Update [2005-8-1 18:30:21 by susanhu]: Andrea Mitchell is on MSNBC’s Hardball today to talk about Novak’s column and the CIA leak case.
The “run silent, run, just run …” Robert Novak fires back at the CIA today in his syndicated column at the Chicago Sun-Times:
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.
Now wait just a fucking minute here. As Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer, just told me, “The real news in Bob Novak’s latest column is the revelation that Novak thinks he has ‘integrity’. Talk about delusional.”
Novak goes on — calling this an “obscure case” — and Johnson replies, BELOW THE FOLD:
[editor’s note, by susanhu] Edited to reflect Johnson’s remarks that he updated and posted at his blog, No Quarter.
Larry Johnson told me — about the following section in Novak’s column (below) — that:
Back in July 2003 Novak wrote:
“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.”I believe Novak reported accurately that “two senior Administration officials” said that Valerie Plame “suggested the mission”. But those sources were spreading deliberate disinformation. A real journalist would have asked some hard questions, things apparently beyond Novak’s ability in his dotage. In stark contrast to what the two “senior” Admistration officials told him, CIA officials, both former and current, are on record saying that Novak is wrong and that Plame neither suggested nor authorized the mission. So what does Bob “the responsbile journalist” Novak do? He insists that the info about Plame is right even though officials in her chain of command say the opposite. Who are you going to believe?
Novak:
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.”
Next, Novak “takes refuge” in the Senate Intel report:
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.
Larry Johnson’s retort:
But, we now are reminded what a complete, disgusting douchebag (to quote Jon Stewart) Robert Novak really is. He admits that he was told that revealing Plame’s identity would cause “difficulties”. He describes her in his original article as an “operative”. Note, not “analyst” but “operative”.
Bob Novak has been in town long enough to know the difference.
An operative is someone who carries out operations. An analyst is someone who sits at a desk and tries to make sense out of information that operators collect.
Bill Harlow says he asked Novak not to use her name and Novak confirms this. CIA spokesmen were in the position of having to protect a sensitive, covert asset and this joke of a journalist did not appreciate that creating difficulties for an intelligence agency in a time of war is a bad thing?
More from Novak:
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.
Larry Johnson responds:
After talking with several friends still inside the operations community, there is a widely held sentiment, “Too bad Novak is not sharing a cell with Judith Miller”.
Too bad Novak is not sharing a cell with Miller.
Larry Johnson will publish these and additional remarks at his blog, No Quarter.
Cross-posted at DKos.
.
SusanHu at the end of your diary ● No Quarter
~~~
to follow this.
That lying bastard Novak:
she could be identified as “Valerie Plame” by reading her husband’s entry in “Who’s Who in America.”
Does “Who’s Who” state:
Valerie Plame Wilson, undercover CIA operative???
Oh, Sybil. There you go again, quibbling.
Isn’t he something?! And it is rather astonishing he published this column. This must be festering inside him like a rapidly growing ulcer… good.
Oh yeah.
I often read Who’s Who in America.
Prick.
I forget which Bootribber wrote about how Novak has no editorial oversight, but sir or madam, you are right. Look at this crap. I swear he IS a corpse:
Should be “for” over two years
constrained should be “compelled”. To constrain something means to “hold back” or “restrain”. He correctly uses the word “compelled” two paragraphs later.
Should be “in a front-page story”
Should be “her” not “herself”
Plus numerous comma errors. What a moron.
Pax
FABULOUS, soj!
…of them, prefer the use of “(for) more than (two years)” to “(for) over (two years).” “Over” has lots of meanings and can sometimes be misconstrued. “More than” in this usage is crystal clear.
Grammar, syntax, style and punctuation aside, it’s the “my integrity as a journalist” that gets me. After 48 years in the biz, you would think he’d know how double-bladed such an expression can be.
I wish you’d write a column on writing, MB. It’d be so helpful to the rest of us who struggle along.
My opinion is that, on blogs, we should strive to write in newspaper style as much as we can — i.e., using A.P. manual recommendations, etc.
My problem is that I don’t have a copy anymore of the A.P. manual.
…not just the AP’s. Personally, I hate pyramid style, but everyone should think about writing a “lede” that “telegraphs” what they’re going to say later on. If everyone would send her or his blog essays to one or two trusted friends before posting, half the mistakes we see would get fixed, and the writing would be, I’m convinced, far clearer. If one of those friends is a friendly editor, so much the better.
But writing on writing? Not my forte.
AP will be more than happy to sell you a copy; it’s on their website and it’s not expensive….
I get one every few years whether I need it or not….
MB is right and I’d do better myself if I had an editor or took the time to carefully re-read what I write.
Warriner’s has a wonderful book about style and usage (Handbook of English). I also like Swan’s “Practical English Usage”, both of which I brought with me to Romania.
Pax
So the douche bag of liberty won’t talk about whether HE testified, and if he did, what HE said, (even though Matthew Cooper and Tim Russert have), but it’s fair game for the db to attack somebody else says they said in their testimony?
Novak can’t keep his big yap shut and use his column to keep on smearing. Put up or shut up, douche bag.
.
Linked through Larry Johnson’s article to Linda Robinson’s piece.
Well flaky he is for sure! US policy change based on a snowflake – too bad it has cost the lives of 2,000 US soldiers and 40-120,000 Iraqi civilians.
~~~
Oui, you should diary that post by Johnson. It’s a great, great story …
the snowflakes comment.
Reminds me of one of my first jobs, for an exec at a broadcasting company in Seattle. He constantly wrote memoranda to the news division, and had me hand-deliver them to the news director. His barrage of memoranda every day drove everyone at the company NUTS!
It got so that, every single time I walked into the news department, the entire news staff — TV reporters, etc. — would sing my boss’s name over and over and over.
Being in my early 20s at the time, I wanted to die from embarrassment.
.
While there may be consensus on the broad approach, the devil will be in the hard bargaining over “who’s in charge.” The most important document to come out of the National Security Council review will be a new presidential directive that reconciles the conflicts among four counterterrorism directives. Two [directives] are from the Clinton era, and two were signed by President Bush.
Clinton’s Presidential Decision Directive 39, signed in 1995, for example, gives the State Department the lead role in counterterrorism efforts abroad, but after 9/11, President Bush gave the CIA the lead for disrupting terrorist networks overseas. National Security Presidential Directive 9, signed on Oct. 25, 2001, directs the Pentagon to prepare military plans for eliminating terrorist sanctuaries.
Similar overlapping jurisdictions exist for the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and the new intelligence entities created since 9/11. Since many planks of the Pentagon’s new strategy require it to work with these other agencies, resolving these intramural issues will be essential.
Intramural Issues – smart after going to war in Iraq.
~~~
Guckerts, Kurtz, Brooks, Millers, Coopers, Rushies and all their ditto-bobble-head followers:
“Foxholes”
They’re not simply assholes who disseminate and digest crap, they’re the kind that dig in and wallow in it. And when they’re found out ansd exposed for the liars and frauds that they are, they dig deeper.
foxholes,
or if you prefer,
fauxholes.
.

part of nature!
Call them for where they dwell …

The sewer.
~~~
is that of a short overweight neocon chickenhawk all scrunched down in this muddy, fetid hole-in-the-ground, throwing rocks and wads of mud up out of the hole at nothing in particular and everything in general…
Someone who is “holed up” while others do the actual fighting, or work, or thinking…
The kind of coward one might hear the usual jingoistic claptrap from, not just your typical asshole but a,
Foxhole.
Salon’s War Room is on this too:
Novak:
More Novak:
Still more Novak:
And Novak brags about 48 years in Washington? The lowliest of cub reporters would have known the difference between CIA agents and operatives, known from Harlow’s comments that something about Mrs. Wilson was secret information. And that kind of secret information usually means there are lives at stake.
Novak is like the dumb jock who gets drunk at a college party and tries to rape his date because, he claims, she didn’t say No loudly enough. What part of No doesn’t he understand?
It’s time for whatever syndicate foists him on an unsuspecting public to examine his columns and contract very closely and terminate both.
… the credibility to be believed when he says he has integrity or anything else for that matter!
The man hasn’t a shred of credibility left to his name. Why any paper or network would carry this man any longer is beyond me.
Novak should share a cell with Aldrich Ames rather than Judith Miller.
One disgusting aspect is that the Chicago Sun-Times and ABC TV still pay this traitor for his ‘work’, and that Creators’ Syndicate still distributes his columns.
Novak belongs in the same category as Benedict Arnold, Aldrich Ames and the Walker family.
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.” . . . .
So, what was “wrong” with my column as Harlow claimed? There was nothing incorrect.
Yeah, we’re supposed to believe that suggesting the mission and suggesting his name as one who might be a good choice to send on the mission is the same thing.
Reminds me of Miller’s “I was proved fucking right,” statement.
Don’tcha wish we could hold these assholes to BooMan’s don’t be a prick rule?
I was going to write about that contradiction, but I like the way you put it better.
Why oh why do we let obviously biased political operatives write as if they have any grasp on truth or reality at all?
Aside from the money. That’s a given. Did Republicans drive Rome into the ground too? Ah well, I bet individually they made out like bandits.
Dang. Can we troll-rate all their obvious political crap, too?
Anyhow, I’m sure Novak is just sore because his silence is letting the public catch on that he’s just an unprincipled political hack putting gotchas and pride ahead of national security.
Then again, how does that saying go? “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt” ?