Posted on 09/16/2006 6:42:57 AM PDT by Laverne
NEW YORK David Corn, co-author with Michael Isikoff of the new book "Hubris" that has made so much news lately, today heatedly denied what he called an old and false charge in the Wall Street Journal that he -- not Robert Novak -- outed Valerie Plame as a CIA operative.
In the Journal on Friday, Victoria Toensing, the attorney, wrote in a column, "The first journalist to reveal Ms. Plame was 'covert' was David Corn, on July 16, 2003, two days after Mr. Novak's column. The latter never wrote, because he did not know and it was not so, that Ms. Plame was covert. However, Mr. Corn claimed Mr. Novak 'outed' her as an 'undercover CIA officer,' querying whether Bush officials blew 'the cover of a U.S. intelligence officer working covertly in...national security.' Was Mr. Corn subpoenaed? Did Mr. Fitzgerald subpoena Mr. Wilson to attest he had never revealed his wife's employment to anyone? If he had done so, he might have learned Mr. Corn's source."
On his Web site, Corn, the Washington editor of The Nation, writes that he has long been friendly with Toensing, and so, "I am disheartened to see her embracing a rather idiotic conservative talking point and ignoring basic facts to tag me as the true culprit in the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson. It is an argument that defies logic and the record. But it is an accusation that pro-Bush spinners have used to defend the true leakers and columnist Bob Novak, the conveyor of the leak.
"This is a canard that has been previously advanced by other conservatives--all to absolve Novak and the actual leakers (mainly Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, not Richard Armitage). And you see the suggestion: that Joe Wilson told me that his wife was an undercover CIA officer and that I then disclosed this information to the public. I've debunked this before. But for Toensing's benefit, I'll go through this again--though I doubt it will do much good."
The full explanation can be found at www.davidcorn.com. In a nutshell, Corn notes that Novak had already described Plame as a "CIA operative," which essentially means she was covert.
"At this point," he adds, "her cover--whatever it might have been--was blown to bits. The fact that Novak did not state she was a 'covert' operative is utterly meaningless. (Does the CIA employ non-secret 'operatives'?)"
Depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
ping
Maybe Corn should be paying Scooter Libby's legal bills too.
Corn is covering up something really damaging here ~ maybe Valerie herself told him.
I thought, Novak asked the CIA first; Hum .... Must have been meaningless to the CIA too.
Maybe Corn was doing Plame and she told him in the heat of the moment.
LOL
glad Corn is on board: he didn't "out" Plame because as we all know Plame wasn't "covert."
Thats what I first thought too
Semper Fi
Seems to me that once the Libs saw the word "Operative" used by Novak, they took off and used it in their mythbuilding campaign. To date no one has explained her real status and whether the law was broken by naming her. The fact that Novak was able to confirm her employment over the phone with the CIA, shows that she wasn't not covered by a covert program.
For Corn to rely on the choice of words used by Novak for the entire basis of his claims is irresponsible journalism. I still don't know why the RNC couldn't come up with a way to defuse this whole fairy tale.
OR, "where are you honey, oh please come out", "tee hee, tee hee", "Oh, there you are, under cover again", "tee hee".
FYI: Corn is supposed to be on CSPAN's washington Journal on Monday discussing the story. You can try to call in and ask him whatever question you want.
Lady on CSPAN, "David Corn sounds like two toilet seats flapping together."
Novak never said she was covert just that she worked in some dept there. The CIA never said she was covert. Only Corn did to pump the story up and damage the President for leaking "sensitive" information. He is the one who first claimed covert which she wasn't. She was as covert as the janitors.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Can we just get this done with? Was she or was she not "covert"? Let's just bring an end to this ambiguity. Dang.
(I'm frustrated at the ongoing discussion, not at you.)
Novak said he believed that President Bush realized Armitage was the leaker by December 2005 but didn't know how much earlier than that he had found out.
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.