Another reason Novak is an idiot, dishonest or both:

"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."

My question is this:  Was Wilson "a critic of President Bush" when he went on the mission in the spring of 2002? Or did he become one after he went on the mission? It shows me that Mr. Novak is doing some creative history writing and/or Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

If I am not mistaken, Wilson was considered a hero for his actions prior to the first Iraq war, the one over which President Bush 1 presided.  I therefore do not think that he would have been considered a "critic of President Bush" when he went on the mission to Niger in the first place.

Once he got the Patriot provision upgrade of HR 3179 to remove transparency he confirmed Plame and outed her to Novak.

The authority to hide transparency and still have view of INTEL came as the result of this bill which was an add-on amendment to other legistlation, unable to pass on its own merit.

Porter Goss got a promotion after setting the table for Plame's outing.

HR 3179 also includes the ability to make any business overtunr all documents, This would enable the House Intelligence Committee to seize the entire Brewster Jennings record and  do some form of damage control in the field.

The media is simply an arm of the conservative movement at this point. Our only hope is to turn off the TV, circumvent the system, and start doing journalist's jobs for them on our weekends.

Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of Johnson's inability to read English.

Novak did not say that Plame "suggested" or "authorized" the Niger mission.  Novak said that Plame "suggested" that her husband be "sent" to carry out the mission the CIA wanted done.  Nobody, INCLUDING WILSON AND PLAME, disagrees with that statement.

Any CIA agent, active or retired, who says Novak was "wrong" can't read English any better than Johnson.

I believe Novak reported accurately that "two senior Administration officials" said that Valerie Plame "suggested the mission".  Larry Johnson

Why is the phrase "suggested the mission" in quotation marks?

Is Johnson quoting someone?  Who?  It certainly isn't Novak.

Plame's only role was to respond to a supervisor's request for information.  Larry Johnson

Here, Johnson's being dishonest by omission.

How, pray tell, did the supervisor get it into his/her head to ask Plame to write the memo?

For the obvious reason that Plame had suggested that her husband was a person eminently qualified to carry out the mission the CIA was contemplating.  What does a bureaucrat do under those circumstances?  The bureaucrat says "Give me memo".

Plame "suggested" Wilson.  NOBODY DISAGREES WITH THAT FACT. 

Although I must say that in 2005 Novak (Alzeimher's is just around the corner) can't seem to distinguish between "suggesting" the mission and "suggesting" a person to carry out the  mission.

Novak did not say that Plame "suggested" [..] the Niger mission. 

I'm not sure I follow you, he clearly did.  Here's the pertinent passage from Novak:

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."

1) Novak here is quite clearly saying that his source told him Plame had "suggested" the mission.  (That first sentence though is quite ungrammatical.  One mgiht think 48 years in the journalism business would have taught Novak better English)

2) Novak (not Johnson) then notes that the SIC report said Plame had suggested Wilson's name for the trip.

3) Novak then disingenuously confuses the issue by pretending that the SIC's finding that Plame suggested the name, contradicts the denial that she had suggested the trip.  You correctly note that these are two different things.  I am unclear however as to why you are blaming Johnson for confusing them, instead of Novak.

So, Novak doesn't want it to appear that he thought Plame had authorized the Joe Wilson trip to Niger prior to the time he talked to CIA's Harlow to get confirmation for what he was going to print, just that she had suggested it.  Why is that distinction so important that Novak would break his silence to write about it?

Perhaps he is responding to criticism of the apparent contradiction in the right wing talking points:

RWTP 1) Valerie Plame was powerful enough in the CIA to authorize a mission to Niger

RWTP 2) Valerie Plame was an insignificant desk jockey with no more authority than the tea lady

If Novak is seen to be insisting she authorized the mission, then he sets himself up as someone who believes she was an important figure at the CIA.  But if he just says she suggested it then that doesn't necessarily mean he knew she was of any importance.

Novak has the same lame defense about outing Plame as Rice has in letting the African uranium claim stay in the SOTU speech-- the defense is 

IF THEY HAD ONLY ORDERED ME NOT TO DO IT, I NEVER WOULD HAVE DONE IT!

This "somebody should have stopped me" defense it pathetic. It's the same as the murderer who says "He should have told me he wanted to live. Then I would not have killed him."  

The latest Novak abomination, along with a complete set of essential articles, timelines, briefings and other materials, are part of the Rove Scandal Documents Center.

Keep speaking up Larry, we got your back. And we know you can handle the smear.

Keep talking Bob, inquiring minds want to know - and the more you try to confuse the issue, the more perjury charges are possible.

If the Sun-Times editors had any guts, they'd print your responses oppsoite Novak's lies.

Plus, look at his wording around "Who's who." The rest of that paragraph is in active first person ("I"). when he says "her name could be determined by looking up in WW), it's all passive. There is no actor in that sentence. He'd just trying to grasp at straws making a plausible way for someone to get Wilson's wife's name. But, if Novak can't be bothered to go to multiple sources on stories, do we really think he has Who's who lying around to check out? Sounds like a talking point.

I have always had no respect for Bob Novak as a journalist...I have always felt he was a repug shill of the highest order.  But now I have no respect for him as an American after outing a CIA operative, especially since someone from inside the Agency asked him not to compromise Plame. 

Was Wilson "a critic of President Bush" when he went on the mission in the spring of 2002? Or did he become one after he went on the mission? It shows me that Mr. Novak is doing some creative history writing and/or Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

Your suspicions about Mr. Novak would appear to be correct.  Wilson says that he contributed to both the Bush-Cheney and Gore campaigns, and at the time of his mission to Niger, he had not taken a position on the war, and had not spoken or written about it either publicly or privately.

I'm going to go back to the Plame name issue.  Pincus has Harlow twice telling Novak quite clearly not to use Plame's name (interestingly, Pincus uses "Wilson's wife's" once and "Plame's" once).

Today Novak's only response to this claim of strong caution is that it is "meaningless" as this was available in Who's Who.  He goes on to say that if he had been told that anyone would be endangered he would never have written about Plame.

I think that if it turns out someone has been harmed Novak fears that he will be held to blame.  Maybe he has already learned that someone has been seriously harmed and is trying to forstall this.

Now, there is again another disagreement between grand jury witnesses in this case.  But perhaps Novak's mysterious first source has also testified that he warned Novak in no uncertain terms about using Plame's name?

How, pray tell, did the supervisor get it into his/her head to ask Plame to write the memo?

For the obvious reason that Plame had suggested that her husband was a person eminently qualified to carry out the mission the CIA was contemplating.

You're going beyond your data.  Is it not equally plausible that someone else in the agency brought up his name, and Plame's supervisor asked her to write up the memo documenting his credentials because as his wife she would be quite familiar with them?  Wilson had, after all, carried out a similar mission for the CIA in Niger in 1998.  It's not like he was a complete unknown there, and someone besides his wife could certainly have suggested him.

Sidney Blumenthal reported in Salon.com a couple of weeks ago that there was another CIA officer--apparently the "CPD Reports Officer" who was anonymously (mis)quoted in the Senate Intelligence Committee report--who wrote the initial memo suggesting that Wilson be sent to Niger to find out about the yellowcake deal.

NOBODY DISAGREES WITH THAT FACT.

Apparently quite a few people do.  At any rate, what difference does it really make who recommended Wilson for the trip?  He was eminently qualified for it.  Why Novak saw fit to make an issue of it is still a mystery to me.  Well, no, maybe not a complete mystery: he got the message this was the story the White House wanted to get out about Wilson's mission, so he dutifully printed it.

You all would have a much easier time with this if you read Joe Wilson's book, "The Politics of Truth" now available in paperback. 

It is particularly useful to know that when Wilson first met with the analist staff (including representatives from State) the notion of a "mission" out to Niger was less the critical question.  Rather it was -- we have this tasking from the OVP regarding possible sale or diversion of Niger Uranium -- what do we need to know in order to respond to the OVP? 

Wilson who had spent more than half of his FSO career in Africa, and in most cases in countries that mined raw Uranium ore had been asked to brief them on the structure of the business -- who was who, -- all the necessary details if you are going to figure out whether any Uranium went to Iraq.  

Then Wilson makes another point -- at the end of the Cold War the CIA had closed up most of its African Stations.  It no longer had its own spies on the ground capable of answering this kind of question.  Since about 1992, CIA either depended on State's reporting, on other services intelligence, or parachuted someone in as necessary.  It is in this environment that the decision to first ask Wilson to brief them on the Niger Uranium business -- and then rely on a retired FSO to collect current -- updated information, makes much sense. 

We need to be aware of the fact that this story tells us a great deal about our intelligence community, particularly whether it has the "basics" covered.  (I assume all aspects of nuclear proliferation ought to be part of the "basics:).  Somehow we had managed to down-size CIA in Africa, and not figure another way to keep critical information flowing.  That ought to concern us.

And while I know that the London Bombers came out of E. Africa, I am wondering if this same pattern of coverage also applies to looking into recruitment for other parts of this "Struggle against violent Extremist something or other." 

Plame "suggested" Wilson. Well, yes, and Dick Cheney "suggested" himself for Vice President.

When asked for recommendations of the best person for a particular job, I tend to suggest people whom I know well and can vouch for.  There is nothing exceptional or suspicious in that. The question is whether the recommendation is based on real qualifications. On the face of it, Ambassador Wilson was one of the most qualified people in the United States to be put on this assignment. There were no objections to him - until he presented the truth.

This is irrelevant to the central point, of course. Someone or several someones knowingly revealed the identity of a covert agent AND that agent's front company, thereby destroying valuable intellligence assets and potentially endangering the lives of an unknown number of people who have supplied information to this agent and/or that front company. 

Full stop. 

fercryinoutloud 

You are right.  The rest is just a smoke-screen.  We are at war becaue of lies, and all anyone can do is parse words.  The Republicans and Halliburton have won.

Who cares?  He was qualified!  Better than that idiot Bolton who is now the UN Ambassador!

According to Novak's OWN account in his column:

1. Novak's WH sources told him Plame had suggested the mission to Niger,

2. Novak asked Harlow (CIA) if Plame had suggested the mission,

3. Harlow said No, she did not, and don't print her name.

4. Novak nonetheless published both the name and the falsehood (that she had suggested the mission), ignoring Harlow's warning.

5. Now Novak is defending his ethics in ignoring Harlow's warning by saying
that Harlow's denial (that Plame suggested the mission) was contradicted a year later
by Congressional testimony.
However, the testimony did not contradict in any way Harlow's denial that
Plame suggested the mission.
The testimony merely indicated that Plame suggested Wilson's name as a candidate
to go on the mission.

Novak's justification for outing Plame AT THE TIME was Rove's claim that Plame suggested the mission,
not merely the name. This claim was untrue. Novak had been notified by Harlow that it was untrue.
There has never been a shred of evidence that Plame suggested
the mission, and no reason to think Rove or any of the other WH leakers ever thought she did.

WH leakers just needed a link,
however tenuous, to muddle the issue and have a pretext for damaging Plame's career and Wilson's credibility. At best, people would think that there must be more to the story, some fire amidst all that smoke,
otherwise reporters and a wartime
White House would not have had the temerity to uncover a CIA agent (and front organization).
At least, it would distract attention from WH misrepresentation of the causes for going to war.

In a saner world, whoever suggested the mission would get a gold star. Given the critical need for intelligence on the issue, someone should be asking why the WH did not suggest such a mission.

Novak now offers the completely irrelevant, insignificant fact that Plame may have suggested Wilson's name (after the mission was proposed by someone else) to justify outing her as a CIA agent.

Novak then covers his substitution of "suggesting the name" for "suggesting the mission" by changing the focus to the distinction between suggesting v. authorizing the mission.

So, Novak has no defense for outing Plame, even by his own account. His ethical obligation as a journalist was to out WH leakers who were willing to jeopardize
our intelligence capabilities in order to smear and retaliate against Wilson.

When news reports, columns and editorials, even this late in the game, still get the most basic, easily checked facts wrong, I have to conclude that the errors are deliberate. It's not that complicated.
If this were an episode of the Sopranos, everyone would be able to follow it.

It will be interesting to see how many reporters/commentators are nonetheless
hopelessly confused by Novak's semantic double-fake, focus on his indignation,
and give him a free pass.

Yet another reason Bob Novak should be given zero credibility at this point:

What makes me vomit is when Novak feigns ignorance at the larger story, the real story in Matt Cooper's original article, the framework this all fits into: the WH attempt to go after Wilson with their leak-and-destroy goons, and Novak's (innocently harmless and naive, Novak assures us) complicity in the matter.

Poor Bob, so misunderstood. But we all remember what he told the "stranger on the street": Wilson is an A-hole, and his wife works for the CIA.

In that context, it shouldn't take long in cross-x to get at exactly what Novak meant by volunteering his frothing hatred for Amb. Wilson immediately followed by a repetition of his wife's covert status, as part of an off-the-cuff remark to a complete stranger.

Actually, I have a pet theory on this.  People seem to forget that during the period in question there was a war going on...  between the CIA career staff and the Bushies.  Now imagine one of these staffers gets a call from Cheney's office, blasting away about how he needs info on "Wilson's wife".  He's going to know why.  So he sends over information on that 1998 trip that Ms Wilson DID plan out, maybe under the name "Plame".  Serves him right.  This stuff gets muddled and confused into what we see today.
dc

We have a history of Mr Novak and his use of the word "operative", and this history seems to indicate he knows the distinctions and that the word geneally means "covert" when he uses it.
Now I'm a little curious after reading all this stuff about why he used "Valerie Plame" instead of "Valerie Wilson".  Is somebody equipped and knowledgable enough to do a good search and find out how often Mr Novak will refer to the wife of anybody, and go to the Who's Who and write about her using her maiden name?  Why would he if he didn't think at the time that was the name she went by.
dc

Novak Recycles Gannon on 'Plame-gate'


By Robert Parry August 2, 2005


http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/080205.html

Novak argued that the fact that Plame had played a role in suggesting her husband for the mission to Niger justified naming her... But the overriding question has been why Plame's role in suggesting her husband for the Niger trip was so important that it justified exposing not only an undercover CIA officer but the company that provided he
r cover and possibly agents around the world who had assisted her in tracking down sources of WMD.