Novak speaks to Wilsongate
via Drudge, this quote from Bob Novak, author of the article back in July:
"Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction.
"Another senior official told me the same thing. As a professional journalist with 46 years experience in Washington I do not reveal confidential sources. When I called the CIA in July to confirm Mrs. Wilson's involvement in the mission for her husband -- he is a former Clinton administration official -- they asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else.
"According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives."
This, to me at least, sounds less like Machiavellian scheming than what many people are making of it.
[Update] Dan is pretty sure it wasn't Rove. "There's still a lot of smoke at this point -- but I don't see a fire just yet."
Instapundit has a roundup which links the Drezner post I mentioned above. Insty makes the comment that, "the excessive gleefulness and point-scoring of the anti-Bush bloggers in general on this topic, only serves to make this matter look more political, and less serious, than it perhaps is. More and more, these guys remind me of the anti-Clinton fanatics of the 1990s. Which doesn't necessarily make them wrong, any more than the anti-Clinton fanatics were always wrong. It just makes them a lot less persuasive."
Also, I heard on (I believe, I was channel surfing) CNN that the CIA request to the Justice Department is not exactly an uncommon thing. Fifty or so of those go to DOJ every month, to check out possible revelation of classified information. Apparently, it is a relatively pro-forma inquiry process.
[Moreover] This whole thing doesn't make sense. If, as he seems to be, Novak is telling us that he was just providing background for his story on Wilson's efforts in Africa, what is the deal with the supposed hit job? This is the most ridiculous political hit I've ever heard of. Revealing that Wilson's wife works at the CIA, and thus used her influence to get him appointed by a Republican administration for this job? The fact that his wife may or may not have been outed does nothing to damage Wilson's credibility, or his conlusions - which everyone except the Brits seem to agree with. I would think that if someone wanted to do real damage, they would have released, you know, damaging information. It seems more like Wilson's a bit paranoid, though he is apparently backing off his accusations against Rove.
I don't know, but it doesn't seem terribly likely to me. Read this for more skepticism. See Ross, I was just early with my skepticism. Now I have people at my back. Including the one you linked in your earlier comment. I may have been slow to judge harshly, but many have been altogether too quick to assume guilt.
We'll have to wait and see.
[Update Update] Apparently, the WaPo has altered the wording of its story, downgrading "Top White House Officials" to "White House Officials" and the like.
§ 6 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]


I believe that it was done to
I believe that it was done to intimidate other reporters, with revenge being a happy side-effect. Sure she wasn't a CIA "agent" just an "analyst" - but it is still a felony to reveal her name.
First, Plame may not have
First, Plame may not have been a spy, but she undertook clandestine operations that put her into contact with agents in the field who were clandestine. The public revelation of her identity did not endager her operations. However, the identities of other CIA agents can be traced back to Plame and their identities can be revealed, potentialy endangering them.
Second, Wilson is not the only person demanding and investigation. It appears that Tennet is pushing for an investigation of the leak.
Third, it is clear by the White House's actions that they were politicizing intelligence information. This scandal has its roots in the White House, not with liberals.
Fourth, what has happened is at least as problematic, if not more, than the "lying under oath" scandal under Clinton and deserves an independent investigation.
Buckethead, I gotta go with
Buckethead, I gotta go with the commenters on this one. I HOPE it's a tempest in a teapot, but it bears investigating. None of the defenses I've read so far have persuaded me that vigorous investigation would be inappropriate.
Or IS it really Wilson's fault?
One more point: when at war,
One more point: when at war, the family names of soldiers are withheld by the administration and the media. Plame was not a soldier, but as an intelligence agent she is/was continually and intimately involved in the vaster war on Terror. Ethically, does she not deserve the same protections as soldiers at war receive?
All I'm saying is that we
All I'm saying is that we shouldn't jump to conclusions. There is skepticism, not just from me about how serious this is. If Plame was a covert agent, and if it wasn't common knowledge, and if someone in the White House deliberately leaked it, then maybe we have something. That is a lot of ifs that have yet to be established.
Investigation, sure no problem - I approve, because we need to know. But, it is foolish to go nuts on this before we do know.
Until we have some kind of evidence - which as of now we don't - this is not as problematic as the Clinton scandal. Btw, ndr, it was not "lying under oath", in scare quotes, but actual lying under oath, which is perjury. This could could! be very bad. But I don't see it going there yet.
I hate, repeat hate, when high officials break the law. If this turns out to be true, you will see me calling for their heads, regardless of party affiliation. I don't think that we should just "move on" when someone like, say, a President commits perjury.
I did not know that there was
I did not know that there was such a thing as "scare quotes" or that quotes could be scary. I merely used them because I do not like referring to those events as the Lewinsky Scandal, because it reduces those issues down to sex, and I wanted to use a non-standard name that actually focused on the crime that was at issue. However, in the future I will make use of "scare quotes" at my convenience. Thank you for informing me of a useful tool.