Four years ago, syndicated columnist Bob Novak wrote an article about a man few Americans had ever heard of that included information about this man’s wife who also was practically an unknown entity.
This set off a media firestorm, and, given that the president at the time was a Republican, included the usual misinformation from the usual suspects.
Four years later, regardless of no one actually being charged with the crime of outing a CIA operative, or a special prosecutor not concluding that the wife in question actually was outed, the media, hell-bent on destroying a Republican president, refuse to report the truth.
Might this change given Novak’s appearance on Sunday’s “Meet the Press” wherein he once again addressed details surrounding this scandal that seem impossible to penetrate the mental block the press have created regarding this matter (video available here, partial transcript follows, h/t Hot Air)?
MR. TIM RUSSERT, HOST: You begin the book, as you might expect, a discussion of the whole Valerie Plame situation. Let me read a little bit and talk about it.
“I was ushered into [Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage’s] office promptly at 3 p.m. [on July 8, 2003]. for my visit. I assumed, however, that what Armitage said would not be attributed to him but would not be off the record. That is, I could write about information he gave me, but would not identify him by name. I then asked Armitage a question. Why would the CIA send Joseph Wilson on the mission to Niger? ‘Well,’ Armitage replied, ‘you know his wife works at CIA, and she suggested that he be sent to Niger.’ ‘His wife works at’” the “‘CIA?’ I asked. ‘Yeah, in counterproliferation,’” he, he said. “He mentioned her by first name, Valerie. Armitage smiled and said: ‘That’s real Evans and Novak, isn’t it?’” Suggesting a green light to print it, in your mind.
MR. BOB NOVAK, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: That’s right, of course.
MR. RUSSERT: Then you go on to say in the book, “Senior White House adviser Karl Rove returned my call late that afternoon,” July 8th, 2003, the same day.
“I mentioned” “I had heard that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA in the counterproliferation section and that she had suggested Wilson be sent to Niger. I distinctly remember Rove’s reply: ‘Oh, you know that, too.’ Rove and I also discussed other aspects of Wilson’s mission, but since he never has disclosed them publicly, neither have I.” So you considered Rove’s comments, “Oh, you know that, too,” as a confirmation?
MR. NOVAK: Yes. And of course, there’s also a third source, and that was the public relations man at the CIA, Bill Harlow, who, who admitted, who confirmed that she worked in the counterproliferation division. But he said that she didn’t suggest the—that her husband go. That’s—I think that was an incorrect information he gave me, but I I also put that in the column, that a source from the CIA said he was—she was not suggest—he did—she did not suggest her husband make the mission.
MR. RUSSERT: In hindsight, should you have identified Valerie Plame as a CIA agent?
MR. NOVAK: There was no indication by, by the official spokesman for the CIA or anybody else that anybody was put in danger, that—I suddenly didn’t get a direct call from George Tenet, the CIA director, who I knew. And if he wanted to stop me from doing it, he could’ve, so I, I saw there was no pressure from me. They asked me not, not to use her name, but didn’t say that it was anybody in danger or there was any security violation as a result.
MR. RUSSERT: The president said early on in this that if anyone broke the law, that he would deal with it. And now he’s saying, “Well, I wish that someone had come forward and raised their hand and said this had happened, but let’s move on.”
MR. NOVAK: Well, Mr. Armitage did come forward. He, he—before a special prosecutor was even named, he had—after a story appeared in which I said there was not a partisan gunslinger who gave me the information, he identified himself to the Justice Department. So they—that did come forward. And, of course, the wrong investigation by Mr. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, came after they knew that—who had been the leaker and had made a decision, obviously, that no law had been broken. Because nobody was ever pros—Mr. Armitage was not prosecuted, nobody else was prosecuted.
Let’s try to add this all up for a seemingly brain-dead, and certainly disingenuous media:
- Armitage told Novak about Plame
- A CIA public relations man confirmed Plame worked for the CIA, and was Wilson’s wife
- Nobody at the CIA informed Novak – a reporter, mind you – that releasing information about Plame would put her at risk
- Nobody at the CIA contacted Novak to prevent him from publishing this article
- Armitage told the Justice Department that he was Novak’s source before Fitzgerald was named as special prosecutor
- Armitage was never prosecuted for “outing” Plame
- Nobody else was prosecuted for “outing” Plame
Why do the media add up this relatively simple one plus one equation and come up with three?
Maybe more important, is there anything anybody can do – including Novak – that can help them come up with two?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The answer to your headline q
July 16, 2007 - 00:19 ET by GalvanicThe answer to your headline question is, in a word, "No." That's because the MSM is not interested in the facts. As a veteran journalist once told me, once an editor has it in his/her mind what the Truth is, contra-evidence will not alter it.
The actual target of the Plame Affair was Karl Rove, who the Dems and Left have vilified over the years for strategizing GOP victories. Even Wilson declared after Plame's name came out, that he was going to take Karl Rove down, instantly making him the shining knight of the Beltway liberals in the DP and MSM that thirve on the Dem talking points.
But Fitzgerald's exhaustive investigation couldn't prove that a crime had been committed. In fact, as Novak recounted, the CIA's own PR man outted her by confirming her employment.
Scooter Libby got caught in a perjury trap, and became the surrogate for Rove. All the hatred and ill-will the Left had pent up for Rove was transferred to Libby like he was a voodoo doll, and when Bush commuted his jail sentence, Lefty rage erupted like Mt. Vesuvius.
At this point, the toothpaste is out of the tube, and nothing that Novak recounts can put it back in.
Where there is smoke there is Plame
July 16, 2007 - 00:22 ET by Captain RepusAnyone with an IQ above plant life knows that Russert likely was aware of Plame's identity during the initial days of this story from his little army of liberal hack journalists Matthews, Shuster and Mitchell. He just happened to have a little memory lapse when testifying in the Libby trial. These things happen you know, especially when you have so many pressing issues to deal with on a daily basis.
}}----> The Plame Identity
July 16, 2007 - 00:25 ET by Cool ArrowPlame should be prosecuted for playing it so loose with her so called "covert" status.
Russert said he had forgotten
July 16, 2007 - 09:09 ET by pbanks7Russert said he had forgotten that you couldn't bring an attorney into a grand jury with you - he gratuated from LAW SCHOOL!
Libby's defense was not allowed to cross-exam Russert because he did video testimony. Talk about a stacked deck.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
Double O Plame
July 16, 2007 - 00:47 ET by Sua Sponte 75During Congressional Hearings........
Plame, whose outing triggered a federal investigation, said she always knew her identity could be discovered by foreign governments (and was by Ames)but said she was surprised to be identified by her own government.
Plame said she wasn't a lawyer (or much of an agent)and didn't know what her legal status was (what a clown) but said it shouldn't have mattered to the officials who learned her identity.
"They all knew that I worked with the CIA," Plame said. "They might not have known what my status was (you sure as hell didn't) but that alone - the fact that I worked for the CIA - should have put up a red flag."
So Double O Plame didn't know what her status was, sounds like she was a pretty squared away agent. Writes checks to the (D) party with a "company" check, has name listed in the "who's who" list in the beltway, appears in photo ops then gets angry someone told someone else that she worked at the agency and THEN tries to claim she's some super spook who was outed. Ladies and gentlemen, you just can't make stuff like this up. She was so covert she didn't even know if she was covert. Wonder if she's going to make an appearance in the new Get Smart movie.
No Double O, what should have sent up red flags was your ineptness and you're only concern with national security was your using your position for shoe in's to the grip and grin parties. We may never know, but I wouldn't be surprised that your actions/inaction cost the lives of field agents.
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
}}----> Sponte Stop!
July 16, 2007 - 01:25 ET by Cool ArrowYou're cracking me up. Too funny.
Dead Eye Plame
July 16, 2007 - 01:32 ET by Sua Sponte 75I think that since she doesn't know if she was covert or not, that leads me to believe she may or may not know of ubber-secrets within her mind....therefore she should be required to keep her head in a safe from here on out. We'll punch a small air hole in it, I'm not a masochist.....
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
}}----> Plame Truth
July 16, 2007 - 01:44 ET by Cool ArrowMaybe she doesn't know she's really a double agent planted to expose Joe Wilson as a French agent.
offensive
July 16, 2007 - 15:36 ET by LionKingWe take offense at that schizo remark!
Sua Sponte 75 - Plame testifi
July 16, 2007 - 03:28 ET by ding7777Sua Sponte 75 - Plame testified that she was "a covert officer whose affiliation with the CIA was classified". Facts... they do matter
Read Much ding?
July 16, 2007 - 04:40 ET by Sua Sponte 75So let me get this straight.....when she testified that "she didn't know what her status was" because she's "not a lawyer", somehow your secret decoder ring you got out of the ceral box transformed that into her stating she was a covert officer? Wow, the batteries on mine must have run out.Where do they come up with you guys? First of all, well I'm not going into operational/non-operational since you'd only throw your hands up and stomp your feet. Your statement is quite fulll of holes, first of all if she was covert then it's a no-brainer of the affiliation, but that's not the fact, as she wasn't covered. And if she were covered then please tell me, please fill us all in on how everyone in the beltway circle knew of her, how she was introduced as an employee of the agency by her husband and had her name listed in the "who's who"? So do covered agents usually do that? This is a case of you having no idea of what your talking about and can only throw in one liners. If you know anything about history, think you can guess why she was riding a desk? Bet you can't......... Facts do matter, in fact maybe you ought to swing by and read the minutes of the hearing.
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
Plamegate: Irresponsible jo
July 16, 2007 - 05:57 ET by JerPlamegate: Irresponsible journalism--Questionable prosecution--Proper verdict--Excessive sentence--Justifiable, though somewhat ironic, commutation
However, nobody is farther "inside the beltway" than Bob Novak. If he was unaware of her CIA affiliation, I doubt it was common knowledge in D.C.
Still Waiting Your Clownship
July 16, 2007 - 05:47 ET by Sua Sponte 75Since for some reason you can't respond, I'll just go ahead and school you....
In 1982, Congress passed the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. This law makes it a federal crime to knowingly reveal the identity of a CIA agent who has conducted covert roles overseas within five years of the disclosure.
To violate this law, the person who disclosed the agent's identity must have been aware that the agent was "covert" at the time of the disclosure.
Additionally, in order to prosecute anyone who discloses the identity of a covert agent, it is imperative that the government prove she was indeed "covert."
When Double O Plame testified to the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, Ranking Republican member Tom Davis (Va.) asked her. "The Intelligence Identities Protection Act makes it a crime to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert agent, which has a specific definition under the act. Did anyone ever tell you that you were so designated?"
Wilson didn't give a straight answer. She told Davis, "I'm not a lawyer."
To clarify, Davis asked, "What I'm asking is, for purposes of the act-and maybe this just never occurred to you or anybody else at the time-but did anybody say that you were so designated under the act or was this just after it came to pass?"
"No, no one told me that," Plame replied.
Rep. John Yarmuth (D.-Ky.) asked her, "Without destroying or disclosing classified information, what does 'covert' mean?"
Wilson said, "I'm not lawyer, but my understanding is that the CIA is taking affirmative steps to ensure that there's not links between the operations officer and the Central Intelligence Agency. It's that simple."
Washington lawyer Victoria Toensing, former chief counsel of the Senate Intelligence Committee and former deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan Administration, testified to the committee shortly after Plame. Toensing said the definition of "covert" wasn't as simple as Plame said it was.
Toensing helped write the 1982 Identities Protection Act legislation and insisted, "Plame was not a covert agent under the act."
The act defines a "covert" agent as one whose undercover status is classified, who has been assigned to foreign duties within the five years prior to the revelation, and whose identity the government has made a concerted effort to conceal. Also, for the law to be violated, the person who revealed the agent's "covert" status must know that the government is taking those measures to protect the agent's identity. As Toensing explained in a January 2005 column, "This requirement does not mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week's work. It means permanent assignment in a foreign country. Since Plame had been living in Washington for some time when the July 2003 column was published and was working at a desk job in Langley, there is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as 'covert.'"
Plame testified that she believed her covert status was more fluid. She said, "Just like a general is a general whether he is in the field in Iraq or Afghanistan, when he comes back to the Pentagon, he's still a general," she told the committee, "In the same way, covert operations officers who are serving in the field, when they rotate back for temporary assignment in Washington, they, too, are still covert.
Double O Plame is the poster child for being clueless. This babe didn't even know what covered was or if she was and besides that she was riding a desk way before any of this came out, thus putting her outside of the Protection Act. She made up her own version of what she "believed" the law to be and everyone is just falling in line with that, well not everyone, seems just you and maybe one or two others. So are you going to hit us up with your "facts" or will there be another pathetic one line no substance response? Think I'm going with the latter.
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
A very fine retort
July 16, 2007 - 06:43 ET by OldSailor88A very fine retort. Well done, Mr. Sua Sponte! Watching ding get slapped around on a daily basis is one of my favorite pastimes. The boy was born clueless, and remains that way, no matter how much Sesame Street he watches.
I agree. Well rebutted Sua. C
July 16, 2007 - 07:10 ET by BeowulfI agree. Well rebutted Sua. Can anyone answer me a simple question? Was Plame covert or not? Why is this so difficult a question to answer? Was she running operations covertly in a foreign country since 2000 or not? CIA wouldn't have to get specific on any ops, a simple yes or no would siffice. And if not (as it seems), why isn't Fitzgerald under charges for wasting how much government money on an inept investigation into a non-existant crime? And why isn't someone standing up and challenging all the "I think" this or that testimony? If someone testifying isn't sure of a legal issue, is it so difficult to get legal clarification?
And BTW, the target wasn't Rove. It was Cheney. This was a classic roll-up investigation - get Scooter to give up Rove, who you then get to give up Cheney. How many times did Fitzgerald threaten and even attempt to bring Cheney directly into the mix?
I always thought blatantly using our judicial system for political ends was against the law. I guess not...
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Thank You
July 16, 2007 - 07:29 ET by Sua Sponte 75Quite possibly, but well before 2000. Now was she working on classified projects, most likely, but that doesn't make you a covered agent First and foremost, covered agents don't work desk jobs at HQ. It may have been easier to let Fitz run with this to show how inept all of this was, of course at the expense of the taxpayer. The MSM poured fuel on a fire that didn't exist, coupled with a hatred of the administration it seemed like a great combination. Of course the outcome just made the participants took even more like bags of doorknobs.
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
I haven't seen anything that
July 16, 2007 - 10:12 ET by BruzillaI haven't seen anything that would indicate she was truly covert. When I used to fly into some foreign countries for the Navy during the Cold War, we were told not to wear anything that would identify us as Americans. We're we "covert"? The government was actively trying to hide our identities, but it would have been foolish to think that not wearing a "If You Ain't From Alabama... You Ain't &%@#!" t-shirt (which my radar operator actually wore once) is going to hide your identity. It's also standard practice for all intelligence services to post intel types to foreign embassies as attaches, which is what I think Blame actually was. Basically everyone, except for the Ambassador, who works at an embassy is considered to be an intelligence officer, so the whole concept of protecting identities at that level is pretty silly.
What this law was designed to protect were the identities of CIA or other covert personnel that the host country does not know about. These folks never go near the U.S. embassy or any other U.S. Government facility. These are the folks who need protecting as they are the ones who can get themselves killed if their identity is exposed. At worst, someone like Plame could get expelled.
Hold on. This chick couldn't
July 16, 2007 - 15:28 ET by RESTLESS 1Hold on. This chick couldn't answer the simple question if she was covert or not? All she could come up with was " I don't know" and " I'm not a lawyer"? It sounds like she should be brought up on the same charges as Scooter Libby. In fact, I would love the see the whole bunch (Plame, Wilson, and Fitzgerald) brought up on charges for this whole fiasco. It seems obstruction could be placed on Plame and Wilson at the very least, and, at the very least, prosecutorial misconduct on Fitzgerald. That would be so much fun to watch, I think I would be willing to pony up for pay-per-view. Cnn, Cbs, Abc, et al... would serve up the laughs for free.
Hold on, she DID NOT testify
July 16, 2007 - 11:18 ET by SoftRightHold on, she DID NOT testify that she was covert! Didn't she use the "I don't know" excuse? Wow! Our government is keeping the covert status secret even from their wonder spies......
I read somewhere that she routinely worked at Langley/CIA HQ? (Can anyone confirm that?) If that is true then she most certainly was NOT covert.... Duh, secret agents don't park their car at CIA HQ!!!!!!
like, DUH
July 16, 2007 - 11:20 ET by Cool ArrowAnd their spouses don't go on fact finding missions.
Super Secret
July 16, 2007 - 13:51 ET by Junk Science SkepticOr write bitter partisan political screeds for the NYT op-ed page.
Thompson/Giuliani 2008
MSM and unbiased truth
July 16, 2007 - 06:23 ET by kiwikitMSM and unbiased truth are mutually exclusive. Of course the media isn't going to change its mind. . . they think they're too 'elite' to have to worry about what really happened, only in the backstory they make up to fulfill their aim: the destruction of our country. How low must their numbers go before they realize we don't care what they think! Our only hope is that their support of liberal causes like the outofcontrol teacher's unions will affect their readership in an exponentially detrimental way with the resulting illiteracy of our children and their disinterest in any paper news (views.)
Sua - It sounds like Plame
July 16, 2007 - 08:08 ET by Dee BunkSua - It sounds like Plame must have got her job due to her looks. This "I'm not sure what my status was" sounds much more like perjury than anything Libby said. Either she is truly a really dumb blonde or she knew her status wasn't important enough to warrant keeping secret.
She doesn't even know if her own status is secret and she was trusted to keep secrets? Amazing.
Plame: "Was I covert?
July 16, 2007 - 09:26 ET by JerryPlame: "Was I covert? I was so covert, no one at the CIA was even told about it. Heck, they didn't even tell me. That's how covert I was. I was Double-Super-Secret-Stick-a-needle-in-your-eye covert. Look, I have a shoe phone to prove it."
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
This whole Plamegate non-scan
July 16, 2007 - 01:21 ET by Dave RThis whole Plamegate non-scandal has got to be one of the most bizarre, mountain-out-of-a-molehill, BDS-infused non-stories I have ever seen. But to hear the MSM describe it, it was the crime of the century.
After dragging this whole affair out for years and wasting God-only-knows how many millions of our tax dollars, the only thing they got was a conviction for a "process crime" allegedly committed by a man I would guess 99.99998% of us had never even heard of.
Then, when the President steps up and merely commutes the poor guys sentence so he can avoid doing jail time, the MSM tells us that it was a pardon and tries to turn it into some sort of huge scandal, which it isn't.
To this day, despite the fact that no one was charged with leaking anything, much less convicted of it, we still have libtrolls slithering in here and declaring that Dick Cheney and even Mr. Bush should be impeached over this nonsense.
I bet deep down, Mr. Novak wishes he had never writtin that article four years ago.
Help Fred defeat the RINOs, along with the Hitllary-Obama Axis, & win the White House in '08.
Funny, but I find Novak's w
July 16, 2007 - 04:30 ET by sarcasmoFunny, but I find Novak's words about the CIA that you DIDN'T bold the most interesting, especially in light of the words that appear just before them: "They asked me not, not to use her name, but didn’t say that it was anybody in danger or there was any security violation as a result." So what all of this says to me (aside from making the dubious-IMO claim that this Armitage guy is somehow nonpartisan) is that Novak wanted an asskissing personal call from CIA Director Tenet to not-publish her name. One would think that conservatives, during wartime no-less, would be a tiny bit harder on Novak's weasel-word excuses for not doing as the CIA asked regarding an agent's name, even if he didn't get to learn about particular people endangered or particular aspects of national security journalists might not need to know. Admittedly, he is the Almighty Bob Novak, so maybe that's a factor, but I'm wondering: What am I missing here? Let's leave Scooter Libby and that stuff out of it, I think conservatives are being VERY soft on Novak.
JMR
So if Novak did something wro
July 16, 2007 - 06:58 ET by shannon20So if Novak did something wrong, why wasn't he prosecuted? And Armitage?
Well, not all that's wrong
July 16, 2007 - 07:05 ET by sarcasmoWell, not all that's wrong is criminal, at least not yet -- but they're still writing more laws. I'm just wondering above why Novak has reputationally gotten away with doing something which -- during a war conservatives support -- I'd think would get him into trouble. I have no idea why Armitage isn't in trouble, because I have no idea why he's not considered as partisan as me or anyone else.
JMR
Sarc - I'm not sure if this
July 16, 2007 - 08:13 ET by Dee BunkSarc - I'm not sure if this is what you are trying to say, but Armitage isn't in trouble because the Dems don't gain anything from it. No one is really outraged about her so called outing. They knew she wasn't in danger. It was all about trying to discredit the administration and Armitage is not seen as loyal to the administration. Republicans are not as vindictive trying to jail someone strictly for political benefit, they don't think it's a crime no matter who did it.
Actually, my main point's a
July 16, 2007 - 08:21 ET by sarcasmoActually, my main point's about Novak, since it's a mystery to me why Armitage wasn't administratively-punished for the leak. Does Novak really need an asskissing phone call from the DCI instead of just a request?? Why has that been so-forgiven by conservatives and so-ignored by their lefty critics, who are so fixated on this "Scooter" guy, I agree. If the CIA asked me to not-say something I know, even in the middle of a war I'm not really "for," I'd probably just do it assuming they have pretty good reasons. Whatever I did, I would not need a personal call from the director. What am I missing?
JMR
Why is it in all those spy mo
July 16, 2007 - 08:46 ET by stratmanWhy is it in all those spy movies do foreign government officials treat all Americans as spies for the US, but in real life, Valerie Plame, wife of a diplomat, was not regarded as a spy as a given?
This whole debacle is more "Get Smart" than "007". Maybe Novak wanted Tenent to talk with him under the "cone of silence". What a joke.
You do have a point about not publishing something the CIA asks you not to publish. What was Novak's motivation? Did he want to stick it to Jerk Wilson? There's not one scintilla of evidence that Novak was "directed" by any government official so that angle would mean Novak disliked Wilson personally. Maybe Novak is as big a weasel as any other journalist when it comes to ego over common sense. Maybe he just needed something to fill a column and the Plame story was a braindead toss-off.
I guess you'll have to buy Novak's book to find out.
Sarc - I agree with you tha
July 16, 2007 - 08:51 ET by Dee BunkSarc - I agree with you that it's probably not right for Novak to print a name when asked not to, but not illegal. He found out her name through his own interview that was not off the record, so I think that is the difference where he felt justified to reveal it. Many people don't want their names used in stories, but they don't have a choice if the reporter discovers it on their own. Novak probably knows what is customary because he deals with the CIA all the time and I'm sure he has received plenty of phone calls when it was important.
It does bother me that there are so many loose lips in the CIA and other parts of the government, especially during war time. In this case, Wilson's bogus claims were more dangerous to our efforts than revealing Plame's name. It explained Wilson's motivation for manufacturing the report and how it all came about. The true story was about how the Wilson trip and report were partisan (and false) and Novak understood that. I think he felt what the two of them conspired to do was wrong and that she should be accountable for it. Obviously the rest of the media had no problem with Wilson's maufactured report that was proven to be bogus.
It explained Wilson's motivat
July 16, 2007 - 09:25 ET by pbanks7It explained Wilson's motivation for manufacturing the report and how it all came about.
That's it in a nutshell.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
When this story broke in the
July 16, 2007 - 08:29 ET by stratmanWhen this story broke in the news, I wondered why Novak wasn't charged or at least more publically involved in the judicial process. Turns out he (and Armitage) wasn't punished by the legal system because there was no crime perpetrated on his part. Initially I thought Novak should be severely punished for a serious breach in our nation's covert abilities. Then I discovered it was me who was manipulated by the MSM into a fallicy implemented by the MSM to further their agenda against Bush and Co..
I would bet dollars to doughnuts that as an operational policy, the CIA does not want any of its employee's names published, whether they be covert "spies" or the janitor. Any of their employee's can be targeted and manipulated by malevolent individuals. Why make it any easier to identify middle management, which is what Plame could be considered.
Novak did take a hit in his credibility and TV appearances following his walking off CNN's "Inside Politics" where James Carville, Democrat hit man extraodinaire, had been hammering him. That was in August of 2005. Novak essentially dissappeared from TV, at least free broadcast TV (don't have cable or satellite) for 2 years. He appeared this weekend to front his new book and participate in a roundtable discussion on Meet The Press where the discourse was civil and nonaccussatory. Then again, no one challenged big head Russert either.
Armitage's Boss
July 16, 2007 - 08:53 ET by billbDon't forget for whom Armitage worked.....Colin Powell, the darling of the MSM, who is still trying to convince the world that he was tricked into making those famous claims at the UN! I think the real conspiracy story is Powell,Armitage,Tenent,NBC.
True, but doesn't Colin Pow
July 16, 2007 - 08:59 ET by sarcasmoTrue, but doesn't Colin Powell work for President Bush? One would think they'd have found an administrative punishment for leaking. Call me dumb, but I still don't get why Armitage wasn't sanctioned at all...
JMR
I wouldn't go that far. I
July 16, 2007 - 09:04 ET by Dee BunkI wouldn't go that far. I think Powell is above board and honest. I haven't seen him trying to convince anyone he was tricked. I've only seen the MSM imply it. Any interview that he has had he has said that he is embarrassed that some of the information turned out to be false but never implied that he was tricked or that anyone in the Bush admin did anything wrong.
I don't know enough about Armitage, but I doubt he was conspiring either or he wouldn't have admitted that Plame influenced Wilson's trip.
Wilson/Plame definite conspiracy. MSM didn't conspire with them but got duped because they were telling them what they wanted to hear. It does seem to be a MSM conspiracy to keep the real truth hidden now. They don't want to admit they were so easily duped.
I am so freaking sick of li
July 16, 2007 - 08:45 ET by WiggyI am so freaking sick of liberals puffing their chests over this non story.
The standard liberal argument
July 16, 2007 - 09:47 ET by KC MulvilleThe standard liberal argument here is that Armitage’s leak to Novak is completely separate from the Libby’s leak to Russert. In that argument, there were several leaks going on at the same time, and that while Armitage’s was unintentional, Libby’s was clearly a deliberate attempt to discredit Plame and Wilson. That’s how liberals explain away the difference. But that argument fails because neither case was a crime. If neither leak was a crime, then it doesn’t matter what the motivations were.
Plame and the dead horse
July 16, 2007 - 10:20 ET by econ 101When will this horse stop getting beat. Another horse is the 8 or 9 canned AG. When there is real issue facing America. The Dims answers are lets diggup some meanless horse beatings and keep on bring it up to make the RIGHT look bad.
Can anyone truely state what the DIM party has to offer? And the offer cannt be be Bush bashing, LIBs Bush is a lame duck.
FOX NEWS is news. MSM is Jerry Springer crap
WWW.FAIRTAX.ORG
}}----> Horse Beatings
July 16, 2007 - 10:30 ET by Cool ArrowMaybe we could borrow Trigger from the Roy Rogers museum. Put him on the Capitol steps and let Harriet Reid spank him with his quirt of angel hair pasta.
OOOOH you've been a naughty horse, Trigger.
I only wish I could have my
July 16, 2007 - 14:37 ET by ckc1227I only wish I could have my career "ruined" to the tune of millions of dollars like poor little Plamey. Sheesh, "Plamegate" is the best thing that ever happened to this woman.
Noel, 8 days after "Mission to Niger"
July 16, 2007 - 15:46 ET by Gary HallEight days after "Mission to Niger.
Noel. I'm thinking about your nice summary here (not a correction, by the way. Well, maybe so). We all know how the MSM so loves and holds in high esteem the "intellectual views of former Pres. Bill Clinton. Clinton had something to offer here. (Copied below) I believe it was a fair shot at the reality of how silly little things can become big things, in politics (which is what this was always about), and Clinton made a rather solid effort here in expressing the view that the entire Wilson/Niger/16 word SOTU was a non-issue. It's been hashed. There is really no story here, and let's move on and work together on the big important issues.
Here, once again, as I'm sure you will agree, the media - this same media which would have jumped all over Bill Clinton's words - had he taken the Joe Wilson side of the issue - and utilized them to attack the Bush administration on the issue, instead, made the decision to ignore them. Perhaps on hundreds of occasions, in one print story, one Sunday morning discussion, one editorial after another, the media could have entered into the conversation, "But what about what President Clinton had to say on the matter? Isn't this really not an issue right now, and wouldn't we be better served to get on with the important issues facing us right now in Iraq?"
Eight days after "Mission to Niger," Bill Clinton appeared on Larry King Live (my bold). Clinton, at this juncture, would have been well aware of Joe Wilson's trip and his subsequent column.
So, what did the media decide to do? How about just about everything that they could do to:
Everything in their power to keep the American public divided.
Everything in their power to keep the Joe Wilson political effort to damage the President and his effort to bring stability and democracy to Iraq.
Everything in their power to ignore and to keep from the American public any and all views which shed light on the true facts involved with this issue, so that there could be no bi-partisanship over the Iraq issue, so that Americans (and the world) would find it very difficult to be ".. pulling for America on this. We should be pulling for the people of Iraq.
The MSM - Pulling for Joe Wilson. Pulling for the Democrat party. Pulling for divisiveness in America.