What Novak Did

Community

Friday July 29, 2005 · 12:54 PM PDT

2005/07/29 · 12:54

Bob Somerby's Strange Crusade continues - now he argues in defense of Robert Novak:

Overview: In his piece, David [Corn] discusses Bob Novak's fateful decision to report the fact that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. . . . [W]e now have accounts from both Novak and Harlow. In his piece, David is struck by the "contradictions" between the two accounts, and he says that Harlow's account shoots down Novak's excuse for publishing. At the risk of provoking fury, we have to say we disagree on both counts.
First, the alleged contradictions. David quotes Novak's account of his exchange with Harlow, from his October 03 column:

NOVAK (10/1/03): At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection [for the trip to Niger] but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.

That was Novak's account of what happened when he called the CIA. Next, David produced Harlow's account, as laid out this Wednesday by Pincus:

PINCUS (7/27/05): Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He 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 [to Niger] and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

"So how many contradictions can you find?" David asks. Our answer: As a matter of fact, we can't find any. In fact, given the emotion surrounding this matter, we think it's amazing that these two men's accounts are so similar.

To be honest, this is as disingenuous a piece as Somerby has ever written. The issue, at least for me, is not what Novak wrote on October 3, but what he wrote on July 14. Harlow's account contradicts Novak on the very reason the column was written - whether Plame sent Wilson on the trip.

Somerby chooses to ignore this blatant dishonesty from Novak. Who does Somerby think knew more about the Niger trip - the CIA or Rove?

Somerby seeks to interpret whether the CIA was strong enough in its urging that Novak not discuss Plame. With due respect, for a man who has written a lot of criticism of folks who believe Sen. Pat Roberts is being partisan on this issue, this is the height of hypocrisy. He is mind reading Harlow now.

More in extended.

When Somerby gets around to discussing Novak's July 14 column, it is to attack Harlow for not urging in strong enough terms that Plame not be identified:

Here's what Novak wrote in his original column--followed by what he would have written if he had done what Harlow asked:
WHAT NOVAK ACTUALLY WROTE (7/14/03): Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me his wife suggested sending Wilson to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.
WHAT NOVAK WOULD HAVE WRITTEN: Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me his wife suggested sending Wilson to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.

This is the height of disingenuousness. Harlow said what he could - that's the point here. To say more would be to confirm Plame's status. I simply don't get what Somerby thinks he is proving here.

But the bottom line is this, Novak willfully published a July 14 column that suggested, against the best evidence, that Plame authorized Wilson's trip to Niger. This, apparently, does not matter to Somerby. What more can one say? A media critic who cares not one whit about a column that promotes a false smear? Hard to excuse.

Bob Somerby does yeoman work on media criticism. But on this story, something has thrown him well off his game. I am no mind reader, and I won't attempt to figure out what. But, to be frank, his work here has done him little credit.

This content was created by a Daily Kos Community member.

Make YOUR voice heard!

What Novak Did

Comments are closed on this story.