Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CIA leak: Now it can be told; Novak reveals in new book how the secret unfolded
Chicago Sun-TImes ^ | July 8th, 2007 | Robert D. Novak

Posted on 07/08/2007 10:36:02 PM PDT by FreedomCalls

When I went to my office Monday, July 7, 2003, Joe Wilson was not in the forefront of my mind. Frances Fragos Townsend was. She had just been named deputy national security adviser at the White House though her background was in liberal Democratic politics, including Attorney General Janet Reno's inner circle during the Clinton administration. Her appointment was a political mystery of the kind I had been exploring for forty years in my column.

I wrote the Townsend column Tuesday morning because I had a busy schedule the rest of the day, including a 3 p.m. appointment with Richard Armitage, deputy secretary of state. I had no idea what a big event it would turn out to be.

Armitage was less guarded
I asked to see Armitage early in the George W. Bush administration and repeated my request after the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. Armitage and Colin Powell, the new secretary of state and Armitage's close friend, were widely perceived as being out of step with the rest of the administration about military intervention in Iraq.

I had ready access to Powell, in person and over the telephone, but he was circumspect in what he said to me, while Armitage had a reputation for being less guarded in conversations with journalists. Armitage rebuffed me, not with the customary evasion of claiming an overly full schedule but by his secretary making clear that he simply did not want to see me. I assumed that Armitage bracketed me, a notoriously conservative columnist, with the Iraqi war hawks who were unsympathetic toward his views. If so, he had somehow missed my written and spoken criticism of the Iraqi intervention.

Then, in the last week of June 2003, Armitage's office called to agree unexpectedly to my request and set up the appointment for July 8.

Neither of us set ground rules
It is important to note that Armitage reached out to me before Joe Wilson went public on the New York Times op-ed page and on "Meet the Press" with an account of his Niger report that he said contradicted 16 words in Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address: ("The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa.")

I was ushered into Armitage's big State Department inner office promptly at 3 p.m. Neither of us set ground rules 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. During a long career, I had come to appreciate that sort of thing in countless interviews without putting it into so many words. I viewed what Armitage told me to be just as privileged as if he had made me swear a blood oath.

Armitage was giving me high-level insider gossip, unusual in a first meeting. About halfway through our session, I brought up Bush's sixteen words. What Armitage told me generally confirmed what I had learned from sources the previous day while I was reporting for the Fran Townsend column.

I then asked Armitage a question that had been puzzling me but, for the sake of my future peace of mind, would better have been left unasked.

Why would the CIA send Joseph Wilson, not an expert in nuclear proliferation and with no intelligence experience, 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 CIA?" I asked. "Yeah, in counterproliferation."

He mentioned her first name, Valerie. Armitage smiled and said: "That's real Evans and Novak, isn't it?" I believe he meant that was the kind of inside information that my late partner, Rowland Evans, and I had featured in our column for so long. I interpreted that as meaning Armitage expected to see the item published in my column.

The exchange about Wilson's wife lasted no more than sixty seconds.

I never spoke to Armitage again about Wilson. But he acknowledged to me nearly three months later through his political adviser, lobbyist Ken Duberstein, that he was indeed the primary source for my information about Wilson's wife. Shortly thereafter, he secretly revealed his role to federal authorities investigating the leak of Mrs. Wilson's name but did not inform White House officials, apparently including the president.

After Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago named as a special prosecutor in the case, indicated to me he knew Armitage was my source, I cooperated fully with him. At the special prosecutor's request and on my lawyers' advice, I kept silent about this -- a silence that subjected me to much abuse. I was urged by several friends, including some journalists, to give up my source's name. But I felt bound by the journalist's code to protect his identity.

Reprinted from The Prince of Darkness: 50 Years Reporting in Washington, Copyright © 2007 by Robert D. Novak. Published by Crown Forum, a division of Random House Inc., available in bookstores Tuesday.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: armitage; bookdeals; buymybook; cia; cialeak; fitzmas; getrove; joewilsonliar; joewilsonlied; nepotism; nifongism; nigerflap; novak; partisanwitchhunt; plame; plameleak; richardarmitage; robertnovak; shadowgovernment; theprinceofdarkness; therestofthestory; valerieplame
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-110 next last
Now we know.
1 posted on 07/08/2007 10:36:06 PM PDT by FreedomCalls
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
I never spoke to Armitage again about Wilson. But he acknowledged to me nearly three months later through his political adviser, lobbyist Ken Duberstein, that he was indeed the primary source for my information about Wilson's wife. Shortly thereafter, he secretly revealed his role to federal authorities investigating the leak of Mrs. Wilson's name but did not inform White House officials, apparently including the president.

Fitzy? You got some 'splainin' to do.

2 posted on 07/08/2007 10:42:02 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Bostonian, atheist, prolifer, free-speech zealot, pro-legal immigration anti-socialist dude.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
"That's real Evans and Novak, isn't it?"

So Armitage wanted it out in public. Fritz you got some explaining to do.

3 posted on 07/08/2007 10:44:30 PM PDT by skimask ("Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated"....George Bernard Shaw)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

From the man who cost the tax payers millions, made the Wilsons rich and mayhave cost the Republicans votes in 2006. No thanks Novak.


4 posted on 07/08/2007 10:45:58 PM PDT by Brimack34
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
Novak is a scumbag of the first order.

This sanctimonious blather is just one more aspect of this over-the-hill- putrid piece of dung covering his six, and, of course, distancing himself from harm’s way!

How I despise these political hacks. Novak would sell his mother for a thin dime — and not blink an eye in the transaction.

5 posted on 07/08/2007 10:46:45 PM PDT by dk/coro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
Fitzy? You got some 'splainin' to do.

Senator Leahy is hinting that the may call him to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Fitzgerald May Testify on Prosecution of Libby Case, Leahy Says

By John Hughes
July 8 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald may be called to testify about his prosecution of former vice presidential aide Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said.

Leahy and Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican on the panel, indicated they want to ... quiz Fitzgerald on his handling of the case.

``I still haven't figured out what that case is all about,'' Specter said. ``There are a lot of ramifications that I think we ought to go into. Why were they pursuing the matter long after there was no underlying crime on the outing of the CIA agent? Why were they pursuing it after we knew who the leaker was?''


6 posted on 07/08/2007 10:48:41 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dk/coro

Always saw Novak as a joke-pushed on us by CNN who wanted a Thurston Howell the 3rd type to push the “out of touch” rich country club republican stereotype. It went well with the “golly gee willikers” bow tie whitebread boy. What a combo.


7 posted on 07/08/2007 10:50:22 PM PDT by icwhatudo (The rino borg...is resistance futile?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
``I still haven't figured out what that case is all about,'' Specter said. ``There are a lot of ramifications that I think we ought to go into. Why were they pursuing the matter long after there was no underlying crime on the outing of the CIA agent? Why were they pursuing it after we knew who the leaker was?''

ONG--you mean me and Arlen Specter agree on something? And he's NOT attacking a Republican?

(grasping chest) This is the big one, 'Lizabeth! I'm comin' ta join ya, honey!

8 posted on 07/08/2007 10:54:20 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Bostonian, atheist, prolifer, free-speech zealot, pro-legal immigration anti-socialist dude.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dk/coro
How I despise these political hacks. Novak would sell his mother for a thin dime — and not blink an eye in the transaction.

Yep, Novak is scum, and so is Armitage.

9 posted on 07/08/2007 10:56:05 PM PDT by GATOR NAVY (Hey! Must be a devil between us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo

Amen. Novack could barely get a sentence out that didn’t sound like the blathering of a rich country club Republican, and Carlson was a spineless jellyfish whose voice cracked when he managed to say anything with any kind of substance. The audience was usually laughing at them.


10 posted on 07/08/2007 10:56:08 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Bostonian, atheist, prolifer, free-speech zealot, pro-legal immigration anti-socialist dude.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

The Republicans blew their chance to subpoena Valerie and Joe to appear before a congressional committee and explain, under OATH, their various roles in the Niger affair.

If Plame were indeed a ‘covert agent’ of the CIA, her testimony would have been limited to her role in getting her husband, Joe Wilson, the job nomination to go to Niger.
(The CIA would have requested that no questions about her covert position be raised or mentioned, and the committee would probably have agreed to it). Apparently they didn’t.

However, no one knows WHEN Plame was a ‘cover operative’ or “agent”, and there is a great deal of significance in the difference betweent them.

Joe Wilson would have lied under OATH about who suggested him for his trip for the CIA, etc., and he would have gone to jail, but the Republicans, trying to be gentlemen in a whorehouse fight, missed their best chance to explode the lies that the Wilsons perpetrated, aided and abetted by the Democrats. Stupid is as stupid does.

Fitzgerald might be found guilty of malicious prosecution because he knew that Armitage, not Libby, revealed Plame’s name as a CIA employee, and failed to tell the grand jury about it (the grand jury would probably NOT have indicted Libby if they had known this). This is a crime by Fitz and he should pay for it (i.e. Nifong did the same thing in the Duke case, and see what was done to him).

Armitage should have had the guts to stand up like a man and say that he was the one who mentioned Plame’s name, not Libby. He is a coward!

If any congressional republicans have any remaining guts, they will raise the Fitzgerald and Plame/Wilson issues in upcoming congressional hearings and DEMAND that they be put under OATH to answer for their actions.

Gee, lunatic secrets leaker Sen. Leahy is doing that to White House staff right now, so why not demand the same rights of hearings and questioning of the Wilson crew and Fittzy?)

If you want to play in the big leagues, you’ve got to play to win. The Republicans have lost their desire to win, only to survive. Whimps, whusses, and losers.

I hope that Fred Thompson has the guts to raise the Plame/Wilson and Fitzgerald acts of misconduct and lying in his presidential campaign, and the COVERUP by the Democrats in their congressional hearings and press conferences.

Take no prisoners!!


11 posted on 07/08/2007 10:59:35 PM PDT by MadMax, the Grinning Reaper (Madmax, the Grinning Reaper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

Spector is actually having a moment of clarity and sanity? Say it’s true. I don’t know if I can stand “the big one” (a la Red Foxx).

Did this wimpy Republican senator get a cochanes transplant over the weekend?


12 posted on 07/08/2007 11:02:07 PM PDT by MadMax, the Grinning Reaper (Madmax, the Grinning Reaper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo

As far as I know, Novak has always been a Democrat.


13 posted on 07/08/2007 11:02:40 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Implement the FairTax and be free and prosperous, or stick with the StupidTax...it's up to you...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Max Friedman

Fitzgerald = Nifong. Malicious prosecution.


14 posted on 07/08/2007 11:05:51 PM PDT by Poincare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Max Friedman
Great post.

Indeed, during the primary season, if Thompson brings up this issue, with his background, it can solidify party support. Libby is so obviously a victim here, not only of Fitzy but from jurors who openly admitted they really wanted to see Cheney or Bush prosecuted.

I wish i knew why the Republicans didn't call Plame and Wilson. That the Democrats didn't shows they know they're not all the media have made them out to be, and would hurt rather than help their 'Bush lied" cause.

15 posted on 07/08/2007 11:11:30 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Bostonian, atheist, prolifer, free-speech zealot, pro-legal immigration anti-socialist dude.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Max Friedman

The fact that Armitage was not prosecuted pretty much proves that she was NOT a covert op.


16 posted on 07/08/2007 11:12:51 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Max Friedman
The Republicans blew their chance to subpoena Valerie and Joe to appear before a congressional committee and explain, under OATH, their various roles in the Niger affair.

That's right. "Republican" Tom Davis, who was Chairman of the House Oversight Committee before the Dems took over, couldn't be bothered to compel the Wilsons to tell the truth under oath. He also couldn't be bothered to get around to why Sandy Berger was able to walk around free until he was a lame duck. The lazy bum didn't even stick around in April to counter current chairpig Henry Waxman when he accused Victoria Toensing of lying under oath.

17 posted on 07/08/2007 11:18:56 PM PDT by L.N. Smithee (Has George W. Bush been taking Carter's Little Pills?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

Wilson’s report admits that the Iraqi’s had contact the Africans to try to obtain additional yellow cake. {They had obtained a lot of yellow cake from them previously. Now was that yellow cake obtained via legal means?}

Wilson’s main thrust of his report was to emphasize that there was no CONTRACT made between the two governments. Perhaps they used some other word for it, or had a cut out agent so that each dealt with a third party - Wilson for example.

Did Wilson ever try to contact the White House - or did he just instead complain in the press.

And isn’t that unusual for the press to give him that much space for an unproven claim on his part?


18 posted on 07/08/2007 11:18:57 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Max Friedman
You have the elements of this case as clear as crystal. One thing I question is the testimony of the various reporters during the grand jury investigation and the Libby perjury trial. I wonder how many inconsistencies in testimony occurred from these reporters? Why is there no question about such inconsistencies? It is these types of inconsistencies in testimony that got Libby found guilty. And it was the testimony of reporters that were used to prove Libby’s perjury. It seems as if perjury could be found in the testimony of these reporters if you looked close enough.
19 posted on 07/08/2007 11:37:43 PM PDT by jonrick46
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad
Read this:

Wilsongate: Motive, Means, and Opportunity

20 posted on 07/08/2007 11:40:36 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

“Why would the CIA send Joseph Wilson, not an expert in nuclear proliferation and with no intelligence experience, on the mission to Niger?” Novak wrote.

That bad assunption on Novak’s part is the answer
to your observations. Wilson was the expert helping
with his consulting firm, tied up with Cogema
and Niger, to aid nuclear proliferation. YK was
gotton by Saddam, sent by truck in secret from Niger
to Libya, where saddam and Libya were trying to
build a bomb.Saddam paid Cogema who ran the mines
for Niger, Saddam had money sent to Libya, had his nuke scientists there. Wilson consulting got his cut.
Reporters have wondered how Joe lives like a billionaire.
He and wife and CIA who were in on it used his
junket to coverup traiterous activity. Ed


21 posted on 07/08/2007 11:41:41 PM PDT by hubel458
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: hubel458

Any links on the Saddam-Libyan joint nuke project? I’d love to see this explored further.


22 posted on 07/08/2007 11:57:21 PM PDT by cookcounty (No journalist ever won a prize for reporting the facts. --Telling big stories? Now that's huge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
What an extraordinary world that is inhabited by the likes of Novak, Armitage and Fitzgerald.

Novak conducts an interview in which no ground rules were established, he nevertheless assumes unspoken, unrequested ground rules and determines from his assumptions that he may not reveal his source. The unspoken ground rules do, however, not only permit him to publish the leak, but to do so would be in accordance with the desires of the leaker. None of this was ever revealed. Why not?

Novak watches the whole of the nation turn inside out as the result of his publishing disclosures made during that interview but he says nothing. He watches reporters go to jail to protect their sources who, Novak well knows, had nothing to do with the original leak, and, evidently, says nothing in private to the prosecutor or in public to the nation. He does not tell the world that the prosecutor already knows who the leaker was. He does not tell the world that the reporter in jail had nothing to do with the original leak. Why not?

As reporters go to jail and public servants are repeatedly brought before grand juries, still Novak says nothing in public to the effect that the prosecutor is running rabbits at a cost of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds and gross disruption of the national administration. Surely he is not proscribed from this public service even by his own assumptions about the ground rules of his interview with Armitage. Why not?

Novak does not tell the public that his leaker was not part of a neocon conspiracy, that his leaker was opposed in principle to the war, that there was no dastardly administration plot to punish Joe Wilson through his wife, Valerie Plane. Why not?

Novak continued to act on his assumptions about the ground rules of this interview, or more accurately put, he continued not to act because of his assumptions about the ground rules of the interview. By his own admission he did not return to Mr. Armitage to clarify the ground rules of the interview. We know this because he declares that he never spoke to Mr. Armitage on this subject again. Why not?

For his part why did Armitage not speak out? True, at some point he went to the special prosecutor and revealed that he was the leaker, but why did he not go to the president? Why did he not release his involvement to the public and save his president from the loss of public support and the consequent inability to conduct the war? Was He Bound by the Prosecutor ? Was be bound by a general admonition from the president? The prosecutor certainly cannot compel silence from witnesses. Why in the face of this national turmoil would Armitage feel bound to respect any such admonition from the prosecutor? If the president had issued such a directive, Armitage must have known that it was based on imperfect knowledge which he alone could rectify simply by informing the president. He did not. Why not?

Why did Fitzgerald continue with his inquisition? What was his brief from the Attorney General? Once he knew that Armitage was the leaker, he knew the there was no neocon plot to punish Wilson and Plame because Armitage was against the war. More importantly, he knew there was no underlying crime because Plame was not covert. Why did Fitzgerald persist?

Did Fitzgerald consider it to be his responsibility to criminalize the making of politics? Did Fitzgerald consider it a crime to be a neocon? To be for the war? To attempt to discredit your political enemies? The minute Fitzgerald knew there was no covert status, he knew there was no crime. At this point what was he conducting but an inquisition? Was this not a classic case of a special prosecutor conducting an investigation in search of a crime?

The only explanation for all of these questions that occurs to me is to recall at the time there was a classic media frenzy underway lead by the New York Times. Bush succumbed and the rest is history. All the rest of the players were caught in the maelstrom of a media storm which immobilized them from doing their patriotic duty.


23 posted on 07/09/2007 12:00:24 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Novak does not tell the public that his leaker was not part of a neocon conspiracy, that his leaker was opposed in principle to the war, that there was no dastardly administration plot to punish Joe Wilson through his wife, Valerie Plane. Why not?

because the moment Novak revealed that there was no story, that's the moment no one is interested in Robert Novak, again.

Great post, NB. Sums it all up succinctly. Too bad the national media couldn't get such a handle on this story, and instead we get the endless "Did the Bush administration blow the cover of a covert CIA operative?" BS for years.

24 posted on 07/09/2007 12:11:43 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Bostonian, atheist, prolifer, free-speech zealot, pro-legal immigration anti-socialist dude.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

Perhaps they used some other word for it, or had a cut out agent so that each dealt with a third party - Wilson for example.


This was not the first time Joe Wilson went to Niger.
Each time it was on private company business.
Once during the Clinton Admin, then this one during the Bush Admin.

Each time the CIA had him ‘spy’ on Niger. Each time her reported the same thing. Each time Saddam’s stock of yellow cake grew.

What ‘private company business’ was Joe going to Niger for?

What does his company do?


25 posted on 07/09/2007 12:50:14 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (It's turtles all the way down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

Perhaps they used some other word for it, or had a cut out agent so that each dealt with a third party - Wilson for example.


This was not the first time Joe Wilson went to Niger.
Each time it was on private company business.
Once during the Clinton Admin, then this one during the Bush Admin.

Each time the CIA had him ‘spy’ on Niger. Each time her reported the same thing. Each time Saddam’s stock of yellow cake grew.

What ‘private company business’ was Joe going to Niger for?

What does his company do?


26 posted on 07/09/2007 12:50:14 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (It's turtles all the way down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

bad keyboard, bad, bad.


27 posted on 07/09/2007 12:50:44 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (It's turtles all the way down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
What ‘private company business’ was Joe going to Niger for? What does his company do?

See the link in number 20.

28 posted on 07/09/2007 12:53:13 AM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: hubel458

Well.

You just summed the whole damn thing up in one nice paragraph.

First time I’ve seen someone here on FR with a clear understanding of the situation.


29 posted on 07/09/2007 12:53:21 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (It's turtles all the way down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

.


30 posted on 07/09/2007 1:19:28 AM PDT by honolulugal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford; Darkwolf377
Novak does not tell the public that his leaker was not part of a neocon conspiracy, that his leaker was opposed in principle to the war, that there was no dastardly administration plot to punish Joe Wilson through his wife, Valerie Plane. Why not?

He did write that, actually. It was in the originial Niger column, and it was repeated in his second column on the subject. You would know if you ever read stuff instead of just commenting blindly, just like all the other morons on this thread.

I've rarely seen so much BS in one place. If it's not the black helicopter people, it's the people who blame the reporter of the story instead of the principals involved -- the CIA losers who would send Wilson, the prosecutor, the lying Wilsons themselves, and then the former Attorney General and the President that let the special prosecutor run amok over a non-crime.

31 posted on 07/09/2007 1:33:44 AM PDT by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

That scumbag Armitage left Libby twist in the wind for two years.
Unforgivable.

That scumbag Fitzgerald wasted millions of taxpayer dollars “investigating” and “prosecuting” a “crime” that he knew early on had never even been committed! Anyway, he knew early on exactly who it was who had “leaked” Plame’s name in the first place.
Even more unforgivable.

Fitzfong should be in jail.


32 posted on 07/09/2007 1:36:39 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
I've rarely seen so much BS in one place. If it's not the black helicopter people, it's the people who blame the reporter of the story instead of the principals involved

The reporter CREATED a story by his silence, and his not revealing the complete story to head off a situation which the President refrained from interfering in until he did--which was precisely when he should have involved himself in the process.

33 posted on 07/09/2007 1:37:40 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Bostonian, atheist, prolifer, free-speech zealot, pro-legal immigration anti-socialist dude.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
That scumbag Fitzgerald wasted millions of taxpayer dollars “investigating” and “prosecuting” a “crime” that he knew early on had never even been committed! Anyway, he knew early on exactly who it was who had “leaked” Plame’s name in the first place.

I would like to know why he did this, and if someone put him up to it.

34 posted on 07/09/2007 1:40:28 AM PDT by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
Fitzy? You got some 'splainin' to do.

I guess that depends on the ground rules Fitz sets in order for him to testify. In the spirit of "cooperation, fairness and the need to get to the truth" which would probably wind up being a fancy way for Fitz covering his 6th.

I don't hold much hope of the Republicans stand up against this one either.
35 posted on 07/09/2007 1:42:13 AM PDT by Tut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tut
I don't hold much hope of the Republicans stand up against this one either.

Can't dispute you there.

The last election certainly did nothing to weaken the RINOs.

36 posted on 07/09/2007 1:43:15 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Bostonian, atheist, prolifer, free-speech zealot, pro-legal immigration anti-socialist dude.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

bookmark


37 posted on 07/09/2007 1:47:19 AM PDT by GiovannaNicoletta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

Perhaps the president, not Novak, is the one responsible for whether he was involved or not.

And again, Novak did reveal plenty in at least four columns on the subject, even while he was still keeping silent about specifics — if you bothered to read any of it, which I doubt.


38 posted on 07/09/2007 1:57:56 AM PDT by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
Why don't you produce a cite instead of libelling other posters as "morons"?


39 posted on 07/09/2007 1:58:08 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: hubel458; FreedomCalls; Nick Danger
Saddam's Shadow (Posted on the Free Republic on 12/04/2005 11:21:13 AM EST by SBD1; Source: Africa Energy & Mining, June 18, 1997, Indigo Publications, available online to subscribers of Lexis-Nexis Academic):
It's not only diamonds and base metals that interest big mining companies and the latter are not alone in being interested in Katanga. In the delegation that the United States sent to Kinshasa on June 2 under its ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson, the state department's African affairs department was represented by Marc Baas, director for Central Africa. (Susan Rice, director for African Affairs at the National Security Council, has just been appointed under secretary of state for African affairs in succession to George Moose). Baas was accompanied by a representative of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and several Defense Department officials. The mission also visited Lubumbashi and met with officials from Gecamines and provincial authorities.

AEM's sources claim it wasn't the small research reactor that General Electric installed in 1977 at the university of Kinshasa, and which ceased operating in 1990, that interested the NRC and the military men, but rather the Shinkolobwe uranium deposit. Its resources are negligible from a commercial viewpoint when weighed against those in Namibia and Niger and new discoveries like France's Cogema has just made in western Canada. They weren't negligible from the security standpoint, however. The Americans are concerned over a visit to Katanga by the head of the Iraqi Baath party's international relations section, Shabi Al Maliki, around a year ago. He, too, showed an interest in Katanga's uranium, and last February another high-ranking Iraqi official reportedly held talks in Kinshasa with the mines minister in the last government of the Mobutu era, Banza Mukalay. The uranium is thought to have also figured in Libya's proposals in 1995 to supply oil to Zaire in exchange for ore.


40 posted on 07/09/2007 1:59:09 AM PDT by Wallaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
After Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago named as a special prosecutor in the case, indicated to me he knew Armitage was my source, I cooperated fully with him. At the special prosecutor's request and on my lawyers' advice, I kept silent about this -- a silence that subjected me to much abuse. I was urged by several friends, including some journalists, to give up my source's name. But I felt bound by the journalist's code to protect his identity.

The jerkoff could have leaked it. I'm sure Novak has covered many leaks in his career. But Novak was happy to see the Bush Administration squirm and the Democrats (Chrissy@MSNBC was the most rabid) make propaganda over this mythical super spy Valerie Plame and her publicity hound husband

41 posted on 07/09/2007 2:00:07 AM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tut; Darkwolf377
I guess that depends on the ground rules Fitz sets in order for him to testify. In the spirit of "cooperation, fairness and the need to get to the truth" which would probably wind up being a fancy way for Fitz covering his 6th.

Wouldn't it be interesting, if Fitz will ask for and/or get an immunity from prosecution for false testimony, similar to the way Valerie Plame got immunized for her testimony to Congress / Waxman committee. That may be an ultimate goal of this Congressional "investigations", besides creating yet another hypocritical media storm, to inoculate the perpetrators of a real crime - witchhunt and persecution of and attempted coup against the White House and OVP - from potential investigation and prosecution.

42 posted on 07/09/2007 2:05:11 AM PDT by CutePuppy (If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Look it up yourself, it’s not my problem that you don’t read.

The original July column and the one he wrote a few months later in 2003. “Not a partisan gunslinger” was the formulation in the first one. The clear implication is that the source was not Rove or anyone ideologically or politically involved. I assumed at the time that it was Colin Powell.


43 posted on 07/09/2007 2:11:05 AM PDT by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

>>>The only explanation for all of these questions that occurs to me is to recall at the time there was a classic media frenzy underway lead by the New York Times. Bush succumbed and the rest is history.<<<

Don’t believe it. Bush did not “succumb”. He was part of the conspiracy against the conservatives. How do you think Ted Kennedy wrote Bush’s so-called “Education Bill”. Why did Bush sign McCain-Feingold? Why did Bush support the Ted Kennedy Amnesty bill? Why did Bush expand LBJ’s “Destroy Society” agenda by implementing Medicare Prescripion Drugs? And why did Bush so adamantly support worldly agendas rather than supporting and defending our nation and our Constitution?

Because Bush is a Marxist. If you disagree, then compare Bush’s conservative positions against his leftist positions, and get back to me. But don’t even think about coming back to me with slurs and innuendos. Give me facts, or be silent.


44 posted on 07/09/2007 2:12:49 AM PDT by PhilipFreneau (God deliver our nation from the disease of liberalism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
Perhaps the president, not Novak, is the one responsible for whether he was involved or not. And again, Novak did reveal plenty in at least four columns on the subject, even while he was still keeping silent about specifics — if you bothered to read any of it, which I doubt.

You're very quick with the nasty put-downs, not too swift about how things work in this world.

I don't want the president getting involved in such cases--this one or any Democrat. You may like to live under a quasi-dictator, I do not.

I've followed this case quite closely, so please, keep your childish insults to a minimum and stick to the issue at hand.

Novak could have stepped forward and stopped this whole thing. He didn't. Instead he played coy.

You can defend him all your like. No one cares. You are under the delusion that you are the only authority on this topic. You are no such thing. You're merely a Novak water-carrier who would rather call people morons than admit that just maybe the one man who knew all the facts should have done more to prevent a prosecutor from going on a witch hunt.

Whatever you think, I don't really care. You show no particular insight into this story, only rudeness.

45 posted on 07/09/2007 2:22:24 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Bostonian, atheist, prolifer, free-speech zealot, pro-legal immigration anti-socialist dude.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

“For his part why did Armitage not speak out? True, at some point he went to the special prosecutor and revealed that he was the leaker, but why did he not go to the president?”
__________________________________________________________

IIRC, and I’m only working from memory on this, didn’t the Special Prosecutor’s Office try to notify the WH about Armitage but was rebuffed because they (the WH) did not want to appear to be exerting any influence whatever on the investigation?


46 posted on 07/09/2007 2:25:44 AM PDT by Roccus (Dealing with politicians IS the War On Terror!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Max Friedman

Arlen Specter just might be on meds that distort his mind. More than a few Congress Critters are. Michael Savage often makes this point

Voinovich would be another. John Kyl too perhaps. On the Dem side. Hillary for hyperthyroid and Obama’s wife


47 posted on 07/09/2007 2:26:00 AM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Max Friedman

Phil Spector?


48 posted on 07/09/2007 2:26:41 AM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Why did Fitzgerald continue with his inquisition?

Political Revenge

The Pending Marc Rich Attack

There's a talking point that the more complicit or credulous among the press corps are propagating: It suggests Libby is a really nice (or really clever) man because of the work he did getting Marc Rich pardoned. In placing the Rich pardon at the center of pre-trial coverage, though, I suspect Libby's team wants to suggest that Libby's indictment was direct retaliation for the work Libby did to get Rich a pardon.

This point is made explicitly in the WSJ's recent opinion piece.

As it happens, Messrs. Fitzgerald and Libby had crossed legal paths before. Before he joined the Bush Administration, Mr. Libby had, for a number of years in the 1980s and 1990s, been a lawyer for Marc Rich. Mr. Rich is the oil trader and financier who fled to Switzerland in 1983, just ahead of his indictment for tax-evasion by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Bill Clinton pardoned Mr. Rich in 2001, and so the feds never did get their man. The pardon so infuriated Justice lawyers who had worked on the case that the Southern District promptly launched an investigation into whether the pardon had been "proper." One former prosecutor we spoke to described the Rich case as "the single most rancorous case in the history of the Southern District."

Two of the prosecutors who worked on the Rich case over the years were none other than Mr. Fitzgerald and James Comey, who while Deputy Attorney General appointed Mr. Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame leak. Mr. Fitzgerald worked in the Southern District for five years starting in 1988, at the same time that Mr. Libby was developing a legal theory of Mr. Rich's innocence in a bid to get the charges dropped. The prosecutors never did accept the argument, but Leonard Garment, who brought Mr. Libby onto the case in 1985, says that he believes Mr. Libby's legal work helped set the stage for Mr. Rich's eventual pardon.

49 posted on 07/09/2007 2:27:13 AM PDT by Major_Risktaker (Global Warming is a cover story for Peak Oil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier; nathanbedford
“Not a partisan gunslinger” was the formulation in the first one. The clear implication is that the source was not Rove or anyone ideologically or politically involved.

Novak's was an incredibly weak assertion, and certainly not something anyone would take as the final word on the situation. At the time, most people assumed he was trying to divert attention--the response was not 'Ah, so that's it.'

His weakness in this line you quote doesn't support the assertion that Novak did all he could to stop this outrageous prosecution. In fact it was to Novak's advantage that the identity continue to be obfuscated...as we see by the book he's got coming out.

50 posted on 07/09/2007 2:27:20 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Bostonian, atheist, prolifer, free-speech zealot, pro-legal immigration anti-socialist dude.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-110 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson