Skip to main content

View Diary: Novak Changes His Story--a Fourth Time (89 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The mentioning of CPD then not mentiong CPD (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    semiot, sodalis, TeddySanFran

    ...is not significant or revealing per se and not even contradictory. The vacillation between off-hand comment and they thought it was important for me to put in my column is what seems more meaty. That pulls back the curtain on an intentional smear/outing campaign, and not some "offhand" remark.

    cheers,

    Mitch Gore

    Republicans believe in training Al-Qaeda, but not in training American workers.

    by Lestatdelc on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 10:47:27 AM PDT

    •  Important for two reasons (8+ / 0-)

      First, because at least according to Isikoff and Corn, Armitage didn't know Plame was CPD. We know he told Woodward something that made Woodward believe she was an analyst. So the first reason it's important is because it is probably a lie.

      Second, Nonproliferation is an organization that used to exist. Guess who worked there? Fred Fleitz. In any case, it's clearly something different than Counter-Proliferation. And it is something that would be non-covert.

      And both of these points impact Novak's changing claims about why he used the word operative. He is, at this point, backing off the word he used that means she was covert, but trying to pin the blame for communicating to Novak that she was covert on anyone by Rove (or, if there is another source, the other source).

      This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

      by emptywheel on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 10:51:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So is he saying that someone other than (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TaraIst

        Rove told him she was covert, or is he saying that it was just a lucky guess on his part?

        Sometimes you cover your ass with the lame excuses you have, not the lame excuses you wish for.

        by litigatormom on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 11:06:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  He's not saying (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Margot, TaraIst, mspicata

          He has reiterated his "I use operative to mean political operatives" claim, which is clearly bogus. Which means he almost certainly testified that Armitage didn't say she was CPD, because Novak would know that was covert (as would Libby). But by saying CPD, Novak distorts what Armitage probably said--"worked in weapons of mass desctruction" to be as damaging as possible, but not different enough to raise Fitzgerald's notice.

          This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

          by emptywheel on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 11:12:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But the only vaccilation... (0+ / 0-)

            ...on CPD is the one utterance of NN-P. I don't dispute that Novak is most likely bullshitng about his use of "operative" to mean "political operative" but the examples you cite, as you have them, do not lay out a changing story about CPD (save that one instance of mentioning NN-P). What I am driving at is citing a case where he doesn't mention CPD as somehow a change in his story as you have it written does not seem convey what you go on to explain in your reply above, to the reader (at least this one). When you write:

            CIA labels Plame as Counter-Proliferation (CPD)

            Armitage labels Plame as CPD

            Armitage doesn't say anything about CPD

            Armitage labels Plame as Nuclear Non-Proliferation (not CPD)

            Armitage labels Plame as CPD

            With the exception of the NN-P example, that above list does not read like a changing story at all. Your reply up-thread makes a more relevant set of arguments. Not trying to take you to task with this, but just offering my critique of the vehicle you are using as written to construct a narrative within this diary.

            cheers,

            Mitch Gore

            Republicans believe in training Al-Qaeda, but not in training American workers.

            by Lestatdelc on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 11:37:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I appreciate the critique (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              semiot

              Though I'd point out that the first step in this is a difference--he says CIA said it, not Armitage.

              The reality is probably that Rove said it. Novak blamed CIA first, because that was the larger target of the smear (and fit Novak's lie to Wilson conveniently)--also, it's possible Novak asked for false attribution, as Libby had. Then he blamed Armitage, to shift blame away from Rove. Then, when he started talking again, he tried to avoid all question of her status, relying isntead on his "I use operative to talk about politics." He shifted slightly on that, to make a claim that is probably the closest to the truth about what Armitage said (that is, that she worked in WMD, but not as a covert officer). Then finally, for whatever reason (perhaps because someone judged Armitage's performance on TV too convincing for Rove's safety?) he fell back to the October 1 claim.

              This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

              by emptywheel on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 11:52:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site