Replies

Thanks! I've read the column before and a few thoughts:

The article states that the "16 words" turned out to be based on forged documents. That is false. The CIA headquarters was not in possession of the documents until February---after the SOTU. While this article was from early in the debacle, a very little fact-checking would have revealed this at that time.

Also this:

The Washington Post quoted a "senior administration official" in a story Sunday as saying that two top White House officials disclosed the identity of Wilson's wife in calls to at least six Washington journalists. Novak was the only recipient of the information who published it, the Post reported.

Is what I was referring to on this thread when *after* the Novak column 6 reporters said they were contacted. This was spun and twisted to try and convey that the same source for this was the same source Novak had. Rubbish.

Also note Novak initially told Wilson his sources were CIA and later said he "misspoke" (wouldn't reiterate, is more like it).

I read an excellent New York Sun editorial yesterday that agrees with my take. I am concernced that they note that Fitzgerald's court filings refer to an act of possible retaliation. I will be very aggravated if he started from the point of Wilsonian spin. He should have been dealing with "just the facts". If Plame wasn't undercover (Novak noted early on he was told she was an analyst) then even if Wilson's lies (about his trip and subsequent "findings") were true, how could revealing her role in sending him amount to retalation if a) that underlying fact was true and b) she wasn't undercover?!

The twisting these types take of simple facts makes my head hurt.