[Common Tator]

The answer: he (Rove) had not yet incriminated himself.

Novak's latest column contains the following:

I have revealed Rove's name because his attorney has divulged the substance of our conversation, though in a form different from my recollection

What in the world does that mean?

If there is a conflict between their recollections then why was Rove not indicted? Was the conflict less important than the conflict between Russert's testimony and Libby's?

If there were very minor differences in their recollections then why would Novak bother to include that fact in his column?

With all the information left out of this columm, why would Novak go to great pains to state that he only included Rove's name in this article becuase he and Rove's attorney disagree on was said in Rove-Novak conversation about Plame.

This does not compute.

[jennyjenny]

Because Novak (wanted to) uses Rove's comments as a confirming source. If Rove really said "I heard that too", he's not actually confirming the information, just that he heard it. Novak *needed* a confirming source. I'm going with Rove's recollection of how the conversation went down and I think Fitz and the grand jury did too.