[tlb]

Armitage I suppose.

[Perdogg]

Marc Grossmann.

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1640

[martin_fierro]

What exactly are they paying Novak for over at Fox News?

I've seen him turn in exactly ONE appearance to date on Brit Hume's "All-Star Panel." It was slow death.

[Paloma_55]

Its a good thing for Bush that he isn't using his authority as President to engage in sexual relations with the interns. He has a special prosecutor nosing around the building with nothing to go after.

[Mo1]

ping

[Dr. Frank fan]

Robert Novak said Wednesday that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald knows who outed a CIA agent to the Chicago Sun-Times columnist but hasn't acted on the information because Novak's source committed no crime.

And the source committed no crime because (drumroll), Plame WASN'T A COVERT AGENT at the time in the first gold dang place.

This whole thing is based on NOTHING.

[EagleUSA]

Isn't Fitzgerald looking a bit like Ronnie Earle these days???

[TexasCajun]

Deep Throat II

[TexasCajun]

...Patrick Fitzgerald knows who outed a CIA agent to the Chicago Sun-Times columnist but hasn't acted on the information because Novak's source committed no crime.

If Pat thinks no crime was committed by "outing" Valerie, then it looks like he is simply running a good ole Perjury Sting.

[kellynla]

I can't believe that people are still writing about some CIA desk jockey who was about as "covert" as my cat. LMAO

[Dolphy]

President Bush is not what I would call a skilled politician. He seems aloof, almost arrogant."

I suppose this accounts for his 2000 and 2004 victories, the House majority he helped build and the Senate majority he helped retake and build upon.

[oldbrowser]

"Fitzgerald is investigating who leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to Novak and other reporters in an effort to discredit her husband, a critic of the Bush administration."

Huh ?
Okay, so we do have a motive but no crime, and no name for the non criminal.

[Fedora]

Novak acknowledged the swirl of speculation regarding his actions in Fitzgerald's investigation of the leak, including whether he testified before a grand jury, revealed his source to Fitzgerald or made some sort of a plea bargain by fingering someone else so he could stay out of jail.

But he called the speculation "ridiculous," declining to reveal his actions.

"I'm not going to tell you because it's none of your damn business," he said.

What a jerk. He undermines the President and the war effort with his article, and then tells the public it's not our business.

[Purrcival]

Thanks for the ping, Howlin! I just sent the following response to Mr. Newbart:

Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 7:41 PM
To: 'dnewbart@suntimes.com'
Subject: Novak/Plame Story

Dear Mr. Newbart:

As I read your story at the following link:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-novak20.html

I was especially struck by this line:

"Fitzgerald is investigating who leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to Novak and other reporters in an effort to discredit her husband, a critic of the Bush administration."

I believe that a slight correction is in order here. The sentence would be more correct if it said, "Fitzgerald is investigating who leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to Novak and other reporters in an effort to CORRECT FALSE STATEMENTS MADE BY her husband, a critic of the Bush administration."

Or even better yet, since Novak says that Fitzie knows who leaked Plame's name but hasn't charged that person because "no crime was committed", maybe the line should be modified even further. Maybe it should say something like, "Since Fitzgerald found that Plame was actually NOT covert, and had actually been a desk jockey at Langley for several years, he was unable to charge anyone under either the 1982 IIPA law or the 1917 law. Therefore, in an effort to justify the millions of dollars that he has spent investigating a non-crime, he has instead pursued a 'process' indictment against Scooter Libby for allegedly lying about his involvement in the non-criminal non-leak. Hey, it may all turn out to be nothing more than memory failure or differences in the way two or more people remember one or more incidents that happened two or three years ago. But what the heck, it's worth a shot."

There. All better now.