CIA, and it was done through the direct orders of the Bush administration.

Continue to kid yourself if you wish.

Joe keeps spinning and spinning but has no more than his opinion here. At least he is giving a rationale for his opinion even as it appears that the rationale is based mostly on his own perceptions which may or may not be proved to be correct. So far there is no proof but rather accusations and innuendo expressed by the administration's political opponents.

Baying writes


Read the piece by Novak again please and you'll see that you are citing the Dems line and not what Novak actually said. And then please show me evidence that your accusations are supportable other than with speculation and allegations by others.

You will note JW, that there is intense interest re the Valerie Plame issue and those supporting the anti-administration line are very much wanting the focus there; however it is compatible with this thread re how the media can use unsupportable innuendo and allegations to bring down prominent people they don't like.

At the same time, the lack of curiosity about Kerry's Form 180 is nothing short of amazing. (and pssst predictable.)

JustWonders --

Though I respect your view, I have to say that the brouhaha on torture being endorsed by the Attorney General, the Administration leaking the identity of a covert CIA operative, the issue of Delay fragrantly breaking the law to ensure that the Rubs continue their hold on the House, the question of how a gay prostitute got day passes to the White House briefings, ETC., are not, in any way shape or form, getting the kind of publicity that Monica Lewinsky got. If I saw it every day every hour every minute of every news cycle as I saw stories on friggin Monica Lewinsky--hardly a biggie compared to leaking the names of covert CIA operatives in a time of war where intelligence is the primary defense against our terrorist enemies--then, and only then, would I say that the press was being even-handed with respect to their method.

The times of the journalist mudraker is gone ... long gone. Only Dunleavy at the NY Post (and The Atlantic) is left ... a good conservative, you must like him too. Michael Thomas was good, too, but he's retired. They are professionals now, looking for houses with white picket fences and who go to graduate school for a job that could be taught to anyone with grade school English and a mind to figure out how things work. They are members of the elite and protect elitist institutions. The method of stealing op-ed suggestions from their readers and handing them to more "established" people to write is just one, particularly revealing in my opinion, indication of their slavish attitude to the established. Plus following the Chiquita Banana scandal it's basically against the law to do investigative journalism.

Not that there's anything particularly wrong with this, in my opinion, just that the media is hardly left wing. Their job is to find the dirt. They do it less and less well every year, but they, as an institution, are working to "expose" the folks in charge ... not to change them. (If they change them they have to lick the boots of a whole new set of sources!) Doesn't matter if they are Rubs or Dems. But, in my experience, the concern for property values pretty much determines that they step more gingerly on the toes of those who defend the interests of the publishers than those who don't. The Grahams and Sulzbergers have strong ties to politicos on the Dem side due to the cities where they operate. But they hardly are working for outsiders ... be they the Gingrich Revolutionaries or Dean's.

Did you, for example, think Dean's "scream" really that crazy? You think that Kerry's posturing as a soldier is ridiculous but not Bush's romp on a carrier's flight deck announcing our "victory"?

Shouldn't Bush have had Monica Lewinsky dragged in chains behind him, flinging fresh bread to the masses, a gladiator match or two, during that particular Triumph? I understand that's the way it was done traditionally. You would add thousands of copies of 180 forms? Or am I wrong?

You contend that it is just speculation and the Dem's line that 6 reporters were contacted with this information? Is that what you need supporting information for?

BH wrote


Well, nobody in the Bush administration has yet gone on national television, looked earnestly and oh so seriously into the lens, wagged his finger in our faces, and stated, "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" only to be followed by very explicit, undeniable testimony via witnesses, some very revealing tapes, and a stain on a blue dress.

Now if you were a reporter, could you have ignored that?

No mud raking journalists these days? You've got to be kidding. They keep throwing the stuff at the wall seeing if anything will stick, and if something even leaves a mark they hound it ad nauseum with or without any evidence to back it up.

Which is precisely the point of this thread and why Nixon and Dan Rather were the examples to get it going.

No.

Let's see if I can be clearer. What I've reported is what Bob Novak said not my opinion. As to there being no proof you might want to discuss that with the Grand Jury which apparently disagrees.

Novak is stuck with his own mistake or he has to reveal that he got taken in by someone in the White House, something he denys. Either way, laws may have been broken, them's the facts not .

Examples of would be Whitewater, Menagate, Troopergate, Filegate, Travelgate ad nauseam. No wonder you think this administration is scandal free in comparison? Presently, there is no right wing effort to bring down a president.

Oh, and by the way, if I am not on record as yet as supporting every Tom, Dick and Harry who ever served signing his 180, including the erstwhile John F. Kerry, I am now. Happy?

Joe(as if were important)Nation

I'm going by what Novak said too, and what is being said that Novak said is not what Novak said.

And gee Joe, I don't have a transcript of the Grand Jury testimony and its opinion. How did you get that? May I have a copy?

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

See, now you're just purposely being stupid.

No, Foxfyre, they've gone on world-wide television in front of the premier international council on international affairs and told us that Saddam Hussein definitely had weapons of mass destruction and was tied to Al-Qaeda.

Now, if you were a reporter, could you have ignored that?

BayingH - I don't know that six members of the press were contacted by the adminisration re Plame - the reporters aren't talking. Some have gone to jail to keep from talking. I think its going to be great if it gets out this was fed to them by somebody in the DNC, etc. as an effort to embarrass the administration.

But nice deflection bringing in unrelated topics. Shall we post again ALL the people in the previous administration, the current administration, the U.N. et al who went on national television or were recorded on the House or Senate floor stating they believed Saddam Hussein had WMD? You'll have to come up with a better analogy I think.

BH - First, I can't tell you how refreshing it is to read a point of view that's as respectful as yours and free of vrnom (we see that a a lot on this forum in particular).

Second, I think you made some valid points, especially in regard to Monica. I can only say that it's hard for me to identify with your feelings on that since a) I didn't hate Clinton (I had a fair amount of disgust for him, but absolutely no hate), and b) I didn't follow it much (had other priorities at that time in my life), but can see how distressful the mega coverage would be to those who blindly supported him during that time.

If Bush fools around with an intern in the White House and is outed by someone like Linda WhatsHerName, he'll get the same press treatment, and I think you know as well as I do that it will be every day, every hour and every minute. The press loves that type of scandal...it sells.

Call me naive, but if it eases your mind, I honestly think that eventually, the truth always wins out and before it's all over, we'll know the absolute truth about each of the grievances you mention. It still amazes me at times that we in the GOP were able to pull out a win in vierw of Rathergate, MMoore's F911, John Kerry's blatant lies about the draft, Kiitty Kelly's desperate lies, etc. etc. etc.

I think Kerry's being more upfront and less defensive on his Senate record and releasing ALL his military records would have gone a long way with the American public. I also think that Tim Russert and Don Imus are asking him about signing Form 180 now because, like me, they probably doubted he had anything to hide. Since he continues to refuse, though, it does plant certain suspicions. Frankly, I've always thought it's something he's most likely embarrassed over. rather than some earth-shaking revelation and "gotcha" moment.

Finally, it doesn't matter what I personally think of Dean momentarily losing control. It's the effect on the general population that matters and we all know what that reaction was. As for Dubya's "romp", I'm biased I have a picture of him in his flight suit on my homepage LOL, but then I've never made it a secret that I'm wildly pro-military and there is no small amount of truth in thinking I'm somewhat a cheerleader for our guys in uniform and what they're trying to do for us.

It's annoying to most here, I know. Too bad. They can just ignore me

JW writes


The radio talk show hosts are having a field day with it though. Whenever they are playing a tape of some new Democrat rant on this or that you hear in the back ground Kennedy shouting out "Hello?.....Hello?.....followed by a Dean scream. It's a little mean I guess, but it's funny. When they keep feeding us the ammunition, it's really hard to pass up.

JustWonders --

Well, I was neither a big fan of Clinton then, nor am I now, hardly a "blind" follower of his. But I am glad we can agree that the coverage is hardly comparable. I think we can also agree that the coverage would be more spectacular should Bush be caught with his pants down with some intern.

What I honestly don't get is why someone who is pro-military, like myself, could gag at Kerry's maneuvering with respect to Purple Hearts given that even the Swift Boat Captains for Truth agree he was actually in Vietnam and be happy with a President donning the uniform after he didn't actually go to Vietnam. A President whose budget prior to 9/11 for the Armed Forces reduced their outlay. A President who, in time of war no less, actually is behind a budget that would reduce monies for VA hospitals. A President whose whole-hearted endorsement of stop-loss under the current situation strikes me as, frankly, heartless.

You see, all of my uncles and my father actually volunteered to go to Vietnam ... none of them got purple hearts, though one did time in Cambodia. None of them (except for the guy who went to Cambodia) could be characterized as being left of Ghengis Khan, but none of them are none too impressed with W's record in the military or sporting a jump suit on the deck of a carrier.

I don't give two good Goddamns in a jar of cold piss about the UN and what the Europeans think (outside of how it effects our interests), but I simply can't understand how people who are for a strong military and strong international position for the US could be for Bush. The father, yes; the son, "it's inconceivable" a la Princess Bride.