Skip to comments.Bob in Paradise: How Novak created his own ethics-free zone. (Hit piece, but interesting)
Posted on 01/01/2005 4:14:54 PM PST by The Loan Arranger
Robert Novak was in high dudgeon. He and his colleagues on CNN's The Capital Gang were squabbling over whether CBS should have run a story on President George W. Bush's National Guard service, a story which relied on documents whose authenticity had come into question. Novakthe show's resident curmudgeon, outfitted with a three-piece suit and permanently arched eyebrowdelivered his verdict. I'd like CBS, at this point, to say where they got those documents from, he growled. I think they should say where they got these documents because I thought it was a very poor job of reporting by CBS. Resident liberal Al Hunt jumped in to clarify. Robert Novak, he asked, you're saying CBS should reveal its source? When Novak replied that he was, Hunt pressed him further. You think reporters ought to reveal sources? In a flash, Novak realized he had made a mistake; he began to backtrack. No, no, wait a minute, he said. I'm just saying in that case. So in some cases, Hunt continued, reporters should reveal their sourcesbut not in all cases? That's right, said Novak.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonmonthly.com ...
CBS's source passed phony info. Is anyone saying Novak's source lied?
So, there's no difference between lies and truth?
Thank you, Washington Monthly, for revealing this belief so candidly to your readers.
If only CBS would do the same.
When a source lies to a news organization, their ethics should required revelation. That is, for those that have any.
Would they have us believe that they feel obligated to protect someone that duped them? Their "source" (aka DNC) made that dream in which one suddenly realizes that he's naked in a crowed room a reality for them. They won't reveal their source because doing so would be worse than the original fiasco - it would prove that they're in bed with the Democrats.
<< ... By exposing the name of Wilson's wifeValerie PlameNovak not only put an end to her undercover work on weapons-of-mass-destruction issues, possibly putting at risk the lives of any foreign sources who may have cooperated with her. >>
What utter rubbish.
Plame was "outed" by Wilson, was never an "undercover" "agent" -- more of a bum-on-a-seat clerk -- and sent only her bum-on-an-aeroplane--seat junketing and serial lying dnc-activist "spouse" into the [Niger-pub-crawl] "field."
Read part of it, enough to see it's just another leftie hit-piece on Novak, who the left apparently considers an important conservative. I don't consider him either important or conservative. The only interesting thing to me about this piece was the continual double standard of the left, and their constant attacks on all aspects of the right, including some gratuitous snotty remarks about the Swift Boat veterans For Truth. The left really hates those American heroes. Molly ivens called them the "swift boat liars" again the other day. How about an original thought, you drunken old dyke?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I don't mind Novak being forced by law to reveal his sources, but you'd have to have reciprocity and require lefty journalists to reveal their sources. I think the left would refuse the deal. So: deal or no deal??
Why does this girl's name ring a bell with me?
Just another left-wing hit piece. The left wing press hates Bob Novak for obvious reasons.
Its drives them insane that their little attack on Bush and Novak had backfired.
The whole Wilson/Phlame situation was a tempest in tea pot from the very beginning.
"Would they have us believe that they feel obligated to protect someone that duped them?"
I think they would have us believe exactly that. I also think that they are protecting one of their own, and that they weren't duped, they knew all along that the "documents" were fakes.
Mission to Niger
July 14, 2003
The CIA leak
October 1, 2003
Novak Recuses Self from CIA Leak Probe
Posted by Scott Ott
December 31, 2003
Judge Upholds Media Subpoenas in CIA Leak Case (PLAME/WILSON)
Reuters ^ | August 9, 2004 | James Vicini
Posted on 08/09/2004 12:30:56 PM PDT by cyncooper
Court Holds Reporter in Contempt in Leak Case (WILSON/PLAME)
Washington Post ^ | August 9, 2004 | Carol D. Leonnig
Posted on 08/09/2004 12:37:45 PM PDT by cyncooper
This Amy is a spiteful and deceitful little wench. A talking points recipient who slavishly donned kneepads and typed up her dishonest and malicious screed. As to this:
During the summer of 2003, someone in the Bush White House decided to extract a pound of flesh from former Amb. Joseph Wilson, a critic of the administration's rationale for the Iraq war, by revealing to members of the press that Wilson's wife was an undercover CIA agent
I will state that is a flat out lie. Amy even says it was the actual naming of Wilson's bride that put the end to her "career". Amy is dim enough or dishonest enough to ignore the odious Wilson listed Ms. Plame's whole name on his own bio online for the world to see.
The press must realize that soon Fitzgerald will hit pay dirt on the real story and they are starting to squeal.
I haven't read the whole thing yet---hang on, Amy says Cooper is also a contributor to Washington Monthly. Well, isn't THAT interesting. Cuz Amy falsely claims Miller at the Times wrote about the Wilson/Plame business, when she did not. Also Amy says Miller and Cooper were also recipients of the same leak Novak was. I'm pretty sure that has not been outright alleged (though one can surmise--which means it was NOT the WH) and it defies common sense that this WH, which does not leak, would leak something they ought not to the likes of Matt Cooper who is married to Mandy Grunewald.
/rant, off to read the rest.
Thanks for the alert.
If you ever figure this out, I expect you to post a dissertation on it.
Hope you're feeling better.
Thanks, I will write at length as the facts come out, I'm sure.
I've been waiting for the appellate court to rule if Miller's and Cooper's contempt citations stand or not. I'm getting better and will be ready for "real news" to hit soon.
But unlike journalists Dan Rather and Howell Raines, who provided full explanations and apologies once their errors were revealed
Dan Rather has provided a full explanation and apology? I missed it. Last I checked he apologized if the documents weren't real but stubbornly insisted (based on nothing) that the underlying charges remain true.
Good grief. I could go on, but Ms. Amy isn't worth the effort. She has demonstrated she is a propaganda whore for the left, facts be damned.
Whatever else you think of him, Novak was a moron to walk into that trap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.