Update [2005-8-1 10:14:51 by Armando]: By Armando. I think Novak himself provides the best response to Bob Somerby's reply to me diaried here. Let me add that my regard for Somerby remains extremely high as always. Except on this one.
Update [2005-8-1 10:4:24 by Armando]: From the diaries by Armando. My brief comments - I am stunned that Novak has the gall to write ANYTHING on this. Mr. Novak, if I may play Fitzgerald for a moment, I'd like to ask you some FURTHER questions please. Step this way. As for Harlow's statements, may I just say that Novak smears himself with his reply. Let me explain. Novak writes:
This gave the impression I ignored an official's statement that I had the facts wrong but wrote it anyway for the sake of publishing the story. That would be inexcusable for any journalist and particularly a veteran of 48 years in Washington.
This is true. And it is also precisely what you did Mr. Novak. You write:
My column of July 14, 2003, asked why the CIA in 2002 sent Wilson, a critic of President Bush, to Niger to investigate an Italian intelligence report of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases.
The premise of your column is a bloody lie. In 2002, no one outside of the DC cocktail party set had ever heard of Joe Wilson, much less knew he was a critic of Bush. The lie is your premise. You were spewing BushCo lies, apparently purposefully. Again, lest anyone forget, VP Cheney did not like the CIA's conclusion that the Niger story was a cock and bull story and wanted it looked into further. What did Cheney mean? He wanted someone to say it was true. In that context, it was a strange choice if you considered the CIA another wing of the Cheney drive for war in Iraq. Apparently the CIA had a different view of its role. There Mr. Novak, is the actual story. The trumped-up war in Iraq and Cheney's "fixing" of intelligence.
As you say, inexcusable behavior.
Further, you write:
The re-emerged Wilson is now accusing the senators of "smearing" him. I eagerly await the end of this investigation when I may be able to correct other misinformation about me and the case.
Indeed they have. And you, as a BushCo flunkie, did your part too. A disgrace.
Novak has a new
column out responding to the statements of former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow, as quoted in last Wednesday's front page Washington Post
story.
Here's the relevant passage from the Post article:
[Harlow] said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.
Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.
And here's the heart of Novak's misleading response:
This gave the impression I ignored an official's statement that I had the facts wrong but wrote it anyway for the sake of publishing the story. . . . So, what was "wrong" with my column as Harlow claimed? There was nothing incorrect.
Here's the rub:
Harlow did not claim that anything in Novak's column -- which said Plame "suggested" Wilson for the trip -- was wrong. Rather, Harlow claimed that the initial story Novak allegedly told him on the phone -- that Plame "authorized" the trip -- was wrong.
So the histrionics in Novak's response to Harlow ("the allegation against me is so patently incorrect and so abuses my integrity as a journalist") are simply misplaced. Novak has set up a strawman to justify writing a response which he claims his lawyers urged him not to write.
[Note - there is a disagreement between Novak and Harlow about the nature of their phone conversation -- Novak maintains that he only used the word "suggested" during that conversation, while Harlow indicates that Novak used the word "authorized." At this point, the only other evidence in the public record about Novak's pre-column story is the account, also in the Post article, of the stranger on the street who says Novak told him Plame "had arranged her husband's trip to Niger."]
Finally, Novak betrays the absurdity of Rove's "I never used her name" defense with this passage:
[Harlow] told the Post reporters he had "warned" me that if I "did write about it, her name should not be revealed." That is meaningless. Once it was determined that Wilson's wife suggested the mission, she could be identified as "Valerie Plame" by reading her husband's entry in "Who's Who in America."
That's at least partially right -- whether referred to as Valerie Plame or Wilson's wife, her cover would eventually be blown if the fact that she worked at the CIA was revealed. That said, I'm not sure the distinction is necessarily "meaningless," but I'll leave that for others to discuss.