Too true, too true.  Novack on Fox, railing about his mistreatment from the "liberal media" who are roasting him in an attempt to curry favor with...um...university professors, I suppose.

Was he wearing an ear-piece?  This statement seems like when Bush blurted out during the debates "Now don't interupt me" when nobody was talking.

It seems so outside the realm of possibility, but do you think that Novak never checked to see if Plame was in there and freaked when he saw the book with the post-it? Highly unlikely but, apart from him being drunk, I am grasping at straws.

So Novak got petrified when he saw that big book looming up at him like some Hitchcockian bomb about to go off...

Or, if you prefer, Ed Henry brought that book out to spook Novak like Tom Cruise brought in the airmen to rattle Jack Nicholson in a few good men. That one also produced a meltdown...

I don't get why the Who's Who book would spook him as it does list "Plame" as Wilson's wife.  And as someone upstream noted, I can't imagine that he had used the Who's Who line with out checking it first.

If Novak were unwilling to discuss the Plame matter he could have simply told the host he won't do the show if it is brought up.  Apparently, this is SOP for Novak.

I really don't get it.  I wonder if Carville is just playing coy and their is more of an insider spin to him comments. 

Novak ia a coward and a weasel, and hid behind his lawyer's advice and so would not comment on his role in this mess.  Then, realising that the media love-fest about protecting sources was not helping him out, he wanted a clarification.  He wrote a pitiful piece defending himself (also, according to him, against his lawyer's advice).  No longer having any excuse to stone-wall, and having boxed himself into a corner with inconsistensies (and most likely being hung out to dry by Karl the Destroyer) he just lost it!

Good riddance to a poor excuse for a journalist!

Has anyone posted the text of Wilson's entry in Who's Who in America?

There's a scanned picture of the entry here.  (But spare yourself from reading the commentary that follows unless you have a mind to take a shower afterwards anyway.)

Valerie Elise Plame is listed in Joe Wilson's bio.  Remember that Novak said that you could have found her in Who's Who listed under her maiden name, but he did not say that that's where he got her name.  Moreover, Who's Who does not list her as a CIA operative; Novak had to get that elsewhere.  I think he looked her up after he wrote the column to make the argument that he did nothing wrong.  Of course her name was not a secret; she had been using it all her life before she married Wilson.

The Carville WSJ statement inferring that Novak is a shill for the rightwing media did elicit the "B" word from Novak, but the "I hate that" that followed didn't seem to follow and could have been a response to something Novak heard from the producer in his earpiece. I would like to know what Novak heard in his earpiece from the producer of the segment, just before he got up and left. There must have been something said that caused Novak to leave and Carville and Henry to act as if Novak had never been there. Perhaps the producer said, "You're fired!" or something similar.  

The reason I don't think it was manufactured outrage is when he cussed. He could have said "that's bull" and walked off, still able to come back. The "bullsit" burns some bridges. Even Fox may not pick him up.

I'm convinced he wouldn't have said "shit" if it was planned. Something really pissed him off, and the pressure was just too much. It was beautiful to see!

GoU 

Off track? Where do you think all these folks to the right wish everyone to be looking?

On the same day that the story by Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei on the front page of The Washington Post - Dan Fromkin wrote a column titled: Deflecting Responsibility .


This latest Novak tantrum dealio fits snugly under that  heading of Deflecting Responsibility and comes down to yet another 'Look here! ... Don't Look over there ...' deflection.

And this Novak "Who's Who" issue should be a big SO WHAT!

First Novak in his latest column of August 1 attempts to reestablish his own "integrity" with a line of illogical reasoning by attacking the grand jury testimony of CIA affairs officer William Harlow related to the words "authorized" and "suggested" and by using a section out of context of the Senate Intelligence Committee report ....

Novak wanted you to "Look Here!"

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 [Harlow] 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.

Then, in his latest column of August 1 related to the name issue - Novak attempts to get everyone to "Look Here!"

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."

But remember now: 'Don't Look over there ...'

And the there is ... Where Novak originally stepped in it by writing:

Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.

So - now that we know that Harlow testified that he "warned" Novak  not to reveal Plame's name - Novak went ahead and revealed her name..

And let's not forget, after Novak had originally stepped in it, three months later in September 2003 in another column. brought up this canard of the "Who Who" listing...

And now Novak has everyone talking about this meaningless 'Who Who' in addition to the CNN tantrum BS...

But I ask what's what? And come up with a resounding: SO WHAT!

And again: The only SO WHAT! I get out of Novak is:

Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.

I think Henry was going to ask Novak a simple question:  "You mentioned 'Who's Who' in your column this week as a place where Valerie Plame's name could be found.  Is that where YOU found her name?"  Then Novak's attempt at misdirection would have been revealed on national television.  And he couldn't have deflected the question, since he had created the issue by mentioning it in his column.

 Is it just possible that the Novak walkoff was staged?  Novak is one of CNN's few franchise right-wingers.  Yet he doesn't want to talk about the Plame outing, and CNN probably doesn't want to tick him off.  Yet CNN may have plenty of non-righty viewers wondering why this guy gets the soft treatment.  So it was in both CNN's and Novak's interest to arrange his temporary absence, especially the way they did it, with a stagy walkoff that has generated more talk about that lame show than it has had in its entire run. Carville may or may not have been in on it.

"It could be enlightening to find the transcript of the previous exchange."

I do believe this is the earlier Henry/Novak exchange in question.

Novak seemed almost impaired when he said 'let it go' and jumped up.  Maybe he had the "Christopher Hitchens Special" for lunch.

Thanks for the link to that previous interview. This part from the transcript seems to indicate that Novak has perhaps been given immunity by the government ...

HENRY: I think that's the question. Why is it that there are two reporters out there who may go to jail, Bob, but it doesn't appear that you are going to go to jail?

NOVAK: Well, that's what I can't reveal until this case is finished. I hope it is finished soon. And when it does, I agree with Mr. Safire, I will reveal all in a column and on the air.

JM - you should have asked Carville if his wife Mary Matalin has done a book deal with Judy Miller.

Ariana said, on July 31st, that she'd heard Miller had a book deal (via "industry sources").

Matalin has been with Simon and Schuster since leaving the west wing, targeting right wingers for books, I wouldn't be at all surprised if she's Miller's dealmaker.

Interesting that two people asked to testify before Fitzgerald's grand jury might be conspiring over a big-money book deal, eh? 

I agree 100 percent.  Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and so is Occam's razor. <snort>

After reading Novak's comments on the subject to a couple papers this morning and Carville's responses to Josh and thinking about it a little bit more, I've decided my own theory about what happened is just wrong, and the whole episode was pretty much what it seemed.

First off, Novak is under a lot of stress these days, not least because, in his mind, he's being accused of all kinds of things over the Plame leak and his lawyer won't let him defend himself.

Secondly, I think this is just wrong: "The Carville WSJ statement inferring that Novak is a shill for the rightwing media did elicit the "B" word from Novak, but the "I hate that" that followed didn't seem to follow "

It does follow, though.  We all are used to thinking of Novak as a shill with no honor, but that's not how he sees himself in his own eyes.  He particularly dislikes just what Carville was ribbing him about, the idea that he takes marching orders from anybody.  He's actually far more of an ideologue than a partisan, and he's one of the very, very few conservatives who occasionally sticks to his principles and doesn't try to twist them into pretzels to excuse actions and policies by a right-wing politician that he's always condemned from a Democrat.  (Example A is the war in Iraq, which he was against from the beginning.)

So "I hate that" is very much in line with what Carville was ribbing him about.  It's a sore toe for him.

Re the threatened Plame questions from Henry-- I'm sure he was pissed at that, but the more I think about it, the more I think Novak's own comments today make more sense.  He said something to the effect of "I knew it was coming, and I had my response prepared.  I wasn't worried about it."

We all forget, A, he's an old pro who's been doing this a loonnng time, and B, he's perfectly capable of fending off those questions.  He's done it repeatedly before.

 The Who's Who is a red herring.  He's the one who brought it up to begin with, so there's no reason for it to terrify him.

So I agree with Globecanvas.  There's much less here than meets the eye.  But it was fun speculatin'... 

Something I hadn't noticed before:

NOVAK:Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report.

1) The report that Wilson was sent to check out was not identified as being from the Italians. According to the SSCI report, the source is identified only as "foreign government service."
However, the "CIA sent a separate version of the assessment to the Vice President which differed only in that it named the foreign government service"

http://www.globalsecurity.org/ in...ll_chapter2.htm


2) If by "Italian report" Novak or his sources meant the forged documents, then they were wrong. Wilson's trip occurred months before the U.S. got the forged documents.

Is it just possible that the Novak walkoff was staged? 

I agree – that was my first reaction when I watch the clip.  I've watched it several times, and it's still the only thing that makes sense to me.  (Clearly, Carville's comments weren't sufficient to prompt Novak's outburst.  Novak doesn’t even seem all that angry when he walks off.) 
 
It looks like a publicity stunt to me, one where we all get something:

• Novak can continue to operate in an ethical bubble, making points in his column without having to respond to criticism;
  
• Right-wingers can feel relief that he didn’t let anyone jerk him around (that’s a right wing privilege, after all) regarding the inconsistencies in his story about his role in the Plame-game;
  
• Left-wingers can feel satisfaction that his inherent sleaziness and cowardice as a bully was exposed – AT LAST! – on air; 
  
• CNN not only gets the credit of finally putting Novak’s feet to the fire – without actually having to ask him a single question – they get a tremendous amount of publicity without offending either their left-or-right-wing viewers; and 
• Carville gets to sit back and laugh at a colleague making a jackass at himself.

I thought they got the forged docs in late 2001, and the documents were considered forgeries before Wilsons trip.

It occurs to me that the reason Novak was so sympathetic to Katherine Harris about media treatment of her make-up--odd as it seemed on its face--is that he was already mad at Ed Henry because he knew what was coming.  Obvioiusly Henry had already told him that he would quiz him about the Plame case--and there was Who's Who sitting right in front of him.  Maybe sympathizing with Harris on the makeup / media issue was just a way of snarling at Ed Henry, CNN, and the media in general.

So why all the interest in Who's Who? It seems to be off track



As Novak pleas in his most recent column: "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.'"



Except, as Novak well knows which Henry could have pointed out, the alleged crime lies not in any public listing of Plame as Wilson's wife. If Wilson/Plame were listed as spouse or mother in a parish directory, PTA minutes, social register, there'd no crime.



The allegation of criminal wrongdoing begins with "senior administration officials" who knowingly disclosed Wilson/Plame's identity as an agency operative to Novak for the sole purpose of publicly attacking Wilson's integrity and his mission. Novak functioned as an accessory (not necessarily criminal) who ignored CIA requests not to disclose Plame's identity as an agency operative, who may/may not have also known identification of an "agency operative" was a federal crime.

I think the original "Who's Who in America" reference was intended to deflect attention

Yes, I agree.  The latest "explanation" from the right seems to be that Novak sussed out Plame's status on his own and only sought confirmation from those two "senior administration officials" that were cited in his initial article.  But that ignores Novak's own subsequent statement to Newsday little more than a week after his initial column appeared (my emphasis): "I didn't dig it out. It was given to me. They thought it was significant. They gave me the name, and I used it."

Good riddance to a poor excuse for a journalist!

You know, I was thinking this morning that if Novak is suffering from unwanted publicity and having his reputation trashed, it's only poetic justice: he's getting a taste of what his column has inflicted on the Wilsons for the past two years. 

"Cville Dem" -- Are you a fellow Virginian? 

My thanks to you and SLB below.

One more question: Has anyone checked to see if there's a separate entry for Valerie Plame Wilson in Who's Who? If there is, it would be interesting to know if that's where Novakula got the name of the CIA front company. An entry for Plame listing the front company as her employer would have made it quite clear that she was undercover.

I'm still wanting to know if there's a separate entry on Valerie Plame and if so, does it list her CIA-front employer. If there is such an entry for her, it's game, set, match.

I'm convinced he was at least a bit drunk but thats probably normal for him in the afternoon.

I'd note that part of the whole Novak saga is that he's not one of the cool kids; he's from a different generation and most of those who knew him when he wasn't accpeted by both sides as a hack have long retired.

Thats why, I think, Henry seemed pretty snide when explaining he was going to interview N about the leak, why Chris Wallace devoted time on goofball to it, and why no one, not even right-wing blogs, are trying to defend him.

I would therefore put us well into act iv, in that the tragic hero has now recognized his fate.

Hopefully, someday soon we will see the last of Carville. You see Jim Carville believes so strongly in the Democratic agenda that he fell in love with, -- A Republican.

Now is Mary Matalin one of those cuddly, "I don't like to pay taxes", old-school Republicans. Or is she just another inside-the-beltway suck-up to Power? My belief is that she was the Beta version of Anne Coulter and/or Laura Ingraham.

Carville might be bald. But he isn't a complete toad, (like Bob Novak.) Why, oh why was the woman of his dreams, of all things, a Republican? (Don't ask John Kerry, btw..._

The joke is on those of us who still show Carville the respect he doesn't deserve. He isn't one of us. He is just another whore, how gladly puts power over true principles.

What Novak could have meant is that getting up and walking out was the response that he had prepared. He had previously said that is what he would do if asked about his part in the leak investigation. So, perhaps he did it.

RE: Carville

Personally, I think Carville's generally a hoot  -- and if our buddy, Kerry, had listened to him early on, things might have turned out better.  If memory serves, Carville advocated early on that Kerry should fight back against the swift boat liars.  Nary a peep from the Kerry campaign -- until it was too late.

RE: Novak, Stage Right!

Like most of you, I've watched it a few more times.  I continue to think that Novak had had one or two too many nips.  And that's why he couldn't control his mouth but he had enough sense to realize it and figured leaving was his safest option, i.e., before he completely destroyed his reputation -- such as it is.  I do not think he was scared of the Big Book or more Qs about Plame.  He seems pretty inured about all that -- of course, he could be feeling some additional heat just now that we are not privy to.  

It sounds like the location of that Post-It-Note raised a fight or flight response in Novak. And he flew. Did he ever. His pre-ganglionic sympathetic nerves must have been teeming with acetylcholine!

You wrote ... "He seems pretty inured about all that -- of course, he could be feeling some additional heat just now that we are not privy to. "

Novak is getting a lot of pressure from other media people to explain his role in the investigation, and, since the Miller jailing, to explain why he did not receive a subpoena and jail time. This seems to be bothering him a lot, especially the fact that many think he is partially responsible for Miller's incarceration. 

Plus, we have to assume that Novak's sources have dried up, so his column, which depends on gossip and leaks, is suffering, and his CNN influence seems to be on the wane with cancellation of his two shows. He probably senses that his career is very damaged permanently.

I think Novak, for whatever reasons (including advice of his counsel), has decided that it is very, very critical for him to say as little as possible, and that is what he has done for the most part. 

We still don't know if Novak has appeared before the grand jury, revealed his leak source (if there was a leak to Novak), taken the fifth amendment, or what, and Novak has said he will not say until the investigation is over.

Days before the Henry show, Novak had said that he would walk away from any questions about his role in Plamegate. I think that is exactly what he did yesterday. He met his contractual obligation to appear, and then left before any Plamegate questions could be asked. 

The "B" word and the Carville flap were merely a sideshow that seemed to have something to do with the walk away, but I don't think that was the reason Novak walked out, except that it perhaps got too close to having to say something about Plamegate in order to defend himself from Carville barrage. That may have been Carville's ploy, the start Novak talking in general and then let Henry lead into more specific questions about Plamegate. After all, getting Novak's story is one of the Washington press corps big enchiladas right now. 

They should know Novak better. No one is going to tell the Novak story except Novak, at least that is my guess.  

I'm late to this post, but it seems a clear misinterpretation of what was going on.

Maybe Novak was nervous or tense about the upcoming questions regarding Plame, but his Bullshit comment was clearly directed at Carville and in response to what Carville said.

If I had to guess, I would say that the "Just let it go" was not directed at the host, but at an off-camera director who probably signalled the inappropriate nature of his comment.

It seems to me that he is looking behind the host at that point and not at the host.

I don't think Novak intended to get up and leave, and his "just let it go" was an attempt to appease the director of the show who was telling him to gt up and leave.  After he got the 'leave' signal again, he did.

Or that's what I would guess.

As I read the Who's Who entry, it's perfectly obvious why Valerie Plame's maiden name is used, as well as Wilson's first wife, and I might expect it to occur in all such entries. Namely, what's being detailed is who Wilson married. OF COURSE he married a woman whose correct name was her maiden name, or at least whatever name she went by at the time of her marriage. Look at the entries. They say "m." for married, followed by the name of the woman, followed immediately by the date of the marriage. The point is, it is saying that Wilson married a woman with a certain name, on a certain date. What sensible person, upon reading this entry, would not assume that it was ONLY the maiden name, not the current name, of the woman that would be used? How does such an entry in any way present evidence that, AFTER the marriage, the woman still went by her maiden name?

As I remember it CIA officals approached Ms. Plame about her husband for this mission based on his background and they knew of it and the marriage. Duh. Does anyone actually believe she had to go to them with Wilson's name? Give me a break.

Picture.

NY Times Article. 

Very good Vanity Fair article on Novak, with details about party (e.g. "...people wore buttons reading "I'm a source, not a target"—a nod to Novak's statement that for him people fall into one category or the other." ) and this potentially very important bit of info I'd never heard:

"Wilson's an asshole, and his wife's a C.I.A. agent," [Novak] said shortly afterward to someone who knew Wilson. When Wilson learned of that conversation, he called CNN, then Novak, to complain. Novak apologized for the comment, but said he nonetheless planned to write on the matter. He also said, according to Wilson, that his source had been within the C.I.A. A few days later, Novak's article appeared, noting Wilson's lack of any prior C.I.A. tie but calling Plame "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."

This seems to demolish his "when I said operative I meant employee" argument.

 Days before the Henry show, Novak had said that he would walk away from any questions about his role in Plamegate. I think that is exactly what he did yesterday. He met his contractual obligation to appear, and then left before any Plamegate questions could be asked.

I just don't buy this.  As I understand it, Henry told him before the show that he was going to ask him about Plame -- it'd make more sense to refuse to show at all than to intentionally cause a HUGE scene on national TV.  I don't see why Novak would choose to walk off in the middle of a live broadcast which would obviously inflame the issue and shine a giant unwanted spotlight on him.  I don't see the upside for him in this -- cussing on-air probably caused him more contractual problems than refusing to show up would have.  I think we witnessed a rare TV event -- a truly unscripted melt-down.  And I still say he looked drunk.  

I also think we may not have seen the last of Novak on CNN.  I think they'll try to rehabilitate him (I don't mean clinically -- necessarily) and send him back in to spread his bile around.  Some on this thread, or another, have wondered why CNN kept him on all these years -- it's my understanding that he was Executive Producer of and basically 'owned' Crossfire and the Capital Gang. I think Novak has a lot of juice at CNN -- this gaffe won't stop him, unless he wants to take the path of least resistance and retire.

What-ya wanna bet it all shakes down like this (in terms of the script these guys are cooking up)...

Ari Fleisher reads the Air Force One memo, and gets the info, passes it to Karl and Scooter, but "forgets" to mention the "security" (S) rating on the memo. Scooter spreads it (he's the "point man") to the media (well at least the reliable propagandist "contractors" like Judith Miller and Novak). Karl is the "confirmer", using it to start counter-attack propaganda to attack Wilson's credibility. It's like a typical hit-job. If they stick to this story, no crime has been committed in the most serious charge, because no one "intentionally" blew anything; it was merely an oversight. These people pride themselves on duplicity, denial, misdirection, and not taking any responsibility, and they've become very good at reinterpreting both the law and their own stories to "create" their realities (if your remember the now-famous quote in Suskind's NYT Magazine piece). It's still an open question if there will be any fallout. It's like saying somebody didn't intentionally plan to speed, or better yet, rob a bank, even when the radar or the smoking gun is right there.

Citizen Zeus

Very good point elwood.  Thanks.

I can imagine reasonable answers to these queries, but I would like to hear them from Novak.