Novak Attempts to Defend Himself (new column) >

[Stephanie]

He's got some gall bringing up the name Aldrich Ames!



*edit* found via http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ :

Bob Novak has another column up today defending himself with regard to the Plame matter. Read it and see if you can catalog the untruths and distortions.
-- Josh Marshall

Ex-CIA official's remark is wrong
August 1, 2005
BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak01.html

<snip>

In the course of a front-page story in last Wednesday's Washington Post, Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei quoted ex-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow describing his testimony to the grand jury. In response to my question about Valerie Plame Wilson's role in former ambassador Wilson's trip to Niger, Harlow told me she "had not authorized the mission." Harlow was quoted as later saying to me "the story Novak had related to him was wrong."

* * * * *

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 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.

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."

Harlow said to the Post that he did not tell me Mrs. Wilson "was undercover because that was classified." What he did say was, as I reported in a previous column, "she probably never again would be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties.' " According to CIA sources, she was brought home from foreign assignments in 1997, when agency officials feared she had been "outed" by the traitor Aldrich Ames. <more>

[bspence]

1. What kills me about this story

Ok, Rove and friends wanted to smear Joe Wilson. So they say that his wife got him the position to investigate Niger.

Wow, what a horrible accusation. :eyes:

I mean, people recommend their friends and relatives to jobs all the time. It's not like there's some conflict of interest or some hidden agenda disclosed by this revelation. So she suggested that he get the job. Again, so what?? Why would this be damning to anybody? How would that discredit Wilson's report?

It's very strange.

[Supersedeas]

12. the claim of a unanimous Senate subcommittee report kills me

[suegeo]

24. The claim that Novak's a journalist kills me

Novak's a right-wing hack spewing propaganda for a bunch of election-thieving thugs.

[KerryOn]

20. I could not agree more....

... you hit the nail on the head. I have been saying this all along. I can not understand why it makes a lick of business if Valerie suggested here husband go to Niger.

It seems to be one of the talking points of the right. I have given this a lot of thought. If you were in the * administration why would you make a big deal about Valerie being the one to suggest here Husband go?

I can only think of one reason. Because it's true.
The * administration could have leaked Valerie's name to get back at Valerie, not to get back at her husband Wilson. If Valerie uncovered their dirty tricks of intelligence fixing, she would not be in a position to turn them in, since she works (or worked for the CIA.)

If she arranged or suggested her husband go, then the * administration would be furious. For once they may be telling the truth.

(Just my theory.)

[Donailin]

21. Just sent a LTTE

and kicking for level of importance.

[KarenInMA]

2. I will not click on that link.

Won't do it. I don't want him supported.

[Stephanie]

5. I don't see how clicking the link supports Novak

It's worth the read - he's on the ropes.

[KarenInMA]

6. Did he write it?

Then if I click on a link with his byline, that means that the newspaper who pays him gets a hit on the site. Do you think the paper cares if he's in trouble? No, it's publicity for them, and more advertising dollars.

I won't support a paper that would have that man on the payroll.

[Talismom]

3. Let the bastard try to defend himself! He's still a stinking traitor and

a major league hypocrite who has no credibility as far as I am concerned. When GIs and innocent civilians are dying overseas and our country is being soaked into bankruptcy, he owes it to this nation to exercise the greatest of caution with his privileged position of influence. He belongs in jail or, at least, drummed out of the press for the rest of his smarmy existence. I don't want to hear anything he has to say!

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. He must be feeling the heat or he wouldn't have broken the old

"ignore it and it will go away" code the neocons live by.

[H2O Man]

7. Nominated, with a request.

I've responded on a couple threads with this information. I have a small request, and I hope that Stephanie will not mine my mentioning it here. I had a few messages from friends and associates about this trash from that weasal Novak. It is important to have as many people respond to it, as quickly as possible. Thank you for your consideration.

[Stephanie]

9. Some talking points would be helpful.

Can you pinpoint the lies?

[H2O Man]

11. Here's what I think:

Novak is merely putting out disinformation to distract from the issues that the grand jury is focusing on. It's his word against William Harlow's, and he would prefer that we get into a nit-picking argument about this. In that sense, the evil-doers can say, "Well, you don't know, 'cause you weren't there."

Thus, I believe it is better to use the art of rhetoric. It actually means to educate; it implies an appeal to emotion. In this case, the primary goal is to make Novak appear repulsive, and to show that in a choice between who to believe -- him or Harlow -- his being a weasal disqualifies him from being credible.

Here is an example. People can use it, any part of it, or come up with something better:

Editor:

I read Robert Novak's 8-1 article ("Ex-CIA Officials Remark Is Wrong") with a sense of revulsion. Novak tells us that, on the advice of his attorneys, he has keep quiet about the Plame scandal because of a grand jury investigation.

Today he defies the advice of his attorneys, to attack reports on the testimony of an ex-CIA spokesman. This ex-CIA official told the grand jury that he asked Novak not to reveal Plame's identity. Novak twists and turns this into an "abuse of his integrity as a journalist."

Integrity? He was quiet when he wanted to protect himself. But he wasn't so quiet when it came to protecting the identity of a CIA operative who specialized in investigating the sale of WMD components. Novak participated in a scandal that put CIA agents and the American public at risk. He should have the integrity to be quiet.

Sincerely,


I think that this type of letter, sent quickly to the Chicago paper and any/all others carrying his nonsense, is the most effective manner of responding today.

[Stephanie]

13. Thank you H2O Man!

Sorry I missed your Appreciation Thread, but you already know how much I APPRECIATE YOU!

xx
S

[im10ashus]

14. Thanks, H2O Man!

Kicking this thread! Nominating. Write your letters DUers!

:kick:

[H2O Man]

15. People can e-mail

a single sentence saying, "Bob Novak betrayed the United States, and should not have his patheitic lies printed in a respectable newspaper." Most editors will take note of the number of hostile responses, and see it as a reason to put more Bob-lies in. That's good. The more controversy we still up, the more the media will put this on the front page and in editorials.

Novak is discredited. Most people who are not familiar with the case wonder why he is not in jail, if Miller is. Many journalists resent his cowardly behavior. Thus, he attracts negative attention to the administration, by his association with their dirty work.

By not getting distracted by minor points with Novak, but rather pointing out what a scumbag he is, we make our point. More, it increases the chances of editors using more articles that include information about William Harlow, the ex-CIA spokesperson who exposes Novak's criminal agenda.

[im10ashus]

16. I used a lot of what you said in my LTTE!

Hope you don't mind. I did mix it up a bit, but hit the same topics you mentioned in your talking points. I especially loved the "integrity" point. I won't go into detail what I said regarding that because I don't want the evil one's tracking me down at home. It will be interesting to see if they print any of our letters.

[H2O Man]

18. Good!

Democracy is a funny thing. We are only responsible for doing our part. People writing the letters is the most important part. If they print any, that's icing on the cake.

[papau]

8. she DID NOT "suggested" the mission - she suggested Wilson FOR THE

mission if there was to be one.

And Novak gets away with another lie - saying "There was nothing incorrect." when there was.

[demgurl]

10. There they go quoting that intel report again.

You can not quote a report that Rove wrote. That is like a criminal, before a judge, quoting a note he wrote stating he is innocent so that the judge would find him innocent. These people make me sick.

[jbnow]

22. But it wasn't even in the report

It was in the additional comments and signed by just three (very partisan) senators of the 18 on the committee. That makes it even stranger that Novak would mention the "unanimous" report. The body of the report was signed by all, but the Wilson comments weren't.

Further I read in a couple places that to say she suggested him was misleading. That the e-mail she'd written was a response to a supervisor asking her if her husband would be a good candidate to send and that the committee knew that but the senators left it out.

[demgurl]

26. It was an addendum to the report......

It was written by CARL ROVE and was signed by only three people out of the committee.

[Old_Fart]

17. I want to watch Novak rot in a jail cell

n/t

[H2O Man]

19. Important thread.

Read it and participate!

[progressoid]

23. Can Fitzgerald slap him with something for mouthing off

during an open investigation?

[countingbluecars]

25. Novak is listed as a featured speaker

at the Young Conservative Conference being held this week in D.C. I just wonder what he will be speaking about.