Editorial: Novak Sucks

by DemFromCT

Today's installment in the long running melodrama "How We Got Into Iraq" is brought to you by the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Their editorial board is not enamored of one Robert Novak, self-styled Prince of Darkness.

In addition to potentially indicting one or more people in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame in the literal sense, special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald could very well figuratively indict the Bush administration's case for going to war in Iraq, plus its cynical behavior when that case began to unravel. He could also expose just how badly columnist Robert Novak behaved in all this.

The Washington Post's Walter Pincus is the gold standard in trustworthy, hard-nosed reporting these days, and he, with Jim VandeHei, put together a powerful report for Wednesday's Post that illuminates several aspects of the Plame affair.
...

The Niger-Wilson-Plame-Iraq scheme involved much more than the politics such tactics usually further. It involved decisions about spending American blood and money in an unnecessary war. Rove's patented tactics are ugly on the campaign trail; they have absolutely no place in the White House.

Which is where Novak comes in. Pincus and VandeHei write that former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow spoke with Novak twice before the columnist outed Plame. Harlow said "he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be used." Harlow said he then checked that Plame was indeed working under cover and called Novak back to reiterate that she did not send her husband to Niger and that her name should not be used. Novak later wrote that the person he spoke to at the CIA said if her name were revealed, she probably would never get another overseas assignment and that there might be "difficulties" if she even traveled abroad. But, Novak said, he wasn't told that revealing her identity would endanger her or anyone else.

Novak has been around Washington for decades. Even a novice would know Harlow's message meant that outing Plame would be dangerous. Novak appears so eager to carry White House water that he ignored the CIA warnings.

Indicted or not, by the time this investigation has run its course, chances are good that no one in the White House, nor Novak, will find themselves covered in glory.

It's one thing when Billmon savages CNN and Novak, quite another when a major metroplitan daily does the same. Hey, come to think of it, it's also Jay Rosen and just about anyone else who has actually thought about this.

On the Judy Miller side of the equation, there's this from Arianna:

Not everyone in the Times building is on the same page when it comes to Judy Miller. The official story the paper is sticking to is that Miller is a heroic martyr, sacrificing her freedom in the name of journalistic integrity.

But a very different scenario is being floated in the halls. Here it is: It's July 6, 2003, and Joe Wilson's now famous op-ed piece appears in the Times, raising the idea that the Bush administration has "manipulate[d]" and "twisted" intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." Miller, who has been pushing this manipulated, twisted, and exaggerated intel in the Times for months, goes ballistic. . . So she calls her friends in the intelligence community and asks, Who is this guy? She finds out he's married to a CIA agent. She then passes on the info about Mrs. Wilson to Scooter Libby (Newsday has identified a meeting Miller had on July 8 in Washington with an "unnamed government official"). Maybe Miller tells Rove too -- or Libby does. The White House hatchet men turn around and tell Novak and Cooper. The story gets out.

This is why Miller doesn't want to reveal her "source" at the White House -- because she was the source. . . [I]n this scenario, Miller certainly wasn't an innocent writer caught up in the whirl of history. She had a starring role in it. This also explains why Miller never wrote a story about Plame, because her goal wasn't to write a story, but to get out the story that cast doubts on Wilson's motives. Which Novak did.

Now that's a scenario that even has Armando (Daily Kos), a staunch first amendment defender, questioning Miller's behavior.

You have to step back just a tad and ask yourselves why journalists and the press get no respect. And you have to wonder what all the fuss is about bloggers getting press exemptions if this is an example of what otherwise does. If I were a working journalist (and I'm not working for anyone when I blog), I'd be embarrassed enough by Miller and Novak to want to get the real story out there to protect myself and my reputation. And I'd be furious at these two for what they've done to diminish my own protection when working on a story.

Must be fun working at the NY Times these days. And it must be even more fun being Judy Miller and Robert Novak.

Comments

[Kagro X]

It is pretty incredible, isn't it? I mean, anyone who's ever watched even so much as a cheesy TV movie would know what it means when the CIA tells you they can "neither confirm nor deny," or whatever, and then they tell you not to use the name. When the person in question works for the CIA, for God's sake -- THE CIA! -- what else could it possibly mean? It's not like you're calling the local department store to find out if someone works in the men's hoisery department, and they won't confirm or deny.

Anyway, no surprise that there's now speculation that Judy Miller was functioning as perhaps something other than a journalist. The administration is busy functioning as something other than a government, so why should anyone operate within their traditional roles?

[emptywheel]

Kagro:

Maybe they just didn't want to get more specific about Plame because she had had a bad performance review in the past and their policy is not to say anything if you would have to say something bad?

[Kagro X]

Yes, that must be it. Not only was Plame a desk jockey, but Harlow is actually the H.R. Director.

[Susan]

I already had a "Judith Miller goes to jail for the wrong reasons" party.

Maybe I can have a "Judith Miller goes to jail for the right reasons" party too.

[Sara]

Questions -- yea, questions.

First off, the Huffington story notes that Judy called Intelligence contacts, and Libby in the VP's office would not be so described. So the question is, who did she call before she talked to people in the WH?

I've noted, as have others, that since Judith went to Jail, the Wilson's have issued a supportive statement, and Joe has made a few similar statements on TV. Does anyone have a fix on what's going on here? I read his statements as "Judy is Victim" material -- not as we are assuming, that she was an operative. Any insight?

[DemFromCT]

Sara, for the record, just because Arianna repeats Times gossip doesn't make it true... or false. She presents it more or less as another theory.

Hard to figure Judith Miller's actual role without more data.

[DemFromCT]

btw, this Times article says at least three sources for reporters, as Pincus has someone other than Rove and Libby.