Novak's Interview

by emptywheel

If you haven't gotten enough of Bob Novak already, you can watch Novak's Brit Hume interview online. The interview doesn't offer much earthshattering (yup, Drudge oversold his scoop, go figure!) but it does offer some new details:

• Circumstances around the (presumably) Armitage interview
• Explanation for his "not a partisan gunslinger" characterization
• More details on his Rove conversation
• Novak's use of the word "suggested"
• Novak's source of the word "operative"
• The other topics discussed during Novak's interviews with (presumably) Armitage and Rove
• One more funny coincidence

My overall take? To a teeny degree, Novak is right. His conversation with Armitage (presumably) and (maybe) Rove may not have been part of a leak (though Jeff thinks Armitage just coordinated his story with Novak). But Novak doesn't explain all of the information that appears in his column--he still doesn't explain the most important bits and the choices he made in how he presented the story. So until he explains those choices, the evidence still suggests that Novak chose to intentionally smear Valerie Plame.

Note, for the purposes of this post, I'm going to assume that Novak is generally not lying about the things he talks about--though I assume he's parsing wildly--unless his prior statements contradict what he says here. Also, all transcriptions are my own. Finally, I'm not going to use "presumably" every time I mention Armitage, just pretend I include it while you're reading, so you know that I can't guarantee Novak's "primary" source was Armitage.

Circumstances around the (presumably) Armitage interview

Novak describes the circumstances surrounding his interview with Armitage. He says the interview was with a "a Senior Administration Official who wasn't an easy guy to get to see." The meeting was in person and lasted an hour.

These details make it almost impossible for Novak's source to be Ari Fleischer (whose name is one of the only other ones that comes close to fitting in the redacted transcripts). It would be ridiculous to characterize a press spokesman as inaccessible. And it's unlikely that Ari had an hour to meet with Novak before he left on July 7, since he didn't learn of Plame's identity until lunchtime, still had a statement to write, and left that evening. The implication has always been, too, that Ari might have called Novak from Air Force One after it departed, not that they met in person.

Novak later says he and his interviewee were talking about "administration policy" and "general foreign policy," which might add support for the supposition that he's speaking about Deputy Secretary of State Armitage (though Hadley, who remains one of the only other remotely possible candidates to be Novak's source, would also talk foreign relations). He also stops answering Hume's questions when asked if Novak's source is still in government, which would have given away whether his source was (say) Armitage or Hadley.

Explanation for his "not a partisan gunslinger" characterization

Novak provides an explanation for describing Armitage as "not a political gunslinger," in a statement that I find quite funny.

By that I mean the official was not known as someone who did a lot of political manipulations, he's more of a substantive person.

Assuming this source is Armitage, I think this is hysterical. Armitage was the guy in charge of making sure Powell's viewpoints competed effectively in the public sphere with Rummy's or Cheney's. There are several known cases where he leaked stuff to try to pre-empt or combat a Cheney campaign. Are those not political manipulations? Maybe Novak's just saying he respects the substantive Armitage political manipulations more than the baseless manipulations of Rove or Libby?

Admittedly, later in the interview, Novak states it in perhaps more plausible terns, that this person "wasn't in the business of political dirty tricks," which doesn't make me laugh so hard. But I can't imagine a conservative like Novak believes Libby is in the business of dirty tricks, either. Rove, yeah. But not Libby, and not a whole bunch of other very partisan candidates to be a Novak source.

More details on his Rove conversation

In his Fox appearance, Novak says clearly that he called Rove (he later says he initiated it). Which makes me wonder what the hell Corallo was talking about the other day. Novak leaves open whether he might have talked about Frances Fragos Townsend, as Murray Waas has indicated.

I called him for several reasons, I wanted to talk about my column on the Mission to Niger.

Novak appears to misspeak several times in the short discussion about his conversation with Rove about Plame. He starts to say that he "told" Karl about Plame, then corrects that to "asked." (Though this mistake makes me think of the July 11 meeting between Rove and Libby, in which Rove said Novak "told" him he'd be writing a column.) Then he stumbles on the Wilson trip. Then he misstates what Rove replied to Novak's mention of Plame's CIA employ.

And in the course of that, I told him, I asked him. [stumble]... about Wilson's wife working at the CIA and initiating this visit.Karl said to me, "Yes, I know that too." [back and forth with Hume] I'm sorry, he said "you know that too."

I don't know whether any of these are Freudian slips, evidence he's hiding something. Maybe this guy, who has been speaking publicly since before I was born, is just nervous?

Anyway, in his column, Novak said he "interpreted" Rove's column as confirming Plame's identity. This time, he says it more directly.

I took that as a confirmation that she worked at the CIA and had initiated the trip.

Then Novak describes the discrepancy between his version and Rove's. Novak says Karl said:

"Oh, you heard that too?" I very distinctly remember him saying, "Oh, you know that too." There is a difference there.

So it seems, here at least, Rove is trying to push the "we heard it from the journalists" line, but Novak is not backing him up.

Novak's use of the word "suggested"

The most damning part of the interview, IMO, is Novak's discussion of his use of the word "suggested." Novak says Armitage said "his wife worked in nuclear nonproliferation at CIA and she suggested he go." When describing the conversation with Rove, Novak uses the word "initiated," and says he took Rove's response, "Oh, you know that too?" as confirmation that Plame had initiated the trip (that is, Novak's description precludes Rove making any characterization of Plame's involvement of his own).

But Novak admits that Harlow, after checking, told him that Plame hadn't suggested Wilson for the trip.

He told me that Mrs. Wilson did not suggest the mission by her husband, but she was asked to get him to do it by other by other people in the CIA.

So here's Novak's story. Armitage told him Plame "suggested" the trip. Then, Novak called Rove, and described Plame as having "initiated the trip" or something like that, and Rove said nothing more than, "oh, you know that too?" Then, Novak called the CIA spokesperson, who, after checking with the relevant people, said very explicitly that Plame did not suggest Wilson for the trip.

Now if you had interviewed those three people, one who said, "suggested" in an off-hand comment, one who didn't qualify Plame's involvement at all, and one--the only one in the CIA--who said that she did not suggest Wilson, what would you have written? "She was involved in his getting sent"? "She had some connection with his trip"? Sorry, if you used the word, "suggested" in spite of being told that that was incorrect by the people who had a way to know, you'd be a shitty journalist.

Now Novak continues to give the same anachronistic (and factually incorrect) justification for opting to use the word "suggested" in spite of being told it was incorrect as he did in August 2005. He says that the SSCI report proved that Plame had, indeed, suggested Wilson for the trip.

That subsequently was repudiated by a report by the Senate Intelligence Committee, which said she suggested it, and there were no Democratic dissenters.

I'm a little bit confused by how Novak would read this passage, from the Robert's conclusion to the SSCI report:

While there was no dispute with the underlying facts, my Democrat colleagues refused to allow the following conclusions to appear in the report:

Conclusion: The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador's wife, a CIA employee. The former ambassador's wife suggested her husband for the trip to Niger in February 2002. The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on behalf of the CIA, also at the suggestion of his wife, to look into another matter not related to Iraq.

Because that phrase, "Democrat [sic] colleagues refused to allow the following conclusions" sure sounds like there were Democratic dissenters.

But it doesn't matter. Novak is resorting to a sentence, not published until July 2004, to explain his choice of the word "suggested" in July 2003.

I would argue there are only two logical conclusions to make about his July 2003 choice of the word "suggested." Either he is stupid partisan fuck, and went with the most damaging claim he had heard, in spite of the fact that it came from the source who had less knowledge about the facts and who hadn't just researched precisely that question. Or, he heard from someone else that reiterated the "suggested" storyline, and therefore justified (two sources against one knowledgeable one) his using the word "suggested."

You decide which it is. Of course, "stupid partisan fuck" and "heard from someone else" is also a possibility.

Novak's source of the word "operative"

There's a similar problem with Novak's choice of the word "operative." His description of Plame's role at the CIA is different, in this interview, than what he has said in the past. As I mentioned before, in the interview Novak said Armitage said,

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

"Office of Nuclear Nonproliferation," not counter-proliferation, as Novak claimed in his October 2003 column.

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

And Novak said Harlow said that Plame:

Worked for the CIA in the office of weapons of mass destruction.

Which is different from what Novak said in his original July 2003 column.

The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him.

In addition, later in this interview, Novak says she was an analyst and he had no idea she was a covered person.

Now, I'm not sure, not being intimately familiar with the structure of the CIA (if anyone can correct me here, please do). But I believe there used to be an office of nonproliferation, which later got integrated into WINPAC. (It's also the former home of Fred Fleitz, and one supposed source for Fleitz' knowledge of Plame's identity.) And I think the closest thing to an "office of weapons of mass destruction" would also be WINPAC. WINPAC is part of the Directorate of Intelligence, the analytical side of the CIA.

Now, twice before, Novak used the name of Plame's department (and the office that asked her to contact Wilson), counter-proliferation (CPD). Those earlier references would explain his use of "operative," since CPD is in the clandestine, operations side of the CIA. But all of a sudden, he's now consistently avoiding a term he used in the past, instead using vague terms that might more accurately refer to WINPAC. And a WINPAC employee would most likely be an analyst, not an operative. And of course, throughout his media blitz in the last few days, he has avoided the term "operative."

So on this issue, like the use of "suggested," Novak has obscured things rather than clarified them. Bob Novak, why are you switching your descriptions of where Plame worked? And why did you use the word "operative," along with a reference to counter-proliferation, when you now say that your known sources didn't say anything to indicate she was an operative? Your past explanations for using the word "operative" have been proven to be bullshit. Do you want to offer a new one?

The other topics discussed during Novak's interviews with (presumably) Armitage and Rove

Novak also provides a few more details on the rest of his conversations with Armitage and Rove. Novak sputters through a really curious statement about his (presumably) Armitage interview, saying:

We talked about a lot of things, including Joe Wilson's mission to Niger, which he was making a great deal paying a lot of attention to, as a reason why the President mis-stated the need to go to Iraq.

I'm not sure who the "he" is in this sentence, Armitage or Wilson. But I'm curious by that phrase "mis-stated the need to go to Iraq." Does that suggest Armitage was discussing openly that the reasons for the war were a fraud? Does that suggest Novak agrees?

Novak also describes leading into his question that leads to the Plame disclosure by noting that Wilson is not a CIA agent. It's a curious piece of information for him to lead with. He argues that, before he even spoke to Armitage or Rove or Harlow, he knew for certain that Wilson had no affiliation with the CIA. Bob Novak, why were you so sure Wilson had no affiliation with the CIA when you first asked questions of Armitage?

Curiously, Novak never says these interviews were formally background interviews (though he says he believes the Armitage comment on Plame was "background" and says the rest of the content was "background"). Rather, he says that this kind of interview (in the case of Armitage) "you just know" you shouldn't use it for attribution and that his conversations with Karl were generally not for attribution. This is an important point because, since neither interview appears to have formally been declared a background interview, it makes it harder for Rove or Armitage to claim they weren't trying to spread information on Plame. (It also shows why the problem of anonymous sourcing is so bad, when a guy like Novak has a default background understanding with everyone he talks to.)

He doesn't provide much more detail on the Rove conversation, noting (when asked a second time) that his prime reason for calling was to talk about the Niger trip. But in the section he discusses the Rove detail, Novak mentions the CIA report on Wilson's trip.

I wrote that there was never a real report written about it, that it was not a conclusive report

A curious characterization in the first place. But the few details Novak gave about both of these interviews suggest I was pretty close when I speculated about the content of each interview. Though I'd amend that speculation this way:

Novak's Immaculate Knowledge

Wilson never worked for the CIA

Valerie Plame [we're to believe this came from Who's Who], is an operative

Armitage's Reconstructed Novak Conversation  

Wilson's mission was created after an early 2002 report by the Italian intelligence service about attempted uranium purchases from Niger, derived from forged documents prepared by what the CIA calls a "con man." This misinformation, peddled by Italian journalists, spread through the U.S. government. Wilson's wife, who works for the office of nuclear non-proliferation [this NP detail didn't show up in the column, but that's what Novak says Armitage told him], suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report.  [Bush's SOTU] attributed reports of attempted uranium purchases to the British government ... the British relied on forged documents

All this was forgotten until reporter Walter Pincus revealed in the Washington Post June 12 that an unnamed retired diplomat had given the CIA a negative report. Not until Wilson went public on July 6, however, did his finding ignite the firestorm. Messages between Washington and the presidential entourage traveling in Africa hashed over the mission to Niger. [I've moved this paragraph from Rove's conversation to Armitage's, because of the general policy allusion by Novak.]

Rove's Reconstructed Novak Conversation  

The CIA's decision to send retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson to Africa ... was made routinely at a low level without Director George Tenet's knowledge. [took out the Plame references]

The story, actually, is whether the administration deliberately ignored Wilson's advice, and that requires scrutinizing the CIA summary of what their envoy reported. Wilson's report ... was regarded by the CIA as less than definitive, and it is doubtful Tenet ever saw it. After eight days in the Niger capital of Niamey (where he once served), Wilson made an oral report in Langley that an Iraqi uranium purchase was "highly unlikely," though he also mentioned in passing that a 1988 Iraqi delegation tried to establish commercial contacts. The CIA report of Wilson's briefing remains classified. The Agency never before has declassified that kind of information, but the White House would like it to do just that now -- in its and in the public's interest.

In other words, Novak's description of his conversations with Armitage and Rove appear to correlate with what appears in his article, but he appears to have gained some of this knowledge via immaculate conception.

One more funny coincidence

Now I'd like to point out one more funny thing. Close to the end of the interview, Novak insists he still thinks it was weird to send Joe Wilson to investigate the Niger allegations (and he says this after it has been revealed that Wilson had previously been sent to Niger on behalf of the CIA, in 1999).

I still it was an extraordinary decision to be made, but that was the decision that was made.

Put that point together with Novak's shitty journalistic decision to ignore what his most knowledgeable source told him and stick to the "Plame sent Wilson" off-hand comment.

Call me crazy, but Novak's opinions still appear quite similar to the sentiments expressed by another "stupid partisan fuck."

Have they done this sort of thing?

Send an Amb to answer a question?

Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us?

Or did his wife send him on a junket?

In other words, Novak still hasn't explained everything that appears in his column. He still hasn't explained why he selected to side with those offering the most damaging information, rather than the most credible information.

But in each of those selections, he has remarkably replicated the message formulated by Dick Cheney in response to Joe Wilson's column.

Comments

[Meteor Blades]

Isn't there any way at all for us to have our own television station to compete with the folks at Foxaganda?

Up first: emptywheel's interview with Robert Novak. (It'd be more like surgery, both with a scalpel and a chainsaw.

I know you're not much of a believer in postmodernism, ew, but kudos (again) on your deconstruction of this immaculate deception.

[whenwego]

Your last sentence is extremely provocative of thought: perhaps replacing "Armitage" with "Cheney" in your entire post may emerge as the real truth?

[viget]

Whenwego--

Except "Richard Cheney" does not fit in the redacted spaces in Fitz's affidavit. Richard Armitage does.

So Armitage must have been at least one source. I think a better candidate for "immaculate knowledge" and reiterating the OVP talking points would be one Scooter Libby, as EW has speculated before.

[viget]

Here's a question for ya, e-dub. If, as you've sort of speculated, there was a Libby-Novak conversation about Plame and her status, and it looks like Libby might be the IIPA leaker under orders from the shooter, then why does Joe Wilson reserve most of his vitriol for Karl Rove?

Is it just the "your wife is fair game" statement? Or does Joe really believe that KKKarl was instrumental in coordinating this whole leak campaign?

[emptywheel]

So you're agreeing, then, whenwego, that Novak has been less than truthful in his media blitz? That's the logical pre-condition for your claim.

[emptywheel]

I think his early vitriol went after Rove because of the Tweety comment. But I know in his recent appearances here in MI (at fundraisers for Jim Marcinkowski), he emphasized Dick's role.

[kim]

I'm still wondering why Novak got so worked up about not saying "authorized," as he discussed in his response to Harlow's comments in the Post a year ago. Was he reacting to our blogging talk about the NIE at that time?

Why was the WH so obsessed in 2003 on proving the VP had nothing to do with Wilson's trip?

Wilson has a statement today pointing out that the WH and Novak are still pushing the misleading idea that Plame was responsible for his trip. Why is he focusing on this?

I feel like there's something important there that I'm continually missing. Is it just big egos clashing?

[emptywheel]

kim

On both the Novak issues, they picked on them because it offered them a way to refute details (some of which Wilson had never claimed) and avoid addressing the substantive claim (which is that Bush went to war using intelligence claims he knew to be false).

[QuickSilver]

Joe Wilson has issued a statement responding to Novak:

Robert Novak, some other commentators and the Administration continue to try to completely distort the role that Valerie Wilson played with respect to Ambassador Wilson's trip to Niger. The facts are beyond dispute. The Office of the Vice President requested that the CIA investigate reports of alleged uranium purchases by Iraq from Niger.

The CIA set up a meeting to respond to the Vice President's inquiry. Another CIA official, not Valerie Wilson, suggested to Valerie Wilson's supervisor that the Ambassador attend that meeting. That other CIA official made the recommendation because that official was familiar with the Ambassador's vast experience in Niger and knew of a previous trip to Africa concerning uranium matters that had been undertaken by the Ambassador on behalf of the CIA in 1999.

Valerie Wilson's supervisor subsequently asked her to relay a request from him to the Ambassador that he would like the Ambassador to attend the meeting at the CIA. Valerie Wilson did not participate in the meeting.

-- Ambassador Joseph Wilson

[kim]

A diversion, maybe, I still find it curious - and it stimulates my taste for intrigue.

Here's some Plame news, via JOM:

WASHINGTON--(Business Wire)--July 13, 2006--
Valerie Plame Wilson, Ambassador Joseph Wilson and their counsel, Christopher Wolf of Proskauer Rose LLP, will hold a news conference at 10 AM EDT on Friday, July 14 at 10:00 AM at the National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor, Washington, DC 20045, to announce the filing of a civil lawsuit against I. Lewis
"Scooter" Libby, Vice-President Richard Cheney and Karl Rove.

[emptywheel]

kim

Hmmm. I guess my speculation that the Novak media blitz might be related to a suit might not be far off?

Damn, I'm never going to get anything done this week.

[kim]

Big hat tip there EW. It has been/will be a fun week.

[viget]

Damn! I picked a hell of a time to go on vacation. Oh well, guess I'll get caught up next weekend.

[zAmboni]

Since I really don't know that much about Armitage...well not as much as some of the people around here do anyways..why do I have a hard time trying to imagine that Armitage would tell Novak about Wilson's wife, and that she worked for the CIA. If it was Rove, Cheney, Libby, Hadley and a slew of others, I would say yes. But it doesn't seem that Armitage would be throwing that type of information around.

BTW....emptywheel, call me stupid or unobservant, didnt even realize that you were from Michigan. Howdy neighbor! :)

[zAmboni]

Re: Wilson lawsuit.

I thought I read somewhere that this Friday would be the last day (statute of limitations) that Wilson could file a lawsuit over this matter. Was wondering if there would be something coming about that this week :)

[emptywheel]

zAmboni

Where in MI are you?

[walt]

Two comments about Novakula's dissembling, stuttering & silly distortion of previously admitted or proven "facts." 1. The old guy has been lawyered up from day 2 or 3 & he is at a small degree of risk for publishing Plame's name--if he actually knew she was an "operative," (and to many of us it's clear that he did KNOW), then R. Novak outed a working undercover agent. 2. He inadvertantly exposed another area of knowledge, heretofore unbeknownst to the world at large: he denies that Ambassador J. Wilson is an agent--tell us, emptywheel, whoever for a moment thought that he was, until know??? If Amb. Wilson is or was an actual operative, ol' Novakula is in double deep shit.

[zAmboni]

Emptwheel,

Well, that shooting that happened on Sunday night. I live two blocks away. :/. Didn't hear any of it.

[Katie Jacob]

Does anyone know how the notes from Cheney were obtained (... is it normal for an amb to be sent...?) My guess is that Cheney or someone put them out themselves as a continuation of the ridiculous cover story about Wilson's trip being a boondoggle. That story if you ask me, was fabricated as an attempt to hide the fact that they deliberately outed a covert agent, Plame, an act of treason, to get revenge on Wilson (I again am reminded of Tweetie's comment to Wilson that Rove told him that "your wife is fair game).

ps Emptywheel, are you from Michigan (you mentioned Marcinkowski)? I am from Birmingham. I would love to meet you.

[Sebastian Dangerfield]

So, the Wilsons are going to pull the trigger on a lawsuit -- good on them. As I related elewhere, I don't have a lot of hope that the suit could ultimately be successful (see ridiculously long and atrociously formatted comment here) but I do hope they get somewhere -- at least get a chance to take some depositions of Novak, Rove, et al. My earlier analysis was entirely seat-of-the-pants but I'll be interested to see how the complaint compares to the various possible claims I mooted out there. Since then, I've realized that the Privacy Act has a two-year statute of limitations, so that would appear to be off the table. Similarly, if the Wilson seek to invoke DC law, any defamation-related claim (including intentional infliction or invasion of privacy) likewise appears time-barred. I'm not sure what Maryland law prescribes on the limitations front. (Maryland being another contender for the jurisdiction that might supply the substantive rules for any non-federal claims. There certainly are fairly interesting choice-of-law issues -- and thus both opportunities and pitfalls -- in such a case.)

[emptywheel]

Sebastian

Yes, I'm equally cautious about the outcome of this suit. But, as you say, if they get to depose these guys...

Katie and zAmboni

I'm in A2. I've been meaning to try the new Corner Brewery in Ypsi, so maybe we should all meet for a beer?

[Sebastian Dangerfield]

Ooops. Please substitute "libel, slander, or false light" for "intentional infliction" in the post above.

[Sebastian Dangerfield]

Indeed. Keeping fingers crossed. Novak under examination, without the ability to control things, give evasive answers with impunity, etc. would be faboo. I understand that the Wilsons have hired Proskauer rose lawyer Chris Wolff, who successfully sued USANEXT for using a picture of a gay couple's wedding, without permission, in its hatesmear a while back.

[zAmboni]

Emptywheel, I would be up for that...Hopefully I can drag the wife out of the house also :). I had no idea they were opening a new brewery in town until I decided a different way to drive through town (I usually drive home Geddes from A2). Saw the Corner Brewery and said "just when in the heck did they build that?." We usually hit Aubrees in Depot Town (they have Oberon on tap ++), but we will have to check out the new place.

[tnhblog]

If Armitage is the original source, then who authorized him to release such sensitive info? It is hard to believe that he could be such a brainless imbecile as to reveal the identity of an agent as someone working in CPD twice in the span of one month. Libby was very careful to obtain auhtorization for even the NIE leaks. Armitage leaking the info without authorization is very strange.

[emptywheel]

zAmboni

Corner brewery is owned by the same couple that owns Arbor Brewing in A2. They're both great Democrats. And Matt makes great beer (particularly if you like things hoppy). They're also bottling beer over there.

[clbrune]

Emptywheel, as always, your work is much appreciated. In this case, your attention to detail may not be the best tool to appraise Novak. He seems like a hack, and a literal interpretation of his words gives him too much credit as an accurate, precise writer.

As Whenwego mentioned, replacing "Armitage" with "Cheney" makes a lot more sense (in fact, it makes a TON of logical sense to me). In response to EW's explanation that "Richard Cheney" doesn't fit the redacted affidavit, I wonder if "Richard B Cheney" fits any better. ;-)

Last, I wonder if anyone can clear this up for me, from Am. Wilson's recent statement. He says that someone-not-valerie suggested him as a potential envoy to send to Niger. I always thought his wife put his name on the table (and this has been misrepresented as "she was responsible for getting him the job"). I even have a memory of reading a phrase from her about him having lots of contacts with Niger officials...

[zAmboni]

Emptywheel,

Been to ABC bunch o' times (wife loved their burrito when we went there last), tracked down some info on them several minutes ago. Looks like they are light on the food, but I'm pretty sure I could put a big dent in their wing inventory :). We usually have the weekends free if ya wanted to head on over there sometime. I can be reached at zamboni_at_comcast.net.

BTW: Is the A2 chapter of drinking liberally active? I remember looking into it on the DL website and it didn't look like there was too much actiong going on there.

[William Ockham]

I'd like to add a few things to mix here.

If Novak's source is Armitage, he got played by the Cheney cabal in a particularly egregious manner. Say what you want about Armitage, if bureacratic in-fighting was basketball, he'd be Charles Barkley. In this case, he didn't just get boxed out, he was at the wrong end of the court.

Bob Novak must be getting senile or something. Every time he opens his mouth about his discussion with Harlow, he digs himself a deeper and deeper hole. There's is simply no way that anyone who's been in Washington for 50 minutes (and Novak's been there for 50 years) would interpret what Novak says Harlow said as anything but evidence that Valerie Plame had once been a covert operative. In fact, except for one small detail, I'd be willing to buy the following story:

Novak was on a "democrat enemies within the Bush administration" kick (Beers, Townsend, Joe Wilson). That much makes sense in Novak's bizarro world. So, he finagles an interview with Armitage and needles him about why this partisan democrat and career foreign service guy (which are pretty much the same thing to the loony right), Joe Wilson, got a job with the CIA. Armitage, based on a quick read of the INR memo, says, no Joe Wilson doesn't work for the CIA, he just did this one mission for them [This, by the way, is a perfectly ok thing to say based on Wilson's deal with the CIA]. Novak pesters him about how it looks bad, the CIA going out finding some democrat to do this. Looks like that the Cheney folks are right, the CIA was trying to undermine the President's policy. Armitage says, no that's not it at all. Wilson was qualified. Novak retorts something about, but how did they just happen to find this democrat. Armitage gets exasperated and says, look, his wife works at the CIA and they asked him to help out because he has contacts in the region. There's no democrat plot. That's just silly.

Novak, thinking that she's an analyst, calls up Rove and says, look I'm trying to figure why you keep letting all these democrats work for the Administration. This Wilson guy, I heard his wife recommended him. Rove says, you heard that too (and thinks, bingo, I gotta go tell Scooter that somebody's gonna print that story he's been pushing).

Now, Novak calls up Harlow and runs the whole thing by him (this is almost a surprizing bit of journalistic responsibility on Novak's part). Harlow does what he always does when somebody asks that kind of question. He says I'll call you back. Harlow goes to investigate and some serious alarm bells go off in the Agency. Somebody tells Harlow that they can't just play this one by the book (the usual no comment, etc.). They don't know exactly how much Novak knows, but itt's obvious that Novak has gotten too much information. Harlow is given a very specific script to use to warn off Novak. He's supposed to give him enough information to make it clear to Novak that Joe Wilson's wife was a covert operative without actually confirming that information. He's supposed to make it very clear to Novak that he should NOT mention Wilson's wife in the article. He tells Novak that he can say that officials in the CIA's non-proliferation section chose Wilson.

Novak, being Novak and knowing which side his bread is buttered on, decides to just run with the story. And the rest is history.

The one small detail that makes me doubt this scenario is what emptywheel had identified. Novak's column just tracks a little too closely with the Cheney team's talking points.

[emptywheel]

clbrune

The scenario has been confused by a lot of the shitty reporting on the SSCI. The scenario, as I understand it is:

Feb 12: CPD says, "how can we shut Cheney up" and one of them says, "I know. Remember in 1999 we sent Ambassador Wilson to Niger to answer some questions about the uranium industry? Let's send him." Plame's supervisor agrees and asks her to write a memo outlinging his qualifications (which she does, that day), and asks her to ask him to attend a meeting on February 19.

Feb 19: Plame introduces Wilson at the meeting and then leaves.

The only basis for "she suggested" him comes from the memo she wrote--and a bunch of partisan hackery with the SSCI report.

zAmboni

The thing I like best about Arbor's food is that it's all humanely produced. I haven't gone to a Drinking Liberally event here. Maybe we should pick a Drinking Liberally event and meet there? Here's the details;

First and third Thursday of each month (next meeting July 20), 7:30 pm onward
Dominick's, 812 Monroe St (map)
We'll have tables reserved. Check the signs at the entrance for location within the venue.
Hosted by John Redmond and Jenay Karlson, annarbor (at) drinkingliberally.org

[zAmboni]

Emptywheel,

That sounds like a good idea. Since it is a weeknight I doubt I can get the wifey to come (would take way more than a crowbar to get her out of the house on a weekday night :) ). The 20th wouldn't be a good night to go though since that is in the middle of Art Fair Hell.

I just fired off an email to see if they still have the DL thing going and if they didn't mind a few new attendees. If we can get a date set, I think with a bit of advertising on the site (and posting to several other blog's comments) I bet we could get a bunch of MI liberals to pack the place!

[Katie Jacob]

emptywheel and zAMBONI, If you pick a date to meet in Ann Arbor, will you e-mail me and let me know? I am out of town on vacation but I'll be back at the end of this week.

[tnhblog]

Armitage says, no that's not it at all. Wilson was qualified. Novak retorts something about, but how did they just happen to find this democrat. Armitage gets exasperated and says, look, his wife works at the CIA and they asked him to help out because he has contacts in the region. There's no democrat plot. That's just silly.

How does this square with Novak's previous statement:

Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."

[KevinNYC]

What proof is there that Joe Wilson is a Partisan Democrat?

Or let me put it this way, what proof is there that Joe Wilson was a partisan Democrat before he found out that the current batch of Republicans were quite willing to lie the country into an unncessary war and when he critized them they attacked his wife's career?

I bet since 84 his voting record looks something like

Reagan
Bush
Bush
Clinton
Bush?
Kerry

He's probably a moderate republican in the Chuck Hagel mode. He is probably not that far from Brent Scrowcroft in his foreign policy stand. He seems to very much respect George H. W. Bush and that's why I think he may have voted for W the first time.

[Jeff]

The scenario, as I understand it

emptywheel

I am particularly interested in nailing down what happens on February 12 2002. Is there evidence for the idea that there was some kind of CPD brainstorm on February 12 in response to hearing about Cheney's interest in the Niger story, where that person came up with the idea of sending Wilson? Two parts to this question: was this the first thought of a Niger mission in CPD, or had it been conceived before, perhaps on the basis of other questions from State and/or DoD? Second, a lot has to happen on the 12th, which i don't find that hard to believe, but I'd like to nail it down: the DIA thing published that day is briefed to Cheney, Cheney (or OVP) asks CIA briefer about it, word makes it back to CPD that Cheney is interested, CPD brainstorms the idea of a mission to Niger and the idea of sending Wilson, Plame's supervisor asks Plame for a rundown of Joe's qualifications and she produces the thing in response.

So what's our evidence? One piece of indirect evidence is that the SSCI is rather obscure on the timing of some of the crucial pieces, making me believe that it falls out in exactly the Cheney-centric way they want to downplay.