Novak's Column Ends Wilson's Victim Charade
Joe Wilson's charade that the Bush Administration outed his wife as part of a plot to discredit him should be over now that
we know where Robert Novak got Valerie Wilson's name from. Here's the stinging part of Novak's column:
If she's a covert CIA operative, then Wilson should've been far more discreet about her identity. You certainly wouldn't put it in the Washington social register.
Novak's disclosure also puts Fitzgerald's press conference announcing Scooter Libby's indictment into a new light. Let's check the transcript of that event for what it might reveal:
Even though Mr. Novak has published his column on the facts of the case, that isn't preventing the Agenda Media from rushing to the Wilson's defense. Check out these statements on Hardball between Matthews, Jim VandeHei and David Shuster:
That's hardly reason enough to disagree with Novak's account.
Posted Wednesday, July 12, 2006 2:11 PM
June 2006 Posts
No comments.
I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America."OOPS!!! It'll be difficult for Mr. Wilson to say that Karl Rove outed his wife when he outed her. Let's recall that Mr. Wilson claimed that Rove outed his wife as retribution for his being critical of President Bush's decision to take America to war in Iraq. The truth is that Rove didn't have to 'out' her because Wilson did it by putting her name in the DC social register.
If she's a covert CIA operative, then Wilson should've been far more discreet about her identity. You certainly wouldn't put it in the Washington social register.
Novak's disclosure also puts Fitzgerald's press conference announcing Scooter Libby's indictment into a new light. Let's check the transcript of that event for what it might reveal:
Before I talk about those charges and what the indictment alleges, I'd like to put the investigation into a little context. Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.We now know that that section of Mr. Fitzgerald's statement is a bald-faced lie on almost every count. He's right in saying that "Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer." He's also right in saying that "It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security."Those are the only things he got right. Since it's true that "it's important to" protect a "CIA officer's identity", it might be prudent for Mr. Wilson to not pay to put his wife's name in the "Who's Who in America" directory.
The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well-known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security. Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.
Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.Mr. Fitzgerald's either must be one of the most incompetent investigators in American history or he's lying through his teeth on this. How is it possible for her identity to not be "widely known outside the intelligence community" when it's published in the "Who's Who in America"? It's easy to make that claim when the Novak information was still secret but it's impossible to sustain now that he's gone public with that information.
Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.Mr. Fitzgerald's lying when he says that. Her husband outed her long before that. She even contributed to Al Gore's campaign using her married name. How secret could her identity be?
Even though Mr. Novak has published his column on the facts of the case, that isn't preventing the Agenda Media from rushing to the Wilson's defense. Check out these statements on Hardball between Matthews, Jim VandeHei and David Shuster:
MATTHEWS: Novak does not reveal the name of his primary source, and the source has not come forward. Thus far, no one has confirmed Novak's recitation of the events.This is part of Matthews introduction of his guests at the start of the show. Before Shuster and VandeHei are even introduced, Matthews is floating the idea that Novak might be lying. But that isn't the most outrageous thing that's said. Check this out:
DAVID SHUSTER: But I want to draw your attention, Chris, to two things that come out of this column tonight from Novak, and that is we now know for the first time from Novak himself that his recollection of his conversation with Karl Rove and his recollection of his conversation with Bill Harlow were different from what Harlow and Rove say. And the reason that's important, specifically for Bill Harlow, is because there are all sorts of restrictions about what a CIA person and public affairs officer can say.Shuster thinks there's only two things worth special attention in Novak's column: that Novak's recollection differs with Karl Rove's and Bill Harlow's. Not a single mention of Novak's statement about getting Wilson's wife's name from "Who's Who In America." In fact, nobody mentions this fact during the entire segment. Then Shuster picks up on Matthew's inference that Novak might be lying:
SHUSTER: It also raises question about the journalistic integrity of Bob Novak, but that's an issue that, of course...How does this raise questions about Robert Novak's journalistic integrity? Here's what Novak wrote in his Human Events column:
I have revealed Harlow's name because he has publicly disclosed his version of our conversation, which also differs from my recollection.Since Harlow has made this public information, then Novak shouldn't be held to the journalistic vow of secrecy that Shuster's likely refering to.
VANDEHEI: The Harlow incident, I think, is a little bit different, because once you're...I think what happened here is, once he has the story, then he goes to the CIA. Now, at that point, if Harlow says, "Wait a second. I don't know if we should be running that. You know, that could really hurt one of our operatives or that could hurt, you know, some ongoing things that we have going over here at the CIA," well, you could use that, too, as a confirmation, if that's what's happening. And I'm sure, you know, as a journalist, that could have happened here.Considering Joe Wilson's 'outing' of his wife, I'd doubt that the conversation happened that way. But far be it from Mr. VandeHei to not at least continue talking about Matthews' conspiracy theories.
MATTHEWS: Jim, that has the...well, who knows what happened here? We'll know more in the next couple of days, perhaps. But if Harlow simply did his job of protecting the agency, he could have inadvertently...to use that word again...betrayed the fact by saying, "You know, you can't run that. That's going to hurt our operations."To be fair, Matthews couldn't have known this tidbit from Howard Kurtz's column:
Novak said he has a different recollection of the conversation. "I certainly wouldn't have used her name if anyone had indicated she might be in danger," Novak said.I'm going to believe Novak's statements because (a) he's a meticulous reporter and (b) because Matthews, Shuster and VandeHei haven't presented anything remotely approaching proof that Novak lied. In fact, their hyperventillating blather is more pure speculation and gossip than anything else.
That's hardly reason enough to disagree with Novak's account.
Posted Wednesday, July 12, 2006 2:11 PM
June 2006 Posts
No comments.
