Novak reveals source... almost [Archive]

View Full Version : Novak reveals source... almost

freeny

Jul 11, 2006, 11:00 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/11/cia.leak/index.html

So will George keep his word and fire all those involved?
This could be fun to watch and wont help his polls in the least...

leekohler

Jul 11, 2006, 11:36 PM

solvs

Jul 12, 2006, 02:06 AM

And here I thought Rove was innocent because he wasn't convicted. Oh wait, no I didn't. OJ and MJ are free too, doesn't make me want to invite them over for tea anytime soon.

freeny

Jul 12, 2006, 09:23 AM

No. He won't. There's no way he would fire Rove.
So then, LET THE POLLS DROP!;)

Black&Tan

Jul 12, 2006, 11:31 AM

Once again, Bush and his cronies are revealed to have lied to the American public and cheated justice. Nothing will happen and we are worse for it.

I can't believe we have two more years of this....

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 12, 2006, 01:30 PM

Draft dodging Karl Rove wont be fired, Bush has lied once again but arent we getting use to his B.S.? He wont be doing a thing about his team of draft dodgers who outed this agent. It was just more talk.

zimv20

Jul 12, 2006, 01:32 PM

regarding the thread title, why is it 'almost'?

freeny

Jul 12, 2006, 02:51 PM

regarding the thread title, why is it 'almost'?
I couldnt fit:

"Novak reveals leak source but only to the independent council Patrick Fitzgerald as well as fingering Carl Rove as one who verified Plame's identity proving his involvement".

benthewraith

Jul 12, 2006, 03:02 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/11/cia.leak/index.html

So will George keep his word and fire all those involved?
This could be fun to watch and wont help his polls in the least...

Please. This is a complete hoax. This entire thing doesn't make any sense. Why send a man unqualified to research anything? It's complete ********. While I don't like Bush or Cheney, I don't think they "leaked" anything. This whole case is stupider than anything. In fact, if the media wasn't so big on trying to bash Bush and Cheney, then would we even have heard about it? Would her name even be mentioned? There has even been testimony that he went to parties on Cap. Hill and introduced her as a CIA agent.

Even then, it's still Novak that's guilty of leaking classified information, not a politicians or bureuacrats. Novak published the name, Novak's guilty of the crime.

Besides, I don't remember Kerry getting charged for leaking an agents name during a meeting on Cap. Hill, yet nothing is done. Between this, the Downing Street Memos (which relies on one sentence alone), and everything else, my gosh.

zimv20

Jul 12, 2006, 03:20 PM

if the media wasn't so big on trying to bash Bush and Cheney, then would we even have heard about it?
facts are hard, aren't they? i'll help out: it was the rather right-wing, bush-loving robert novak who printed the name valerie plame.

your next challenge: determine why blaming party B for the independent actions of party A is fallacious.

freeny

Jul 12, 2006, 03:26 PM

Yes zimv20, facts are hard. My questions for benthewraith are this;

1. How is this a "hoax"

2. Now that Novak has flat out siad that Carl Rove was one of his sources will Bush stand by his promise and "fire anyone who was involved with the leak?"

I think Bush's track record says the answer is NO.

atszyman

Jul 12, 2006, 03:30 PM

Even then, it's still Novak that's guilty of leaking classified information, not a politicians or bureuacrats. Novak published the name, Novak's guilty of the crime.

Actually I'm pretty sure that Novak does not have clearance to know who undercover agents are and therefore whoever told him is the person guilty of the crime....

benthewraith

Jul 12, 2006, 03:36 PM

Actually I'm pretty sure that Novak does not have clearance to know who undercover agents are and therefore whoever told him is the person guilty of the crime....

Doesn't matter. Even then, Novak is guilty of publishing the name. You can play he said she said the whole time, but in the end, even if a name was accidentally slipped, Novak was completely capable of not publishing the name. It's like I overhear a classified conversation, or maybe I'm allowed to listen in, but then immediately write an article revealing all classified information.

aquajet

Jul 12, 2006, 03:37 PM

Even then, it's still Novak that's guilty of leaking classified information, not a politicians or bureuacrats. Novak published the name, Novak's guilty of the crime.

In other words, if a government employee with security clearance decides to leak classified information to the media, for whatever reason, then it is the media who should be held accountable? If I hear this information on a news broadcast and pass it on to a friend, should I be prosecuted as well?

zimv20

Jul 12, 2006, 03:48 PM

benthewaiter -- you're exhibiting an absolute lack of political thought. plame's name was leaked for a single person: to get back at her husband for questioning the administration's facts on iraq.

that act puts it somewhere between a political power play and treason. blaming the media for the administration's actions is beyond laughable. you've picked your side and will use any trick of word or thought to justify an unjustifiable action. if you cared about your country and its democracy, you'd demand accountability.

they'll teach you about that in high school.

atszyman

Jul 12, 2006, 03:50 PM

Doesn't matter. Even then, Novak is guilty of publishing the name. You can play he said she said the whole time, but in the end, even if a name was accidentally slipped, Novak was completely capable of not publishing the name. It's like I overhear a classified conversation, or maybe I'm allowed to listen in, but then immediately write an article revealing all classified information.

The crime is committed by the person with the classified clearance that told the person who did not have clearance.

If I have security clearance I can't go home and tell my wife what I know and say, "Just don't tell anyone." I would have committed the crime in this instance since I told someone without clearance the information.

The he said, she said stops with the first person you encounter who legally had access to that information. Once that source is found you have the person who leaked classified information.

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 12, 2006, 03:59 PM

Cheney is still the Dick that got all this going, they were spinning the yellowcake trail to Saddam. They didnt want a little truth to get into the way just as they made sure to reinsert things taken out of Powells speach to the U.N. which turned out again to be spin. It all points to Cheney, all this stuff if you ask me.

aquajet

Jul 12, 2006, 04:02 PM

that act puts it somewhere between a political power play and treason.

Not to mention, squarely within childishness.

leekohler

Jul 12, 2006, 04:11 PM

aquajet

Jul 12, 2006, 04:21 PM

You can play he said she said the whole time, but in the end, even if a name was accidentally slipped, Novak was completely capable of not publishing the name.

Maybe we should all have security clearance. That way, everybody and nobody can be held accountable.

zimv20

Jul 12, 2006, 06:06 PM

I don't like Bush or Cheney
you should (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2609286#post2609286).
http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/bothaxes.gif

Economic Left/Right: 4.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.41

benthewraith

Jul 12, 2006, 06:13 PM

you should (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2609286#post2609286).

:rolleyes:

My main issue is Bush's incompetency with the Iraq situation. Also, I'm pro-gay marriage.

That doesn't mean I'm going to play the good little liberal or good little conservative. ;)

solvs

Jul 12, 2006, 10:50 PM

you should (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2609286#post2609286).
That's the display isn't it? There was another one with Gandhi and Hitler. The real one was black and white with a little dot I thought. Plus, BushCo is anything but conservative. I don't know why they even call themselves that.

But yeah, it's all their faults. The one who ordered the leak, the one who leaked it, and the one who printed it, knowing what it was. Even the person who approved the article, knowing what it was. Political payback, and highly illegal. I can't see how anyone could actually defend that, then say it's just some kind of political revenge against Bush. Not with a straight face.

jelloshotsrule

Jul 13, 2006, 10:19 AM

And here I thought Rove was innocent because he wasn't convicted. Oh wait, no I didn't. OJ and MJ are free too, doesn't make me want to invite them over for tea anytime soon.

you'd be safe inviting them, as OJ is tracking the real killers, and MJ only likes young boys.

no, rove will not be fired.

Desertrat

Jul 13, 2006, 11:57 AM

mactastic

Jul 13, 2006, 01:56 PM

But why isn't the righty noise machine cranked up to full volume about Novak and his paper being traitors, yet the NYT has been pilloried for weeks now for being traitors?

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 13, 2006, 02:03 PM

But why isn't the righty noise machine cranked up to full volume about Novak and his paper being traitors, yet the NYT has been pilloried for weeks now for being traitors?Very good question , not a word and why isnt Ann Coulter not calling for Rove's and Novaks hanging? more partison Bullsmuck.

Desertrat

Jul 13, 2006, 03:55 PM

About the last time I saw any example of morality in the Big Time press or inside what's now the Beltway was Sherman Adams getting fired over the vicuña coat.

'Rat

mactastic

Jul 13, 2006, 04:03 PM

Yeah, those Pentagon Papers folks were pretty immoral weren't they...

Desertrat

Jul 13, 2006, 04:20 PM

mac, do you really think those who published acted from a moral standpoint? The ones who ACQUIRED the papers acted morally--remember how they did it.

mactastic

Jul 13, 2006, 04:26 PM

What standpoint are you suggesting they acted from? A desire to spend time in jail?

solvs

Jul 14, 2006, 01:45 AM

you'd be safe inviting them, as OJ is tracking the real killers, and MJ only likes young boys.
Still rather them than Rove. All I'd get is a fondling by a rich freak and maybe a slashed throat. Why do I have a feeling Rove would devour my soul or something?

jelloshotsrule

Jul 14, 2006, 09:44 AM

Still rather them than Rove. All I'd get is a fondling by a rich freak and maybe a slashed throat. Why do I have a feeling Rove would devour my soul or something?

because he would.

solvs

Jul 15, 2006, 11:39 PM

because he would.
Touche.
http://images.apple.com/getamac/images/indextop20060501.jpg

Sayhey

Jul 16, 2006, 02:57 AM

Novak said in the article he wrote that his first clue came from Plame's hubby getting her in the Who's Who thing. I guess he figured she deserved at least 15 minutes of fame. Then Novak says he went to a CIA guy, and tripped the guy into revealing Plame's status.

Armed with info, he heads for the White House to get verification.

You gotta be a poker-faced Texas Hold'em Champ to be able to lie to any reporter with Novak's experience and get away with it. When he shows up with, "I know..." you might as well fess up. And the White House guys did.

And for whatever reason, Novak blabbed.

But it all started with Novak's curiosity about the W-W entry set up by Plame's husband...

'Rat

No, that's not how it went even in Novak's account. There is a third primary source Novak hasn't yet revealed - everyone thinks it is Richard Armitage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage) from State - that first told Novak. However, the leak to Novak isn't the first or only leak that took place. At least three other reporters, some before Novak, were told the same information from White House sources (Rove and Libby.) Those other reporters include Bob Woodward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Woodward) of the Washington Post, Matthew Cooper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Cooper) then of Time magazine, and Judith Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller_%28journalist%29) then of the New York Times. One has to ask how so much leaking took place on classified information to so many different reporters - all after Cheney gave the marching orders to go get Wilson.

One should add that Novak's assertion, that you repeat, that CIA spokesman Bill Harlow "confirmed" Plame's idenity is dubious at best. Harlow swore under oath that the told he told Novak he shouldn't use her name. Here is the story for a second time (I've included the link in the Plame lawsuit thread.)

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 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.

In a column published Oct. 1, 2003, Novak wrote that the CIA official he spoke to "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." Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072602069_pf.html)