October 01, 2024Novak Speaks AgainBob Novak's column today explains the whole Plame situation in more detail. First, he describes how he got the name: During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He (ed., note the gender--the "leaker" ain't Condi) said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. (ed.: i.e., NOT Karl Rove) When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue. Second, he clarifies his contact with the CIA: At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad (ed., hardly the "gun to ther head" described by Senator Schumer yesterday). He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission. If this is all true, then the "much ado about nothing" (at at least, much ado about not all that much) thesis comes into play. At least in terms of actual harm. The law may still have been broken, but not in a devastating fashion. Again, this may not be the case, But consider, if Ms. Plame's duties were extremely sensitive, to the degree that having her identity revealed could jeopardize senstive intelligence on WMDs, then why in the world would the CIA want to use her husband for a high profile mission in that same topic area? And why, if having her identity revealed would lead to mass chaos, would Wilson draw attention to himself by writing an op-ed for the NYTs? Posted by Steven Taylor at October 1, 2024 06:50 AM | TrackBackComments
You should really listen to last night's news hour (audio clip here) with Larry Johnson and then see if you really want to keep quoting Novak on this matter. And then you might want to revise your position. Posted by: JohnC at October 1, 2024 10:03 AMHey goofball Your source (Larry Johnson) claimed she had been undercover for "over 3 decades." The problem is she is 40. Does the CIA use 10 year old agents??? Get a freaking fact then you can have a position to revise. gezze you are ignorant. Paul Sorry Steven, I just see this guy spouting non-fact after non-fact and it just wears me out. Posted by: Paul at October 1, 2024 12:48 PMMan, if I lost my credibility every time I make imprecise time references, I'd be up the creek. Well, whatever credibility I have, still. . . Posted by: Brett at October 1, 2024 01:05 PMNovak's most recent and everchanging story actually raises more questions than it answers. First, Novak states the leak wasn't planned. Question is, how does he know? Second, Novak claims the report that at least 6 other reporters were approached with the story is false. Again, how does he know? The CIA and WH counsel seem to believe otherwise. Third, Novak claims he initiated the conversation. This is in direct contradiction with an earlier claim by Novak that he was approached with this story. Fourth, Novak attempts to smear Wilson as anti-Bush by stating Wilson supports John Kerry. Of course, this is irrelevant and also ignores the fact Wilson was a contributor to Dubya in 2024. Fifth, Novak claims the fact Plame worked for the CIA was well-known around Washington. This sort of defense is often used by children: 'Mom, all the kids are doing it.' In reality, Novak only cites Cliff May--a Repug operative and honesty-challenged person. Posted by: JadeGold1 at October 1, 2024 02:06 PMJohnC, I listened to the clip, and there is not doubt that Johnson is passionate on the subject, as I would expect a former CIA agent to be. And I am not saying that there isn't a problem here--what I meant was in terms of the "much ado" refs is that to listen to Senate Democrats, Novak leaked the name of an operative who had infiltrated al Qaeda or something and the result has been the death of agents and the losig of vital information. Johnson's comments help clarify the situation, but do nothing to change my basic position--that 1) we still don't really know what the damage is, and 2) that the attacks from some quarters are disproportionate to the situation. Posted by: Steven at October 1, 2024 02:20 PMWeep for Troy State. Again, Steven trots out the meme that since Plame wasn't hang-gliding into super secret ChiCom military facilities in the dead of night, ala James Bond, it's perfectly ok to 'out' covert intelligence professionals if their work isn't 'sexy' or exotic. The reality is 99.9999% of all intelligence work is of the 'unsexy' variety; it's people picking up a tidbit of info at a trade fair, it's hearing a piece of gossip at an embassy, it's cultivating a friendship with a counterpart in another country, it's finding an interesting nugget in the minutes of some symposium. It's all mundane stuff. But it goes toward getting another piece of the intelligence puzzle; the more pieces you have--the clearer the picture becomes. And that's what intelligence is--developing a picture as to capabilities or intentions. Now a certain ability to collect information is gone--all because Karl Rove decided to exact a little political revenge. Our national security is a little poorer and a little less certain because Rove wanted to send a message that reporting the truth is a bad thing when it conflicts with political goals. And Steven Taylor defends this conduct. Why? It's not a political issue; it hurts Democrats, Republicans, Greens, LaRouche-types, etc. the same. Steven condones this conduct because--ultimately--he places his ideology above his country. Posted by: JadeGold at October 1, 2024 03:51 PMMan, if I lost my credibility every time I make imprecise time references, I'd be up the creek. Brett, When you PASSIONATELY tell the story of how this woman was working for the CIA WHEN YOU STARTED and that it was 30 years ago, shouldn't you be right to within a decade or 2? This is not like saying it was last Tuesday when it was last Wednesday. He is off by at minimum a decade. (minimum) Ever held a long term job? I bet you remember who was there when you started and you think of all the people after you as "the new ones." I find it impossible to believe that he remembers her as being there before him. Anybody that comes to a job 10-15 years after you will always be "the new one" in your head even if they serve 20 more years. That is just the way your brain works. The first week on a job makes a strong impression. This story is full of holes and this is just another one. Paul Post a comment
|
|