I never liked Robert Novak, and I'm not going to start saying nice things about him because he died, but I'm also not going to spew the type of nasty and outrageous things that are common fare on blogs on both the right and left.  (Just do a Google search and you'll see what I mean.)

Even a far rightwinger like Lucianne Goldberg has remarked that if something happened to the President or if Ted Kennedy died she would have to immediately take her site offline in order to prevent the celebrations and nasty rhetoric that would surely result. Such a state of affairs is a sad truth, and she is embarrassed by it as am I and anyone else yearning for a return to civility.

According to those that knew and worked with Novak, he was a good man and valued friend. He served his country in the Army, was a family man, married for 47 years, and was even once a respected journalist.

But to say he died a journalist is a joke. He was nothing more than a commentator, or even worse, a pundit. Journalists are generally objective--Novak was not. I watched him denigrate many fine American patriots like Gen. Barry McCaffrey, Amb. Joe Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame, while lionizing Augusto Pinochet and others.

Sure, he opposed the Iraq War (even a broken clock is twice right). The reason he opposed it--because he supports 1930's era Republican isolationalism--was quite startling. Though as much as he opposed it, he sought to shelter the Republican Party and conservatives from the fallout. That is how he became involved in the Plame affair. 

When Joe Wilson disclosed that the Niger-yellowcake tale was a total lie, Novak sprang into action at the behest of Bush administration officials. In spite of the truth of what Wilson said, Novak assisted in the 'ignore the message (and wider question) and shoot the messenger' strategy. Suddenly, Wilson was no longer a respected non-partisan diplomat, Africa expert and American hero--he became a Democratic lackey sent because of his wife. Unknown to the world at that time, Valerie Plame had built her career as covert CIA operative, infiltrating foreign proliferation networks and recruiting sources at great danger to them and herself. By disclosing her affiliation, Novak put at risk all those she had worked with in the past through her former secret identity. I've always had a hard time believing that Novak was too smart to not know what he was doing, but we also shouldn't underestimate the ruthlessness and manipulative abilities of Rove, Libby, Addington and their minions. Novak served their purpose quite well and gained more recognition, ratings and notoriety in the process.

Which gets back to the question of journalist vs. commentator. A journalist uncovers facts. Novak's partisan article manufactured 'facts.' Worse yet, he relied on anonymous sources in order to engage in partisan character assassination and disclose national security information (whether intentionally or not). His article was intended to protect the administration, attack its critics and silence the whistleblowers. (Just compare Deep Throat to those that disclosed Plame's identity.) Luckily, it failed on all accounts. It also brought up some interesting debates about the ethical use of anonymous sources and the conflict between press confidentiality and national security--questions that still need to be answered.   

My conclusion: Novak should not be celebrated as a great journalist or even a valuable commentator. He's left ruin in his wake. However, I will say that I'm sorry to see someone so beloved by those close to him pass, but that doesn't mean I forgive his ideological vitriol,  partisanship and abuse of press liberties. I intend to call it how it is.