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

[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.

[hubel458]

“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

[cookcounty]

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

[nathanbedford]

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.

[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?

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.

[UCANSEE2]

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?

[UCANSEE2]

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?

[UCANSEE2]

bad keyboard, bad, bad.

[FreedomCalls]

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

See the link in number 20.

[UCANSEE2]

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.

[honolulugal]

.

[The Old Hoosier]

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.

[Lancey Howard]

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.

[Darkwolf377]

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.

[Cementjungle]

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.

[Tut]

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.

[Darkwolf377]

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.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

bookmark

[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.

[nathanbedford]

Why don't you produce a cite instead of libelling other posters as "morons"?

[Wallaby]

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.