Reply #11: Here's what I think: [View All]

[H2O Man]

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.