Novak Loses the Narrative (Again)

by emptywheel

As I've said before, the pro-Cheney forces are really hamstrung because they have to rely on Novak as the public face of their fight with Wilson. You've got a man whose charisma derives from his dark creepiness fighting for press attention against a classic American blonde beauty. (I keep seeing visions of the Hunchback of Notre Dame, but at least Quasimodo was a sympathetic character.)

Add to that, Novak is really having a tough time sticking to his script.

Novak appeared on MTP today and gave yet another version of the story he's peddled his his own column and with Brit Hume. So here's my take on Novak's ever-changing story.

The Use of the Word "Operative"

Novak elaborated on his old rubbish about using the word operative--which Josh Marshall debunked eons ago. But he added this bizarre rationale.

I call all kinds of politicians operatives. … Someone’s running a congressional campaign in Wyoming, I call him an operative.

From this we're to understand that Valerie Plame's analytical work at the CIA, for which her identity was still classified, was running someone's campaign out in Wyoming, all while raising twins in DC? All the weirder since the most famous Wyoming Congressman of recent memory was one Dick Cheney. No, seriously, Novak hasn't ever asserted that Plane is a politician. So why call her an operative?

One of Russert's finer moments, though, came when he forced Novak to admit that Plame was undercover.

Russert: But she was undercover, you grant her that?

Novak: There’s a difference between undercover and being a covert, uh uh, agent. [ed. note: Note Novak's difficult, yet ultimately successful, attempt to avoid using the most natural word here, "operative."] She was doing analytical work at the CIA. She was not involved in any covert activities.

But underlying the issue of Novak's use of the word "operative" is his description of her job at Counter-Prolfieration (CPD). Like Libby (who similarly learned Plame was in CPD, though he learned it straight from Dick), Novak probably knows more about the CIA than I do. So he probably knows that CPD is on the Operations side of the CIA. Now, curiously, he reverts to his earlier assertion that his "primary" source (presumably Armitage) told him Plame worked at CPD. So to review:

July 2003: Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.

October 2003: He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife.

Last week: His wife worked in the office of nuclear nonproliferation in the CIA, and she suggested he go.

Today: Well, you know, his wife suggested it she works at the Counter-Proliferation Division of the CIA.

And they said John Kerry flip-flopped? Novak seems desperate to fuzz this issue, even though it goes straight to Novak's consciousness that Plame was an operative. Twice he has said his source identified Plame as an employee of CPD, suggesting strongly she's an operative. Once more, he identified her as an operative. You seem to be suggesting, Bobby, that you had been told--or had concluded, having been told she worked at CPD--that she was an operative.

His Use of the Word "Suggested"

And again, Novak tries to rationalize why he would state that Plame had "suggested" Wilson for the job, when:

• One source used the word "suggested" or "initiated" in an off-hand comment.
• One source simply confirmed whatever Novak said.
• The most knowledgable source told Novak he was wrong, that Plame had not "suggested" Wilson.

Now, Novak again tries to justify why he chose to ignore his most knowledgable source and print language from his off-hand source in 2003 by a document that came out in 2004, claiming that he was right because the Senate Intelligence Committee had concluded that she had suggested Wilson. Russert tried a gotcha in response:

The Senate Intelligence Committee had indicated that but they did not conclude it.

To which Novak, backing off his claim that the committee had unanimously decided Plame sent Wilson, now simply admits that the "Republican majority" had concluded this. So let me ask again. In 2004, these 8 Republicans were on the SSCI:

Roberts
Bond
Hatch
Lott
Warner
Snowe
Hagel
Chambliss

Of those, only three--the first three--"concluded" that Plame "suggested" Wilson. So, your best-informed source told you she didn't, you published it on the word of an off-hand comment from a less well-informed source, and now you're saying that because a minority of Republicans on the SSCI claim Plame "suggested" Wilson, you're right?

Boy you're a shitty journalist, Bob. Plus you seem to be playing fast and loose with the two meanings of the word "majority." Of course, Russert must need some of Rush's help on his Gotcha pills, because he agreed with Novak, that the Republican "majority" had concluded that Plame sent Wilson.

Hot and Cold Running Novak Mouth

Russert has a little fun with Novak (no doubt because he has been such a target of criticism for such issues), pointing out that NBC, NYT, and Time all fought the subpoenas, but Novak just rolled over like a little puppy getting his belly scratched. Novak pointed out, fairly, that he bore most of the costs of his legal defense. But he didn't answer my questions about why he rolled over like a puppy in face of the waivers:

Why did you have a dilemma because Fitzgerald had waivers, but when Fitzgerald came to you with waivers from Armitage and Rove, your dilemma disappeared?

If Fitzgerald hadn't brought the waiver from Harlow, would you have told him who you spoke to at CIA?

Though Novak has answered a question I've been wanting him to answer. Regarding Novak's fib about getting the name from Who's Who:

Russert: Was that the very first time you had seen or heard the name, Valerie Plame?

Novak: Yes.

Russert: No one told you?

Novak: No.

So I suppose that rules out an earlier source for Valerie Plame's name as Valerie Plame (How about Victoria Wilson, Bob, anyone give you that?). But if I were Russert, I would have asked, "was this the first time you had heard of Wilson's wife?" Perhaps the cocktail weenies have addled Russert's brain and he can't figure out the critical issues like this.

Russert is more successful with the other burning question (and again, something Russert got flack for himself).

Russert: Why did you wait almost three years to thell the public that you had been subpoenaed and what you said.

Novak: Mr. Fitzgerald asked my lawyer not to divulge our contacts.... When he announced that Karl Rove would not be indicted my attorney went to Mr. Fitzgerald and asked him if that request now no longer held true, and he said that his investigation had been concluded, as far as I was concerned.

There are two critical issues here. First, as I've suspected, Fitzgerald asked Novak not to speak about his testimony, unlike most of the other journalist witnesses. Make of that what you will. And second, the implication is that Novak asked Fitzgerald if he was free to reveal his testimony when Rove learned he escaped charges. Presumably, not last week. Which suggests (as I have argued) that Novak's recent blabbering has more to do with the expected filing of the Wilson suit than it did with any new news from Fitzgerald. Of course, if Russert had taken Rush's Gotcha pills, he might have asked about that, too. But alas, it was not to be.

My Favorite Bit

So does anyone out there spend a lot of time on the cocktail circuit? Have you seen Novak talking to, say, Bush? Hadley? Cheney? Armitage?

Russert: Have you spoken to your primary source?

Novak: No.

Russert: Not since that interview?

Novak: No.

We could probably eliminate some of these guys by checking those cocktail party invite lists.

But I'm also struck by this. If Novak's source is Armitage, that says a reasonably long-term relationship froze--perhaps even ended--when Novak outed Plame back in 2003. Why?

Update: Raw Story has a transcript up.

Comments

[fireback]

Can someone clarify something for me. Is her covert name "Valerie Plame," "Valerie Wilson," or either. I've alway assumed it was Plame and if so, does it seem odd that if Novak was told "Wilson's wife sent him", that he wouldn't then print her simple name, "Valerie Wilson?"

Does every reporter hunt down someone's maiden name when they want to identify the wife?

It's like me being told "Bush Sr.'s wife sent him" and I go searching so I can identify her and print "Barbara Pierce was responsible it"

[kim]

I've just watched Novak for the third time on Meet the Press, his misstatement today that his source "gave him the name" is entirely believable, despite his subsequent correction!

Then, he makes a point I never considered before... "THEY" gave him the name... well, that would suggest that the original source and (Rove? Libby?) gave him Plame's name.

I've been a supporter of Tenet as the original source for some time and I still think this makes sense, how would Fitz know so early who Novak's sources were?

Lastly, while I'm out of the habit, I have to give Russert credit for asking tough questions.

[Sara]

Nomenclature:

In CIA these terms have very specific meanings.

An OFFICER is a trained, more or less permanent member of the CIA. Plame was an Officer. It is a combination of military rank and civil service rateing system.

Agents are assets that work for officers. They are essentially contract employees doing specific jobs, and are trained only in terms of that job. The guy who finds the codes in the embassy file cabinet after the higher-ups have gone home is an agent. Officers recruit agents, and supervise their work -- tell them the requirements of their mission.

Operatives referrs to anyone who has a mission and is "operational" -- that is is actively engaged in a mission. Thus when Valerie was tooting around Iran on her Motercycle disguised as Susie Smith wearing a red wig, using a voice altering device, and toteing her AK47 under her Burka while looking for the Iranian Nukes -- yea, then she was operational, and would want you to deal with her if you met her, as red-headed Susie Smith.

When she was in DC having babies and perhaps doing an occassional consulting trip, she may well have been operational, as her cover was her actual life, much of which was not in the shadows.

What Novak did in his article was very sly for those who understand the nomenclature -- he suggested political intent to her passing a message to her husband (CIA would like to talk about African Yellowcake), and used the term "operative" about it -- suggesting to those who understand the lingo that she was indeed operating politically.

By the way when reading CIA histories and journalism, one can always tell whether the author knows what they are talking about if they use these terms properly most of the time.

I think Novak intended to misuse the operative term -- he had a particular audience in mind.

[kim]

Well, that was interesting Sara. Thank you!

[kim]

Ok, a real question (now that my brain is waking). Are you saying that Novak misused the "operative" term for a specific audience to blur HIS understanding of her position, to blur her status, or to speak to a specific audience? (perhaps there are more alternatives I haven't considered?) BTW, you sound like someone with an interesting background....

[Prissy]

Novak, that ole shill...no emptywheel-there's been no announcement only more spin spawned from Rove's spokesliar. But he's been caught lying for other clients in the past-it shan't be difficult to catch him up in this one too. Hope Patrick Fitzgerald charges him for that too.

Speaking of liars shilling for Bush -in the House and Senate that also happen to hold law licenses...

"ABA, where are Yoo?"

[SqueakyRat]

That picture doesn't do her justice, actually.

[Pete]

I just bumped into an old interview that Novak gave on MTP:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131258/

Oct 2003:
"Novak: No, I didn’t commit a crime by publishing her name. If she is a covert operative and the person who gave me the name knew that, which I’m not sure, I’m not sure she’s a covert operative, Tim."

Here again Novak says he was given a name by someone (not whos-who).

Chalk it up to another "misstatement".

[Pete]

FDL quotes: "Novak says he testified under oath that he was not given Valerie’s name directly from his primary source."

Yet in the same MTP interview I linked to earlier, Novak referring to Royce and Phelps says: "Novak: That was an interview right after the column appeared. They were the only—in July. That isn’t very artfully put. What I was trying to say was that I didn’t do an investigative report in the CIA going into the bowels of the CIA, talking to agents, trying to find out. What I meant was that the senior official had given me her name. Just as I’ve told you, there’s no inconsistency between those two."

[Sara]

Kim, if you know CIA nomenclature, saying someone was an "operative" means they were on a mission. For most folk that means little, but for anyone who has boned up on stuff like this over the years -- Novak said in his article, in lite code, that Plame was on a political mission.

And no, I am not now nor have I ever been a witting officer or agent of the CIA. I did get recruited through the National Student Organization back in the early 1960's to do some work for the International Secretariat, which in 1966 we found out was funded mostly by the CIA. It made me very angry that what had been a very nice well paid gig in early grad school -- running a holiday conference for foreign students -- actually was a CIA operation. Not only was I mad, I had been tricked, but one of our student leader participants -- from Nigeria -- got killed because revelation that his scholarship (to study agricultural engineering) was partially from a foundation the CIA used as a pass-through, became public, and as a result he was offed. (Killed by Nigerian Political enemies using the scholarship as rational.) When Senator Mondale was appointed to the Church Commission in 1975, -- I put the case together and danced the tu-tu to get Walter to raise the matter with CIA -- and he did, and in 1976 compensation was paid to the family. Afterall our Student thought he was getting a Ford Foundation grant to study in the US -- and did not know about the CIA pass-through. Such an experience does lead you to read up on all sorts of related topics -- pay attention to the news and all, and above all read good spy fiction -- which is where you will find much more truth than elsewhere.

Notice I used the term "witting" -- that is also nomenclature.

[Pete]

Today on Russert Novak says that (Armitage) didn't give him the name.

How come Russert does not remember what Novak said to him last time?

[Pete]

Sorry, Russert does remember what Novak said last time on Meet the Press, and nails him.

[pjv]

You need to look at the Plame story from a media narrative point of view, lets put this in context of the infortainment world we live in.

#1. Valerie Plame is HOT, and she is a secret agent and is therefore a superpatriot. She is hot enough to make People, Time and many other magazines, and people will comment on what outfit she has. She is also important and intelligent looking. Joe Wilson is also good on TV, they make a great couple. Most people don't follow politics closely. If people don't remember anything else, they will remember that Valerie Plame is hot, and is a kind of like Jennifer Garner type CIA agent.

#2. Novak, Cheney, Rove and most of the rest are ugly and they are all politicians and are therefore debased and filthy. If you need a Cheney double for a made for TV movie, a cyborg can stand in just fine. They make ideal villains.

Lets summarize, Valerie Plame is a hot, ass kicking, CIA agent, and the Bush team make great made for TV villains. It is a perfect narrative. Perhaps this won't be reaching the level of Michael Jackson, but it is up there above runnaway bride for sure. "Hot secret agent stabbed in back by thug politicians", "dashing husband seeks vengence", its perfect. This is a durable story. Just look at the cover story images, my god, its genious!

[QuickSilver]

Emptywheel, just so I have this right: Novak presumably testified that his primary source told him Wilson's wife was in the counterproliferation division (CPD) at CIA. Novak also testified that Harlow confirmed her CPD assignment, even though it is not very likely he did.

In other words, Novak probably got her CPD identification from another (unnamed) source, and this is something he is now trying to obscure. Correct?

[Al Rodgers]

EW
charisma derives from his dark creepiness - Priceless!

I just loved the part where NoFacts plead "financial burdens" as a leading factor in his decision to "cooperate."

boy did he get ticked off when confronted with the fresh Harlow quote.

Digya notice: everybody is wrong: Harlow, Royce, etc., everybody him.

[Pete]

Here is another Novak quote from 2003: "But the indication given to me by this senior official and another senior official I checked with was not that she was deep undercover."

Does Harlow qualify as a "senior official" (and I doubt if Harlow would give such an indication)? Nor does give such an indication what Novak now says Rove said to him.

[Jeff]

Sara

Just to be clear on the implications of your very informative comment, you're saying Novak was trading on the ambiguity in the meaning of the word "operative," using it to indicate that she worked for the CIA and was indeed on a mission, which is what the CIA does, but in fact it was a political mission to get the Bush administration, right? So on your interpretation, it is actually true - though it is only half the truth - that Novak was using "operative" in the political-operative sense, but that only makes sense because he was also using it in the CIA nomenclature sense. Is that the idea? And I suppose this interpretation leaves open whether Novak knew or believed that Plame was or might be a CIA operative; though I strongly suspect that Harlow told him that she had done the sort of work that qualifies her as an operative, on my understanding of what you say about the nomenclature, in the past.

Oh, and when I suggested Novak's obituary would say he blew the cover of a CIA agent, i was of course cleverly suggesting the obit writers would misuse the nomenclature, I was not myself misusing it. Of course, of course. You believe me, right?

[emptywheel]

Sara

I don't buy your reading of the word "operative."

Why? Because we know Plame was still doing operations at the time--as you said, her life was part of her cover. But she was an operative.

And second? Novak does not use the term operative to describe political operatives. That's one big lie, as proven by Josh Marshall. So the connotation of the term for Novak is and only is the intelligence meaning. Even supposing he wanted to telegraph to people that hers was a political act, that wouldn't do it for him because he simply hadn't established that meaning of operative in his own prose.

Jeff

If, as has been reported, Novak spoke with Armitage on July 8, that means that Novak had to decide he was going to use the information, have the thought of looking in Who’s Who, and access the Who’s Who between the time he finished his hour-long interview with Armitage and the moment, in the later afternoon I believe, that he ran into the stranger on the street to whom he identified Wilson’s wife by her first name as he belittled Wilson and his trip. That’s not impossible, of course, but I find it pretty remarkable. I was figuring his story was that he looked up Wilson in Who’s Who when Wilson hit the news and before he talked to any of his sources, just as background research.

Great point. Though of course he claimed to Russert that Who's Who was the first time he learned her name as Valerie Plame. Given the number of names Judy had heard by around this time (presumably all four) that might be significant.

Kudos to Russert for precision on just what the SSCI said about Plame’s role in his trip.

But he didn't. He gave up halfway. He forced Novak to back off of the conclusion line. But then didn't force him to admit that the "majority" opinion was actually only shared by a "minority" of the "majority." I'd actually love to have someone ask, say Saxby Chambliss why he didn't concur with that opinion, as he did concur with some of the other tripe the political three wrote.

fireback

I'm not sure we know for sure what name(s) Valerie worked under. She was "Valerie P" to her classmates at the CIA. It has been said that she worked under the name Plame in her cover, which if it looked like she went into BJ might make sense. But then there were those two other names floated: Victoria Wilson and Valerie Flame. I'm particularly curious by the Valerie Flame, as it's one Judy was given and one of Novak's column used, at the samr time as he was exposing Brewster Jennings but good, which suggests it might be a different cover name.

But then, there's the whole point: on July 8, Novak had Valerie Wilson. Why not use (or not use) that name, depending on whether you take warnings from the CIA?

One thing I was most struck by in this interview is that he said--one of the few things he didn't stumble on--that he testified that he learned of PLame's name from Who's Who. In the past, he hasn't asserted that point as strongly (and not at all, most of the time). That could suggest he lied under oath to protect someone. And that someone might not be Armitage.

[Pete]

Could it even be possible that Rove and Libby told Novak so much about Plame, that Novak did not initially pay much attention to the offhand remark of (Armitage).

Until later when he needed a cover story.

Novak's interview to Newsweek seems to suggest so (sources came to him and gave him the name).

[Pete]

Sorry I meant Newsday, not Newsweek.

[emptywheel]

Pete

One scenario I think it possible is this:

June 15, Armitage blabs to Woodward
June 27, Woodward lets on to Libby that Armitage blabbed
July 2, Libby seeds a Wilson smear with Novak, telling him Valerie Wilson is a CIA operative, and encouraging him to talk to Armitage
July 8, Novak talks to Armitage, and gets him to reveal details of Plame, but not as much as he knows he needs
July 9, Novak checks the story with Rove and gets the proper spin
July 14, Novak publishes, believing his sources are Libby and Rove
October 26, Novak learns of the investigation and realizes Rove is primarily responsible for the details of Plame's job, he calls Rove and tells him he will protect him (which he'd have no reason to do if he didn't think Rove had done something wrong)
October 27 (estimate), Wilkerson calls Novak and lets him know that Armitage has come forward to the FBI, telling them his mention of Plame was inadvertant, Novak sees an opportunity

Novak can now completely pretend his first source, Libby, was not a source for the article in question, because he knows he can use Armitage as the second SAO in question. Plus, he can pretend Rove did nothing more than confirm the Armitage point. Since no notes or tape of the Armitage interview exist, even though Armitage testified (I'm making this up, of course) that he said only that Valerie Wilson worked at CIA, it's a case of he said, he said. And, once Luskin forced Woodward to come forward, Armitage's credibility took a blow, seriously damaging the Rove perjury case, not to mention the proof that ROve is the one who provided the operative and Plame details for the column.

This scenario would fit all known facts in this case, I think (though I expect Jeff will find two or three that it doesn't). Which is more than Novak's story current does, fit the known facts.

[Pete]

I wonder if Novak's interviews prior to Oct 26 will provide some damaging clues.

Here is what he says to Russert on Oct 5:
"No, I didn’t commit a crime by publishing her name. If she is a covert operative and the person who gave me the name knew that, which I’m not sure, I’m not sure she’s a covert operative, Tim."

Here he says that he published her name and that the name was given to him. It seems pretty unambiguous.

[pollyusa]

Lending credence to those suspicions was that a U.S. government official questioned by investigators said Novak specifically asked him whether Plame had some covert status with the CIA. The official told investigators that Novak appeared uncertain whether she was undercover or not. That account, on one hand, might lend credence to the claims by Rove and other Bush administration officials that they did not know Plame was a covert CIA officer. Conversely, however, the fact that Novak asked the question in the first place appeared to indicate that he might have indeed been told Plame was a covert operative, and was seeking confirmation of that fact.
Waas 7/12/05

[pollyusa]

Royce and Phelps of Newsday have always stood behind their reporting of Novak's coments and context, '"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."'.

I wonder if investigators saw Waas 2/14/04 article on Novak, which stated they stood by their reporting. It may explain why the SP never issued a subpoena.

The two officials told investigators they warned Novak that by naming Plame he might potentially jeopardize her ability to engage in covert work, stymie ongoing intelligence operations, and jeopardize sensitive overseas sources.

[...]

Moreover, one of the government officials who has told federal investigators that Novak's account is false has also turned over to investigators contemporaneous notes he made of at least one conversation with Novak. Those notes, according to sources, appear to corroborate the official's version of events.

[...]

Then Novak started to backtrack, giving the impression that the leak was more the result of his own initiative than from a White House source. He also claimed the Newsday reporters quoted him out of context, an accusation both reporters deny. (Full disclosure: Royce is my longtime friend.)

Novak made another statement about his column during a September 29 broadcast of CNN's Crossfire. "Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this," he said. "In July, I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador [Joseph] 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.
Waas 2/14/04

[emptywheel]

Nuts, Pete

Those October dates should be September dates.