CIA leak: Now it can be told; Novak reveals in new book how the secret unfolded

Chicago Sun-TImes ^ | July 8th, 2007 | Robert D. Novak

[FreedomCalls]

When I went to my office Monday, July 7, 2003, Joe Wilson was not in the forefront of my mind. Frances Fragos Townsend was. She had just been named deputy national security adviser at the White House though her background was in liberal Democratic politics, including Attorney General Janet Reno's inner circle during the Clinton administration. Her appointment was a political mystery of the kind I had been exploring for forty years in my column.

I wrote the Townsend column Tuesday morning because I had a busy schedule the rest of the day, including a 3 p.m. appointment with Richard Armitage, deputy secretary of state. I had no idea what a big event it would turn out to be.

Armitage was less guarded
I asked to see Armitage early in the George W. Bush administration and repeated my request after the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. Armitage and Colin Powell, the new secretary of state and Armitage's close friend, were widely perceived as being out of step with the rest of the administration about military intervention in Iraq.

I had ready access to Powell, in person and over the telephone, but he was circumspect in what he said to me, while Armitage had a reputation for being less guarded in conversations with journalists. Armitage rebuffed me, not with the customary evasion of claiming an overly full schedule but by his secretary making clear that he simply did not want to see me. I assumed that Armitage bracketed me, a notoriously conservative columnist, with the Iraqi war hawks who were unsympathetic toward his views. If so, he had somehow missed my written and spoken criticism of the Iraqi intervention.

Then, in the last week of June 2003, Armitage's office called to agree unexpectedly to my request and set up the appointment for July 8.

Neither of us set ground rules
It is important to note that Armitage reached out to me before Joe Wilson went public on the New York Times op-ed page and on "Meet the Press" with an account of his Niger report that he said contradicted 16 words in Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address: ("The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa.")

I was ushered into Armitage's big State Department inner office promptly at 3 p.m. Neither of us set ground rules for my visit. I assumed, however, that what Armitage said would not be attributed to him but would not be off the record. That is, I could write about information he gave me but would not identify him by name. During a long career, I had come to appreciate that sort of thing in countless interviews without putting it into so many words. I viewed what Armitage told me to be just as privileged as if he had made me swear a blood oath.

Armitage was giving me high-level insider gossip, unusual in a first meeting. About halfway through our session, I brought up Bush's sixteen words. What Armitage told me generally confirmed what I had learned from sources the previous day while I was reporting for the Fran Townsend column.

I then asked Armitage a question that had been puzzling me but, for the sake of my future peace of mind, would better have been left unasked.

Why would the CIA send Joseph Wilson, not an expert in nuclear proliferation and with no intelligence experience, on the mission to Niger?

"Well," Armitage replied, "you know his wife works at CIA, and she suggested that he be sent to Niger." "His wife works at CIA?" I asked. "Yeah, in counterproliferation."

He mentioned her first name, Valerie. Armitage smiled and said: "That's real Evans and Novak, isn't it?" I believe he meant that was the kind of inside information that my late partner, Rowland Evans, and I had featured in our column for so long. I interpreted that as meaning Armitage expected to see the item published in my column.

The exchange about Wilson's wife lasted no more than sixty seconds.

I never spoke to Armitage again about Wilson. But he acknowledged to me nearly three months later through his political adviser, lobbyist Ken Duberstein, that he was indeed the primary source for my information about Wilson's wife. Shortly thereafter, he secretly revealed his role to federal authorities investigating the leak of Mrs. Wilson's name but did not inform White House officials, apparently including the president.

After Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago named as a special prosecutor in the case, indicated to me he knew Armitage was my source, I cooperated fully with him. At the special prosecutor's request and on my lawyers' advice, I kept silent about this -- a silence that subjected me to much abuse. I was urged by several friends, including some journalists, to give up my source's name. But I felt bound by the journalist's code to protect his identity.

Reprinted from The Prince of Darkness: 50 Years Reporting in Washington, Copyright © 2007 by Robert D. Novak. Published by Crown Forum, a division of Random House Inc., available in bookstores Tuesday.

[dennisw]

After Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago named as a special prosecutor in the case, indicated to me he knew Armitage was my source, I cooperated fully with him. At the special prosecutor's request and on my lawyers' advice, I kept silent about this -- a silence that subjected me to much abuse. I was urged by several friends, including some journalists, to give up my source's name. But I felt bound by the journalist's code to protect his identity.

The jerkoff could have leaked it. I'm sure Novak has covered many leaks in his career. But Novak was happy to see the Bush Administration squirm and the Democrats (Chrissy@MSNBC was the most rabid) make propaganda over this mythical super spy Valerie Plame and her publicity hound husband

[CutePuppy]

I guess that depends on the ground rules Fitz sets in order for him to testify. In the spirit of "cooperation, fairness and the need to get to the truth" which would probably wind up being a fancy way for Fitz covering his 6th.

Wouldn't it be interesting, if Fitz will ask for and/or get an immunity from prosecution for false testimony, similar to the way Valerie Plame got immunized for her testimony to Congress / Waxman committee. That may be an ultimate goal of this Congressional "investigations", besides creating yet another hypocritical media storm, to inoculate the perpetrators of a real crime - witchhunt and persecution of and attempted coup against the White House and OVP - from potential investigation and prosecution.

[The Old Hoosier]

Look it up yourself, it’s not my problem that you don’t read.

The original July column and the one he wrote a few months later in 2003. “Not a partisan gunslinger” was the formulation in the first one. The clear implication is that the source was not Rove or anyone ideologically or politically involved. I assumed at the time that it was Colin Powell.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>The only explanation for all of these questions that occurs to me is to recall at the time there was a classic media frenzy underway lead by the New York Times. Bush succumbed and the rest is history.<<<

Don’t believe it. Bush did not “succumb”. He was part of the conspiracy against the conservatives. How do you think Ted Kennedy wrote Bush’s so-called “Education Bill”. Why did Bush sign McCain-Feingold? Why did Bush support the Ted Kennedy Amnesty bill? Why did Bush expand LBJ’s “Destroy Society” agenda by implementing Medicare Prescripion Drugs? And why did Bush so adamantly support worldly agendas rather than supporting and defending our nation and our Constitution?

Because Bush is a Marxist. If you disagree, then compare Bush’s conservative positions against his leftist positions, and get back to me. But don’t even think about coming back to me with slurs and innuendos. Give me facts, or be silent.

[Darkwolf377]

Perhaps the president, not Novak, is the one responsible for whether he was involved or not. And again, Novak did reveal plenty in at least four columns on the subject, even while he was still keeping silent about specifics — if you bothered to read any of it, which I doubt.

You're very quick with the nasty put-downs, not too swift about how things work in this world.

I don't want the president getting involved in such cases--this one or any Democrat. You may like to live under a quasi-dictator, I do not.

I've followed this case quite closely, so please, keep your childish insults to a minimum and stick to the issue at hand.

Novak could have stepped forward and stopped this whole thing. He didn't. Instead he played coy.

You can defend him all your like. No one cares. You are under the delusion that you are the only authority on this topic. You are no such thing. You're merely a Novak water-carrier who would rather call people morons than admit that just maybe the one man who knew all the facts should have done more to prevent a prosecutor from going on a witch hunt.

Whatever you think, I don't really care. You show no particular insight into this story, only rudeness.

[Roccus]

“For his part why did Armitage not speak out? True, at some point he went to the special prosecutor and revealed that he was the leaker, but why did he not go to the president?”
__________________________________________________________

IIRC, and I’m only working from memory on this, didn’t the Special Prosecutor’s Office try to notify the WH about Armitage but was rebuffed because they (the WH) did not want to appear to be exerting any influence whatever on the investigation?

[dennisw]

Arlen Specter just might be on meds that distort his mind. More than a few Congress Critters are. Michael Savage often makes this point

Voinovich would be another. John Kyl too perhaps. On the Dem side. Hillary for hyperthyroid and Obama’s wife

[dennisw]

Phil Spector?

[Major_Risktaker]

Why did Fitzgerald continue with his inquisition?

Political Revenge

The Pending Marc Rich Attack

There's a talking point that the more complicit or credulous among the press corps are propagating: It suggests Libby is a really nice (or really clever) man because of the work he did getting Marc Rich pardoned. In placing the Rich pardon at the center of pre-trial coverage, though, I suspect Libby's team wants to suggest that Libby's indictment was direct retaliation for the work Libby did to get Rich a pardon.

This point is made explicitly in the WSJ's recent opinion piece.

As it happens, Messrs. Fitzgerald and Libby had crossed legal paths before. Before he joined the Bush Administration, Mr. Libby had, for a number of years in the 1980s and 1990s, been a lawyer for Marc Rich. Mr. Rich is the oil trader and financier who fled to Switzerland in 1983, just ahead of his indictment for tax-evasion by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Bill Clinton pardoned Mr. Rich in 2001, and so the feds never did get their man. The pardon so infuriated Justice lawyers who had worked on the case that the Southern District promptly launched an investigation into whether the pardon had been "proper." One former prosecutor we spoke to described the Rich case as "the single most rancorous case in the history of the Southern District."

Two of the prosecutors who worked on the Rich case over the years were none other than Mr. Fitzgerald and James Comey, who while Deputy Attorney General appointed Mr. Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame leak. Mr. Fitzgerald worked in the Southern District for five years starting in 1988, at the same time that Mr. Libby was developing a legal theory of Mr. Rich's innocence in a bid to get the charges dropped. The prosecutors never did accept the argument, but Leonard Garment, who brought Mr. Libby onto the case in 1985, says that he believes Mr. Libby's legal work helped set the stage for Mr. Rich's eventual pardon.

[Darkwolf377]

“Not a partisan gunslinger” was the formulation in the first one. The clear implication is that the source was not Rove or anyone ideologically or politically involved.

Novak's was an incredibly weak assertion, and certainly not something anyone would take as the final word on the situation. At the time, most people assumed he was trying to divert attention--the response was not 'Ah, so that's it.'

His weakness in this line you quote doesn't support the assertion that Novak did all he could to stop this outrageous prosecution. In fact it was to Novak's advantage that the identity continue to be obfuscated...as we see by the book he's got coming out.

[freekitty]

“U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald may be called to testify about his prosecution of former vice presidential aide Lewis ``Scooter’’ Libby, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said.”

Well, I suppose they will be dragging out the welcome wagon and the softball questions all on our nickle.

[Enchante]

There are a variety of ways in which Novack, Armitage, and/or Powell could have ensured that some basic facts were known to key parties early on, so that Fitzfong’s witch hunt never could have gotten off the ground, and so that the WH and MSM could have known early on that Fitzfong was on a witch hunt. Unfortunately, it suited Powell, Novack, and Armitage to let the WH twist in the wind and suffer some of the most vicious and dishonest assaults in modern political history.

It is worthless that Novack hinted in a couple of columns that his original source “was not a partisan gunslinger” since the MSM did not care to pay attention to any subtle hints. There are plenty of things that could have been said, either publicly or to the WH in private, to ensure that the whole brouhaha could have been fought off early on.

Unfortunately, Novack, Powell, and Armitage all had their own agendas that made them happy to stand aside as spectators while the WH was under the most depraved onslaught. For that, those 3 deserve the fullest contempt from every citizen.

[garbanzo]

Good luck in getting anyone in the MSM to read that. It is an article of religious faith that Bush lied to get us into war so that Halliburton could get rich off of reconstruction and that we could steal all of Iraq’s oil.

[johnny7]

We knew a long time ago... I knew this was a scam from the day I learned of Wilson’s background. More important... let us see how Novak’s ‘revelations’ are spun by the grupenfuhrers of the DBM/DNC.

[Enchante]

oops, his name is spelled ‘Novak’ — my bad :^(

I’d rather spell it “dipstick”.......

[NurdlyPeon]

This sanctimonious blather is just one more aspect of this over-the-hill- putrid piece of dung covering his six, and, of course, distancing himself from harm’s way!

I'm with you, brother. When you look at the damage that this man caused the country and the party, the millions of dollars he caused the country to waste, the damage to Scooter Libby (ongoing), all the while knowing the Fitzgerald knew that Armitage was the source.... and then he hides it all behind some "journalists ethics" (a freakin' oxymoron is there ever was on)....I'm just speechless. Novak is scum; in the same category as Firzgerald, Amitage, and Powell.

[nathanbedford]

Because Bush is a Marxist. If you disagree, then compare Bush’s conservative positions against his leftist positions, and get back to me. But don’t even think about coming back to me with slurs and innuendos. Give me facts, or be silent.

You sir are as arrogant as The Old Hoosier. Do not ever presume to tell me how or what or to whom to post. Serving facts up to the likes of you would be to waste good pearls on swine because obviously you wouldn't know a Marxist from a vegetarian.

However, there are other FReepers whose opinion I respect and for their benefit I set forth a post in which I undertake to explain Bush's politics. It is important to understand that this post was published a couple of years ago When such opinions drew a great deal of criticism. Here is the first:

The problem with George Bush is that he is not primarily a conservative, he is primarily a Christian, and he does not have a calculus that is congruent with yours or mine, even though both of us might be Christians.

George Bush sees partisan politics as petty and ultimately meaningless. We see partisanship as the indispensable stuff of freedom. At election time the Bushes will hold their nose and dip into partisanship. But it is not in their essential nature to wage war for tactical political advantage.

George Bush wants what Bill Clinton wanted: To fashion a legacy. He does not want to be remembered as the man who cut a few percentage points from an appropriation bill but as the man who reshaped Social Security. I've come to the conclusion that the Bushes see politics as squirmy, fetid. It must be indulged in if one is to practice statesmanship but it is statesmanship alone that that is worthy as a calling.

They are honest, they are loyal, they are patrician. There would've been admired and respected if had lived among the founding fathers. But it is Laura Bush and Momma Bush who really and truly speak for the family and who tell us what they are thinking and who they are. There's not a Bush woman who does not believe in abortion. They believe in family, they live in loyalty, they believe in the tribe, but they do not believe in partisan politics.

I believe it is time for us to decide no longer to be used by the Bush family as useful idiots and instead to begin to use the Bushes as our useful idiots . I say this with the utmost admiration and respect for everything the Bushes stand for. Who would not be proud beyond description to have a father or an uncle who was among the first and youngest of naval aviators to fight in the Pacific and to be twice shot down. Not a stain or blemish of corruption or personal peccadillo has touched the family(except for the brother whom I believe was cleared of bank charges). They are the living embodiment of all that is good and noble in the American tradition.

But they are not conservative.

Here is a second post along the same lines publish later at the time of the Harriet Miers fiasco:

As a result of the policies of the Bush administration, Republicans have forfeited their formerly kryptonite hundred year claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility. Contrary to what Rush Limbaugh says, the Democrats do have an affirmative program, it is to be the party of fiscal responsibility by raising taxes and cutting spending. They will point out that the Republicans are the party of fiscal irresponsibility because they have cut taxes and increased spending. Because Bush and the Congressional Republicans have sought to buy votes with federal spending rather than cut spending in all areas apart from national defense, it is now the Democrats who can plausibly say that it is they who are fiscally responsible.

Their argument will not convince us but it will be persuasive enough, especially when supported by a full-court press from the whole of the mainstream media, to blur the fundamental distinction between the parties and perhaps gain the next election by confusing a fair portion of the electorate.

Thus we have wantonly kicked away one of the legs of our stool. Another leg of the stool was comprised of our ability to go to the electorate, as George Bush did successfully in the last two elections, and persuasively argue that we were the party of judicial integrity. That we were the party which manned the threshold to the Constitution like the Patriots at Thermopylae to check the ravening horde of liberals who would sack the Constitution like a city which had succumbed to a siege.

The Harriet Meir nomination in a stroke has needlessly compromised our ability plausibly to appeal to the electorate as of the party which stands on constitutional principle and eschews judicial opportunism.

We are now left with only one issue which separates us from the Democrats, national security. Like it or not, ever since there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, we've been on the run on this issue. Yes I know we won the last election on this issue but the tide has clearly turned. Watch Hillary contrived to present herself as a plausible candidate who is strong on defense.

Why did we saw off two of our three legs? On the issue of spending some would say it is because Bush was never a conservative. Others would say that it was the war that did it but that would not be the whole truth, at least that would not be the whole explanation. Others would say that it is simply the nature of a politician to buy votes with other people's money and the temptation, even to Republicans, is irresistible.

My own view is that our present dilemma is the product of a little bit of each of the above. For years now I've been posting my view the George Bush is not essentially a movement conservative but a committed Christian. Here's what I've been saying recently:

The truth is straightforward, as usual. Bush is first a committed Christian, then a devoted family man who values personal loyalty to an extreme, and third, a conservative when that philosophy does not conflict with the first two. In this appointment, Bush believes he has satisfied all three legs of the stool. This is what I posted yesterday:

On the limited evidence available, I do positively believe Bush appointed her because she has been reborn. I mean that quite respectfully. I mean that he is counting on her being a new person. Most of the time it means she will vote conservative. But I honestly do not think Bush appointed her to vote conservative. I think he appointed he to vote in the SPIRIT.

The sad thing for us conservatives is to contemplate just how unnecessary the debacle over Harriet Meir really was. One can understand the fear in the legislative heart of retribution from constituents as their snouts are pulled away from the trough. One can even understand Bush's, or perhaps more accurately Rove's, trepidations in dealing with immigration arising out of fear that they will be called racists and out of the desire to pander to portions of the business community. But the whole nomination fiasco is almost uniquely unrelated to identifiable political or policy considerations. In the absence of such temporal explanations, I am left with the conclusion that Bush has a selected her because she's Christian.

[AmericaUnited]

FitzFong has always been the sleasiest SCUM in this whole affair. LYING, SLEAZY SCUM!

[Darkwolf377]

Very well said, especially about Bush being a Christian, not a conservative, even if many Christians don't agree with his politics. I think this is especially pertinent when talking about the immigration debacle.

In hindsight, the Meirs nomination was a killing blow to Bush's administration. Conservatives lost all faith in him. We're grateful when he does something right, but now he's just another politician to many of us.