Posted on 07/16/2005 9:37:20 AM PDT by Checkers
An interesting post by Cliff May:
"This morning, I have a piece up elsewhere on NRO showing that The Nation’s David Corn--not syndicated columnist Bob Novak--was the first to reveal that Valerie Plame was an undercover operative. It further suggests that David did so based on information provided to him by none other than Joseph C. Wilson IV.
While working on that piece, I had an exchange with David and, with his permission, I thought I’d share that with you. Dear David:
I have a question--one you may not be willing to answer but I’m curious so let me try:
Novak’s column said that Plame was an “Agency operative.” Novak claims he didn’t know--and didn’t mean to imply--that she was a covert agent.
Your piece, a few days later, says quite explicitly that Plame was “a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to nationally security.”
How did you know that?
- Cliff David responded:
Come on, Cliff. I'm disappointed in you--especially as a former NY Times reporter. Here's what I wrote:
Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security--and break the law--in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?
You will note that this is a question, not a statement of fact. David then quotes extensively from his piece, which I had already read several times and which you can find here.
I then sent him this message: Dear David,
You’re too loyal to acknowledge that Wilson was your source.
You’re also too honest to deny it.
Allbest,
Cliff David replied: You wrote:
You’re too loyal to acknowledge that Wilson was your source.
You’re also too honest to deny it.
All I can say again is, nice try. When I spoke to Joe Wilson after the Novak leak, he would not tell me whether or not his wife worked at the CIA. He spoke only in hypotheticals. He said, imagine if she did, what would this leak mean, AND imagine if she did not, what would this leak mean. So I do deny that he told me because he did not. That's the truth, the absolute truth. No spin. No parsing. No stonewalling. If you find any wiggle room in this response, let me know and I will unwiggle it. And you can believe it or not.
David
PS Mind if I write about our correspondence?
My final message to him: Dear David,
You’re a good reporter. You know when a hypothetical is really a confirmation.
When Wilson told you: “So, hypothetically, here’s what it what it would mean if my wife were a top-secret agent--which I’m not saying she was; and here’s what it would mean if she had been on undercover on dangerous missions tracking WMD purchases abroad--which, of course, I’m not saying ever happened; and here’s what the consequence would be for her extensive network of sources if she were exposed, though I’m still not confirming anything…”--you knew exactly what he was telling you with a wink and a nudge.
Bob Novak did not know that Plame was or had ever been an undercover agent. His sources didn’t tell him that. He did not write that she was an undercover agent. If he had known she was a secret agent of any sort he says he would never have published her name.
Novak has maintained all that consistently. I’ve disagreed with Bob Novak on many issues and on many occasions. I’ve debated him publicly--on the war in Iraq, among other things, where he probably is more in agreement with Wilson than with me.
But one thing about Bob Novak: He’s been around this town about 50 years. He’s a patriot. He would not knowingly burn a spy. And he doesn’t lie. You don’t stay a major media figure for half a century if you’re a liar.
Let me say this clearly: Novak did not know and did not reveal that Plame had been an undercover operative.
You were the first to reveal that.
You did that hypothetically, of course. You were just asking a question, of course. You didn’t know whether she was or was not what you called “a top-secret operative”--but you thought it sure would be interesting if you raised that possibility.
And how much more interesting if you accused the Bush administration of purposely leaking that information as a way to punish Wilson--which has been Wilson’s allegation all along-- since he claimed (falsely it turns out) Cheney’s office sent him to Niger.
You and I know that he shared all this with you and more--hypothetically, of course.
You got this snowball rolling, David. And it produced the avalanche you and Wilson expected it would. I give you full credit for that.
You certainly may write about our correspondence.
I may do that, too.
Allbest,
Cliff"
At the very least.
Maybe she should be "fried" with Joe, too.
I dislike David Corn intensely, and I think he is a snake. I hope he gets burned badly for his deception and smear.
He was being interviewed on FOX a couple of times yesterday morning, while I was listening to Rush. I usually have FOX on with the sound turned way down - and I was watching Corn's facial expressions and his body language. He was definitely squirming a lot - and his usual SMIRK was no where to be seen.
I think he's sweating it .. BIG TIME.
That's funny you mention that because I saw him for all of ten seconds yesterday and he looked shifty, not his usual smirking self. He always seems like a wiseass when he's got the goods on someone else, but he looked like someone looking for which direction the next punch was coming from.
OK, we believe you, but I haven't read anywhere that the MSM believe KOVAK leaked Plame. ;)
Who is Kovak?
In their hysteria, the Left is just hoisting itself on its own petard over this "story." This is so much fun to watch!
Hypothetically, lets say I did discover that Oscar Meyer hot dogs include roadkill cuisine. What would you say about it if it were true?
later read
| The Rove Scandal: Now I'm Smeared as the Leaker (David Corn sez NOT contacted by Fitzgerald!) ^ |
||
| Posted by Stultis On News/Activism ^ 07/16/2005 2:43:25 PM CDT · 23 replies · 504+ views Corn's Website/Blog ^ | 15 July 2005 | David Corn David Corn responding to Clifford May's column in National Review. Blah, blah, blah. Unconvincing. Those of you following this closely will want to read it for clues, but I'm only going to post what (to me) was the big news: Here's another fact that may interest anyone who thinks May might have a point:Number of times I've been contacted by Patrick Fitzgerald, interviewed or contacted by his investigators, and called before the grand jury: 0. What the h*ll is this? David Corn published an article only two days after Novak's column that exposed Plame in far greater detail than Novak... |
||
The toady with the towel who wipes up the ejaculate? (Or, from what might be inferred about Corn, maybe he didn't use a towel.)
Vanity Fair is going to regret every catering to those two Bozo's like Honey Baked Ham curses the day they signed a contract with OJ.
Remember: nobody--NOBODY--can digest Corn.
I remember talk that Wilson exposed her way back in an interview.
Wouldn't it be cool if corn got indicted?
Did these morons--Corn, Wilson, Plame & Co.--think they could go up against the close friend and adviser of the son of Super Spook George Herbert Walker Bush and win?
I nominate them all for Darwin Awards. They are toast.
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.