home

Novak Breaks His Silence

Columnist Robert Novak breaks his silence today in a very self-serving column. He claims to be writing it against his lawyers' advice. It seems, Mr. Novak wants to clear his own name - and that is more important than the secrecy wishes of the prosecutor by which he has abided for the past two years.

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."

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.

One more section of interest. He repeats the paragraph in his intial column that caused the uproar:

"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."

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.

Was this internal CIA memo leaked to Novak? Or is he using it as an after-the-fact justification for his first column?

Note that he says Plame's identity "could be" found in Who's Who. He doesn't say that's where he got it. He acknowledges asking Harlow about her. But from whom did he hear it in the first place? Will Novak's vanity in writing this piece come back to bite him?

Update: Former CIA agent Larry Johnson replies to Novak's latest column:

Novak attempts to take refuge in the so-called "bipartisan" Senate Intelligence Committee report on the matter, which makes note of a memo sent by Valerie Plame outlining her husban's bona fides to her boss in the Counter Proliferation Division (CPD). What the Senate Republicans conveniently left out of the report is the simple fact that Val's boss had first asked her to write the memo. Senior managers in CPD suggested the mission and authorized it. Plame's only role was to respond to a supervisors request for information.

Johnson will have additional comments tomorrow on his own blog, No Quarter.

Update: Crooks and Liars has a roundup of blogger reaction to Novak's new column.

< President Makes John Bolton Recess Appointment | Another Innocent Accused Set Free By DNA >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Novak Breaks His Silence (none / 0) (#1)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:48 PM EST
    abuses my integrity as a journalist...
    Exactly when was it that Novak had an attack of integrity?

    Re: Novak Breaks His Silence (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:48 PM EST
    maybe CNN can give him an hour a day to elaborate on everything. Keep on talking, Bob. Inquiring minds want to know.

    Re: Novak Breaks His Silence (none / 0) (#3)
    by theologicus on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:48 PM EST
    If it was potentially a crime for some insider to leak Plame's name to Novak (whether through the act that forbids disclosure of a covert CIA operative's identity, or through the espionage act), wouldn't it also be a crime for Novak to have published it? Has he been granted immunity? Why isn't what he did actionable? How can he claim journalistic integirty?

    Re: Novak Breaks His Silence (none / 0) (#4)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:48 PM EST
    Wow, it almost sounds like Novak is admitting that he (unwittingly, he claims) did the wrong thing. Will this change the party line about how outing CIA agents makes Baby Jesus smile?

    Re: Novak Breaks His Silence (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:48 PM EST
    Heard Johnson on Randi Rhodes. Johnson for office - lets get rid of a DINO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Re: Novak Breaks His Silence (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:48 PM EST
    Bob's defense, "I never would have comitted treason if Harlow, then-CIA Director George Tenet or anybody else from the agency had told me that giving A-bomb plans to the USSR would endanger anybody.

    Re: Novak Breaks His Silence (none / 0) (#7)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:49 PM EST
    yes, i believe the more novak blathers, the deeper the hole he digs for himself. the thing about hiring high priced professionals is, if you don't follow their advice, you've surely wasted your money. he should have listened to his attorney. i read his column, before reading johnson's response. even i, decidedly not a member of the rocket scientist set, quickly discerned the disingenousness (sp) inherent in it. it more resembles swiss cheese, then a fact based response. my suspicion is that mr. novack is still in mr. fitzgerald's sights, that pesky 1917 law and all. perhaps, if we're lucky, he'll soon be joining judith miller behind bars, and we won't be subject to his overweaning pontificating any more.

    Re: Novak Breaks His Silence (none / 0) (#8)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:49 PM EST
    If you look in Who's Who does it say she's a F***ing CIA operative? Once it was acknowledged that Wilson was recommended by his wife at the CIA, her semi-quasi-super-dooper-secret status was revealed. You don't have to say "She's a CIA agent" to out her. Despite the rhetoric, it is criminal for a government employee to discuss a CIA employee's involvement in government affairs with the press.

    Re: Novak Breaks His Silence (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:49 PM EST
    Che, the operative(;-) word is that novak stated she was a cia operative. That's not 'works at the cia', not 'employed by the cia, that's 'she's under cover at the cia.' And her undercover status was 'non-official', meaning spy w/o dip immunity.

    Re: Novak Breaks His Silence (none / 0) (#10)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:49 PM EST
    I think it's odd how Novak use his 45 Years excuse to defend himself but didn't use it to protect a CIA operative. Hmmm

    Re: Novak Breaks His Silence (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:49 PM EST
    Novak should have ran this column by his lawyer who would have advised him to invoke the first rule of holes.

    Re: Novak Breaks His Silence (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:50 PM EST
    What is "the first rule of holes"?

    Keep your pie-hole shut?!