home

What Novak Said Then About Import of Disclosure

By Jeralyn, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Thu Jul 14, 2005 at 08:30:01 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Republican talking points are belied by early news accounts of the Valerie Plame leak. Here's what Novak told Newsday reporters Timothy M. Phelps and Knut Roycea week or so after his article was published.

Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."

and on who sent Joseph Wilson to Niger:

Novak reported that his "two senior administration officials" told him that it was Plame who suggested sending her husband, Wilson, to Niger.

A senior intelligence official confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked "alongside" the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger. (my emphasis)

But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. "They [the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story] were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising," he said. "There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason," he said. "I can't figure out what it could be." (my emphasis)

< Where Does Ari Fleischer Fit In? | Abu Graib Abuse Began at Guantanamo >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    What Novak Said Then About Import of Disclosure | 11 comments (11 topical)
    Re: What Novak Said Then About Import of Disclosur (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:12 PM EST
    Excellent post!

    Re: What Novak Said Then About Import of Disclosur (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:13 PM EST
    RE: Criminal Act. The right is tossing around the idea that she was not covert and no crime was committed, it would appear that Novak knew otherwise as indicated here. The right knows that by spinning her as not covert, it lessens the attitude or anger of americans over the entire situation. What a good journalist needs to do is ask the question when that statement is made as to why the President is allowing an investigation if there is no crime. If there was no crime committed, than I would argue that the president needs to put an end to the investigation. He needs to publicly declare that Ms. Plame was not a covert agent and thus revealing her identity was of no consequence. Posted by Jlvngstn at July 14, 2005 09:46 AM The focus of the investigation after all was not to identify the leaker to prosecute for merely leaking information. The investigation was was ordered because of the sensitivity of information released. Therefore, continuing an investigation that has no credibility or justification based on the assumption that Plame was not covert, is merely a witch hunt. The president can therefore halt the investigation by simply ordering it to stop based on its false pretenses. After all, if someone is accused of murder and the person allegedly murdered suddenly appears, there no longer is a crime is there? Would they continue to investigate a murder if there turned out to be no murder? How can one obstruct justice if the premise with which the investigation was based on is not valid? If in fact, Ms. Plame was not covert and there was no breach of security or trust, the President owes it to the American people to halt this waste of taxpayer money. He needs to conduct a press conference and inform the American People that Ms. Plame's identity was not protected or sensitive and that the CIA mischaracterized her role in their organization.

    Re: What Novak Said Then About Import of Disclosur (none / 0) (#3)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:13 PM EST
    JL writes:
    The right is tossing around the idea that she was not covert and no crime was committed,
    Per a story in the print edition of USA Today, if an agent is inside the USA for five years, that is not assigned to a covert mission and station outside the US, then they are no longer covert. That fits Mrs. Wilson-Plame. Also:
    Writing in January in the Washington Post, former Assistant Deputy Attorney General Victoria Toensing explained that she helped draft the 1982 law in question. Said Toensing: "The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct." For Plame's outing to have been illegal, the one-time deputy AG explained, "her status as undercover must be classified." Also, Plame "must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years."
    Tempest meet teapot.

    Re: What Novak Said Then About Import of Disclosur (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:13 PM EST
    Jim, so why doesn't the president just come out and order the investigation over? The investigation was started at the behest of the CIA on the grounds that an official released the identity of an undercover agent. Goes back to my original point which you failed to address: The focus of the investigation after all was not to identify the leaker to prosecute for merely leaking information. The investigation was was ordered because of the sensitivity of information released. Therefore, continuing an investigation that has no credibility or justification based on the assumption that Plame was not covert, is merely a witch hunt. The president can therefore halt the investigation by simply ordering it to stop based on its false pretenses. After all, if someone is accused of murder and the person allegedly murdered suddenly appears, there no longer is a crime is there? Would they continue to investigate a murder if there turned out to be no murder? How can one obstruct justice if the premise with which the investigation was based on is not valid? If in fact, Ms. Plame was not covert and there was no breach of security or trust, the President owes it to the American people to halt this waste of taxpayer money. He needs to conduct a press conference and inform the American People that Ms. Plame's identity was not protected or sensitive and that the CIA mischaracterized her role in their organization. Tell me Jim, why are we wasting money if no crime was committed?

    Re: What Novak Said Then About Import of Disclosur (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:13 PM EST
    I am waiting for the President to address this honorably and inform the CIA that their allegation is false based on the law you just quoted. I am also waiting for the president to suspend the investigation into what is not a crime. Tell me Jim, why will the President not do this?

    Re: What Novak Said Then About Import of Disclosur (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:13 PM EST
    The author of the USA Today article regarding legality, also penned this regarding DSM: MARK MEMMOTT: Britain and the United States are separated by a common language, I think is the cliché. To someone in Britain, it's possible that that phrase, fixed around, could mean attached to or bolted on, not necessarily skewed. It's possible that that phrase, fixed around, could also mean, well they selectively take good intelligence, and that's what they emphasize, to build their case. So that's where the argument comes down to why it's so important to find out exactly what the person who wrote that meant.

    Re: What Novak Said Then About Import of Disclosur (none / 0) (#7)
    by mcoletti on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:14 PM EST
    Jim, Valerie Plame was NOC until outed by Novak. That she was outed earlier or no longer undercover prior to that is a lie.

    Re: What Novak Said Then About Import of Disclosur (none / 0) (#8)
    by Aaron on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:14 PM EST
    Bush Family Tradition: Ducking Scandal

    Re: What Novak Said Then About Import of Disclosur (none / 0) (#9)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:14 PM EST
    et al - About who sent Wilson to Niger:
    "CIA Director George Tenet: “In An Effort To Inquire About Certain Reports Involving Niger, CIA’s Counter-Proliferation Experts, On Their Own Initiative, Asked An Individual With Ties To The Region To Make A Visit To See What He Could Learn.” (Central Intelligence Agency, “Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence,” Press Release, 7/11/03)
    MAC - Tell USA Today, WaPost and Victoria Toensing. I just know they are waiting for your input. JL - I don't know what he meant. I do know what he wrote means. And you don't like definition.

    Re: What Novak Said Then About Import of Disclosur (none / 0) (#10)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:16 PM EST
    About who sent Wilson to Niger:
    Now maybe you could explain why it matters?

    Re: What Novak Said Then About Import of Disclosur (none / 0) (#11)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:16 PM EST
    If in fact, Ms. Plame was not covert and there was no breach of security or trust, the President owes it to the American people to halt this waste of taxpayer money. He needs to conduct a press conference and inform the American People that Ms. Plame's identity was not protected or sensitive and that the CIA mischaracterized her role in their organization.
    Wow, would that ever feed the conspiracy theorists.

    What Novak Said Then About Import of Disclosure | 11 comments (11 topical)