...and that's the way it is!
Posted on 08/01/2005 1:48:56 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
A statement attributed to the former CIA spokesman indicating that I deliberately disregarded what he told me in writing my 2003 column about Joseph Wilson's wife is just plain wrong.
Though frustrated, I have followed the advice of my attorneys and written almost nothing about the CIA leak over two years because of a criminal investigation by a federal special prosecutor. The lawyers also urged me not to write this. But the allegation against me is so patently incorrect and so abuses my integrity as a journalist that I feel constrained to reply.
In the course of a front-page story in last Wednesday's Washington Post, Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei quoted ex-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow describing his testimony to the grand jury. In response to my question about Valerie Plame Wilson's role in former Ambassador Wilson's trip to Niger, Harlow told me she "had not authorized the mission." Harlow was quoted as later saying to me "the story Novak had related to him was wrong."
This gave the impression I ignored an official's statement that I had the facts wrong but wrote it anyway for the sake of publishing the story. That would be inexcusable for any journalist and particularly a veteran of 48 years in Washington. The truth is otherwise, and that is why I feel compelled to write this column.
My column of July 14, 2003, asked why the CIA in 2002 sent Wilson, a critic of President Bush, to Niger to investigate an Italian intelligence report of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases. All the subsequent furor was caused by three sentences in the sixth paragraph:
"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA (Harlow) says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him."
There never was any question of me talking about Mrs. Wilson "authorizing." I was told she "suggested" the mission, and that is what I asked Harlow. His denial was contradicted in July 2004 by a unanimous Senate Intelligence Committee report. The report said Wilson's wife "suggested his name for the trip." It cited an internal CIA memo from her saying "my husband has good relations" with officials in Niger and "lots of French contacts," adding they "could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." A State Department analyst told the committee that Mrs. Wilson "had the idea" of sending Wilson to Africa.
So, what was "wrong" with my column as Harlow claimed? There was nothing incorrect. 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."
Harlow said to the Post that he did not tell me Mrs. Wilson "was undercover because that was classified." What he did say was, as I reported in a previous column, "she probably never again would be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties.' " According to CIA sources, she was brought home from foreign assignments in 1997, when Agency officials feared she had been "outed" by the traitor Aldrich Ames.
I have previously said that I never would have written those sentences if Harlow, then-CIA Director George Tenet or anybody else from the Agency had told me that Valerie Plame Wilson's disclosure would endanger herself or anybody.
The recent first disclosure of secret grand jury testimony set off a news media feeding frenzy centered on this obscure case. Joseph Wilson was discarded a year ago by the Kerry presidential campaign after the Senate committee reported much of what he said "had no basis in fact."
The re-emerged Wilson is now accusing the senators of "smearing" him. I eagerly await the end of this investigation when I may be able to correct other misinformation about me and the case.
Novak is a nationally syndicated columnist based in Washington.
...and that's the way it is!
...I use my whole brain just to keep up and he uses only half of his.
I see you buy all of it!
Hmmmm.....
I think you're spot-on.
So do I!
I do. HCTZ, 81mg aspiring, and lisinopril. Those are my therapy, but are not for getting high...
I would rather smoke a joint, but it's prohibited!
Rush likes other things, easily obtainable from your local cleaning service.
He also wants to elevate himself above the laws that "little people" must adhere to. You know, those pesky little inquiries into how many different doctors and drug stores he visited, within a short period of time. Oh, yeah, he needed to golf, and his back was bothering him...
BTW - I love that banner.
It's actually a bumper sticker I made. There's instructions on how to make them on my FReeper page.
I stated when I first read Harlow's public comments that I doubted their veracity. It's been clear from the start that some within the CIA lied about facts surrounding this (like denying the documented fact of what Novak reported: Anti-Bush Joe Wilson was sent to Niger at least in part because of his CIA connected wife).
As to what Harlow actually said to the grand jury? I'm sure he couched his phrasings carefully to avoid perjury but if he did lie to them, I hope Fitzgerald is aware of these various public accounts of who is saying what they said to whom.
I am very glad Novak clarified this Harlow point as my main concern from the beginning was why some in the CIA were passing along disinformation to reporters like this. (An argument any Congressman worth his salt should consider when deliberating any ill-advised reporter shield legislation).
Not only that...the public documentation that we know of completely supports Novak's account and as each piece gets revealed it only cements what he has to say. The only thing here is establishing beyond doubt that Harlow directly spoke with Novak. I believe Novak, no question.
I think I LIKE Goldberg. He's very funny.
A real sharp guy.
Novak is very near retirement.
So that could very well happen.
Obstruction of justice is a pretty good reason.
Having yellow cake with it, of course....
Then why do they pay him so much money?
I'm so sorry that you want to feel superior to Rush listeners. That is your right. The fact that you get most of your news from FR and other internet sources is undersandable. I also use them extensively.
Having said that, your point will be more appropo when each and every thread on FR recieves 15,000,000 hits a day.
Your main gripes, seem to be that Mr. Limbaugh became addicted to pain killers, and that he repeats himself.
The first I think would be between himself, the legal system and his doctors.
The second could be, the old adage of, "tell them what you're going to tell them, tell them, then tell them what you told them." I think this would be between himself and his audience.
Now then, why is it so important to you that I not listen to Rush Limbaugh?
I guess you don't think well enough, on your own, by the tone of your post!
Perhaps you should rededicate this particular line to Yourself, with the added admonishment of, If you don't think to well, don't think to often.
Well, as an addict myself, I am definitely a little concerned if he did any justifying whatsoever.
OTOH, when he came back from rehab, I have never heard a more contrite Rush.
going back on my 2k memory here, but i somewhat recall that the release of this 'wilsonian' sophistry coincided closely with the senate intelligence committee memos scandal (yes, there are two "memogates" - this & the slightly more reported senate judicial memogate) that was subsequently not &/or under-reported by MSM. In the intel-scandal, the leftists on that committee led by rockefeller (d-wva) were plotting to use their highly classified take from their committee to undermine Bush administration... even at the cost of lives and increased danger to our troops.
at which point I thought it was certainly a manufactured scandal... created by the dhimms to distract attention from other, more important issues that stood to condemn the seditious behaviour of the dhimmicrats within.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.