Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NOVAK: 'NOBODY IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION CALLED ME TO LEAK THIS'
Drudge Report ^ | 09/29/03

Posted on 09/29/2003 1:49:52 PM PDT by Pokey78

Edited on 09/29/2003 2:01:54 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing. As a professional journalist with 46 years experience in Washington I do not reveal confidential sources. When I called the CIA in July to confirm Mrs. Wilson's involvement in the mission for her husband -- he is a former Clitnon administration official -- they asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of an undercover operatives...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bushbashing; cia; josephwilson; lyingliars; mediabias; novak; robertnovak; whitehouse
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 541-560561-580581-600 ... 621-638 next last
To: Dog; All
Sean Hannity has been reading this thread. He is repeating, verbatum, statements I've read here in the last 15 minutes.
561 posted on 09/29/2003 6:45:22 PM PDT by Iowa Granny (Conservative women LIKE men!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy
Then why didn't Putin NAME them (except maybe for Iran). It would have been easy for him to say "terorist elements" or "the Taliban." He did not.

And he was approached through several channels, which means a more sophisticated group than Pakistani dissidents, who might be able to contact an embassy, but would not have the ability to go through multiple channels.

And Bush didn't comment on it at all. He just let it hang there. I thought that was very interesting.

562 posted on 09/29/2003 6:46:05 PM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 557 | View Replies]

To: Iowa Granny
Well, good. I am glad he is reading it! Maybe he will realize he needs better help in show prep! LOL!
563 posted on 09/29/2003 6:47:35 PM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 561 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Hannity and show prep have never been uttered together in the same sentence before Miss Marple. Congrats on being the first ;)

Why doesn't Rush just tutor the boy?

564 posted on 09/29/2003 6:51:12 PM PDT by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 563 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
Well, I think he has gotten a pass from us because for so long we were desperate to have our voices heard.

But Sean, good-hearted though he is, reminds me of a high school student who didn't read the book but is trying to BS his way through the oral report. I have heard enough of those to know what he's doing.

Fox would do well to have both a fact checker and a research person who is competent give him some asistance. Alan doesn't need any help, since all he ever does is read the Rat talking points.

565 posted on 09/29/2003 6:55:32 PM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 564 | View Replies]

To: Dog; Shermy; mewzilla
Between the Beeb post excavated by mewzilla, Shermy's flash of insight and Dog's discovery of the six day interval between the Beeb's story and Novak's, I'm prepared to wager that the "former diplomat" and the "CIA source" are, in fact, a husband & wife tag team working the media circuit for the benefit of the DNC.

Indeed, I'll give odds...

Here's hoping their miserable careers should come to a sudden end.

566 posted on 09/29/2003 6:55:37 PM PDT by okie01 (www.ArmorforCongress.com...because Congress isn't for the morally halt and the mentally lame.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
What this means is that reporters can MAKE UP SOURCES.

I wholeheartedly agree with that. It's just too easy for a reporter to put out a juicy story and claim journalistic ethics (I would never reveal my sources). Who's to ever know if the source even exists?

567 posted on 09/29/2003 6:56:20 PM PDT by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12; Miss Marple
I've gotten the impression Sean does most of his own deep background work, and only relies on research assistants for updates after the show has begun. Whatever the situation, he does need more help to stay on top of this stuff.

He's doing a better job than the Fox News staff. They're still hanging onto the story about the Mrs. Wilson being outed. It's time for Roger to pump up the budget, just a bit.
568 posted on 09/29/2003 6:57:05 PM PDT by Iowa Granny (Conservative women LIKE men!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 564 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy; Miss Marple
Saudi arabia.

Also, Putin is on board with us except for Iraq. It's about money. Saddam promised more, and oil contracts on future production were used as payment for Russian goods and loans.

Also, as reported in Russian papers, Russia came around to the Saudi opinion that suppression of Iraqi oil production benefited all other oil producers.
569 posted on 09/29/2003 6:58:42 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 557 | View Replies]

To: J_Bravo
I say Novak is a moron.

Agreed. Novak would be put to pasture if CNN didn't value his bumbling inarticulation on the issues. He says his job is not to shill for Republicans while his debate-opponents are delivering their Dem talking points. I like diverse points of view, but in his column 90% of his targets are Republicans.

Meanwhile forgive me if this has been posted above. It comes from the Best of the Web today and offers some interesting insights.

The Plame Facts

"At CIA Director George J. Tenet's request, the Justice Department is looking into an allegation that administration officials leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer to a journalist," yesterday's Washington Post reported. "The operative's identity was published in July after her husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, publicly challenged President Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to buy 'yellowcake' uranium ore from Africa for possible use in nuclear weapons."

We've been keeping an eye on this story since July, when it first surfaced in the left-wing press. But we haven't commented on it, because we haven't been sure what to make of it. We're still not sure what to make of it, since we've heard only part of one side of the story; the administration has not made any substantive comments, and what we've heard from its accusers has been far from complete. But now that the story is getting attention outside the fever swamps, we thought we'd review what is and isn't known so far.

At issue is the following passage in syndicated columnist Robert Novak's July 14 column:

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 Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.

Two days later, The Nation's David Corn published a column that laid out the allegation at the heart of the Post story:

The sources for Novak's assertion about Wilson's wife appear to be "two senior administration officials." If so, a pair of top Bush officials told a reporter the name of a CIA operative who apparently has worked under what's known as "nonofficial cover" and who has had the dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material. . . .

This is not only a possible breach of national security; it is a potential violation of law. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent.

A couple of caveats are in order here. First, it remains unconfirmed that Plame was in fact working covertly for the CIA. Novak described her as a CIA "operative," but not an undercover operative. Wilson and the CIA both imply that she was an undercover operative, but they employ various circumlocutions to avoid actually saying so. Thus Corn:

Without acknowledging whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee, Wilson says, "Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career.

The Post, likewise, says "the CIA has declined to confirm whether she was undercover."

In addition, no one in a position to know has publicly fingered the alleged leakers. Wilson himself has said he would like "to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs," and various anti-Bush conspiracy theorists have latched on to the Rove theory. But this seems to be pure speculation, and possibly wishful thinking. Bush-haters, after all, would love to be rid of Rove, a great political asset to the White House.

The Post's main source narrows the field somewhat:

A senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. . . . The official would not name the leakers for the record and would not name the journalists. The official said there was no indication that Bush knew about the calls.

One question that arises is how the Post's source knew that the alleged leakers were "top White House offiicials"--a category that is more specific than Novak's description of "senior administration officials." It's possible is that the Post's source is someone at the CIA who had knowledge of journalists' inquires to the agency about the leaks. Perhaps one or more of the journalists used the more specific description. But the Post account suggests that the source has even more specific knowledge. "The official would not name the leakers for the record," (emphasis ours), the paper says, implying that he did name them off the record. How would he know? Did one of the reporters betray his sources?

Then there's this, also from the Post account:

When Novak told a CIA spokesman he was going to write a column about Wilson's wife, the spokesman urged him not to print her name "for security reasons," according to one CIA official. . . .

Novak said in an interview [Saturday] night that the request came at the end of a conversation about Wilson's trip to Niger and his wife's role in it. "They said it's doubtful she'll ever again have a foreign assignment," he said. "They said if her name was printed, it might be difficult if she was traveling abroad, and they said they would prefer I didn't use her name. It was a very weak request. If it was put on a stronger basis, I would have considered it."

If the revelation of Plame's name was such a serious breach of national security, why didn't the CIA make a stronger pitch to Novak to withhold it? Indeed, as blogger Donald Luskin asks, why did the CIA answer Novak's questions at all?

Instead of saying "Valerie who? We've never heard of anyone named Valerie" or simply that "We don't answer media inquiries about CIA personnel"--the CIA itself confirmed [her identity], and in so doing the CIA itself leaked it.

Then there's the question of motive. Why would Novak's administration sources blow Plame's cover, assuming indeed that they did so? Wilson told Corn the revelation "is intended to intimidate others who might come forward." But this doesn't make sense. An ordinary reader of Novak's column had no way of grasping the purported significance of the revelation. Novak didn't make explicit that he was blowing Plame's cover; what he reported seemed to be more an accusation of nepotism. (Not a very convincing accusation, we might add, since Wilson was not paid for his sojourn to Niger, which is not exactly one of the world's leading vacation spots.) In order for the revelation to have the kind of deterrent value Wilson claims, it would have to be clear to an outsider that Novak had reported something truly damaging--and that couldn't happen without the leakers themselves being incriminated. And in any case, how many administration critics are married to CIA covert operatives?

The Post's source's theory is that "it was meant purely and simply for revenge" against Wilson. Human nature being what it is, one can't rule out such ignoble motives. But as a political matter, taking such action would have been, as the Post's source puts it, "a huge miscalculation." What could have been in it for the administration, or for the leakers? Why risk creating the Bush White House's first-ever scandal over the yellowcake kerfuffle, an issue that no one cared about outside the Beltway and the Bush-hating left? It doesn't sound like something Karl Rove would do.

570 posted on 09/29/2003 7:00:15 PM PDT by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 560 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
MSNBC reporting that the justice department asked the CIA 11 questions in response to the CIA request for an investigation.

The CIA affirmed that Plame's status was classified, that whoever leaked it wasn't authorized to do so, and that the news media would not have been able to guess her identity without somebody with access to classified information illegally leaking it to them, and that the act was criminal. Oh, and the 11 answer response from the CIA with fleshed out details is now classified secret (not secret enough for somebody to leak that to MSNBC though)

571 posted on 09/29/2003 7:02:16 PM PDT by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies]

To: Iowa Granny
Correct. I was very disappointed in Hume's show this evening. I must assume it was taped earlier than some of this information became available.

I know Ailes is trying to be profitable, but you are right, they need at least ONE research assistant that can help. This thread has consumed my interest and research skills for several hours, and I am not trying to get ready for a television show. Perhaps we should start a daily thread entitled: " ATTENTION: FOX Here is research for the current stories you will be covering today!

572 posted on 09/29/2003 7:02:24 PM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 568 | View Replies]

To: Chad Fairbanks
a Clinton Administration Holdover?

Hardly. More like a GHW Bush holdover.

Wilson was undersecretary to Ambassador April Glaspie in Iraq in 1990. (Meeting Saddam Diplomat Joe Wilson Recalls Meeting With the Iraqi Leader) This is only one of hundreds of links available through Google.

573 posted on 09/29/2003 7:04:02 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Another 'Rat Big Lie exposed.
574 posted on 09/29/2003 7:06:46 PM PDT by PeoplesRepublicOfWashington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
Well, actually, if you wish to be technically correct, he was a CARTER holdover. He first went to work for the State Department in 1976 as a career diplomat.

His full biography may be read here. By the way, this is the biography that gives his wife's maiden name.

575 posted on 09/29/2003 7:11:18 PM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 573 | View Replies]

To: okie01
That Wilson and his wife are behind all of this, possibly along with associates of hers at the CIA, does make the most sense...

Think how easily this would be to work, too...

Wilson hints, I know something about WMD, even though I have no training, because, and now please don't report this Mr Novak, my wife is a CIA WMD analyst.

So Novak calls the CIA. They send him to someone who handles the press from the WMD analyst department, who is in on the scam with Plame and Wilson.

He confirms what Wilson had said, and hints that Plame had, perhaps unethically, suggested Wilson go in the first place. The conspirator *suggests* that Novak not run with Plame's name. Since, Novak is used to getting a yes or no he takes this as a yes, you can use it.

So, following standard journalist protocal, Novak goes looking for a second source. He calls up someone else he knows and says I've been told the Valerie Plame, wife of Wilson, might of had a hand in unethically sending her husband on a mission to damage the President - is she or is she not in the position to do so? Mr Second Source, not in on the plan, says, unofficially, yep, she was in a position to unethically influence sending her husband on this mission.

Novak now has been baited with some good stuff, that he has to name Palme to go public with. So Novak - now quoting two "senior administration officials" runs with it.

The trap is complete...

We know that Wilson is perfectally willing to lie and distort the truth to go after the President - he's admitted to doing so when he claimed Rove was the source.

So all he would need is a little help from his wife, and one other person in the CIA.

Certainly more likely then the byzantine, and just plain stpuid, revenge scheme the press seems to be running with...
576 posted on 09/29/2003 7:12:57 PM PDT by swilhelm73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 566 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Even Joe Scarborough and Bill Bennett are saying that this is such a serious charge and that it's not a manufactured scandal this time. Bennett commented that since the claim is that WH officials shopped this to six different reporters, that it must be true. I read earlier in this post that at least two of those reporters have denied that they were contacted at all about this.

I wonder if Scarborough Country is pretaped hours before it airs.
577 posted on 09/29/2003 7:18:17 PM PDT by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 489 | View Replies]

To: alnick
Obviously these shows are taped in the afternoon, given what we have seen today.

I am losing faith in all the television people. They seem content to read one wire clipping over and over again, withou bothering to verify or to get comments from other sources.

578 posted on 09/29/2003 7:27:27 PM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies]

To: alnick
I haven't read through the last several posts on this thread, so forgive me if this has been addressed already. I noticed that on Greta's show - David Gergen was commenting on how Wilson's wife was an "undercover agent for the CIA". He was talking as if he wasn't aware of many of the latest details, either.

Is her show taped hours earlier, as well?

579 posted on 09/29/2003 7:33:03 PM PDT by MasonGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies]

To: MasonGal
Apparently so. Either that or they are all just incredibly lazy and uninteested.
580 posted on 09/29/2003 7:37:27 PM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 579 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 541-560561-580581-600 ... 621-638 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson