Novak And Woodward - Same Source?

Here is a headscratcher - Bob Novak, in a speech yesterday, said that "His source for the Valerie Plame information is, he is confident, the same as The Washington Post's Bob Woodward's."

The source of that account is Jon Ham, who did not fall off of the turnip truck any time recently (if ever).  [OTOH, this account does not mention it - Aaagh!  But MediaBistro is on this, sort of - will they track down these reporters and try for a consistent story?]

[UPDATE:  The update to the Jon Ham original post is now mission-critical:

UPDATE: On hearing an audio of this portion of Novak's talk I learned that the above is in error. He said, rather, that Woodward speculates that his source and Novak's source are the same and that he is confident that President Bush knows who the source is.

OK - the Novak-Woodward link remains speculative.

Well, well - we have been feeling pretty good that Woodward's source is Richard Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State - the NY Times pointed that way, as did Isikoff and Thomas of Newsweek (who also noted the possible Woodward/Novak overlap.)

Jeralyn Merritt rallied up some reporting on Armitage's access to the infamous INR memo which was produced at State and described the Wilson trip (with a mention of Ms. Wilson, who introduced Joe at the meeting which launched the trip).

And we checked Armitage's calendar in this post - yes, he was in town from June 12 on, so the dates work, for Woodward at least,  And we can add that Armitage is not marked "Out of Country" for either July 7 or July 8, when Novak *seems* to have been working on his "outing" column.

So what is the hold-up?  Why have I not been pounding the table on this?

Well, Novak may be, let's not say dissembling, let's say, speculating, as to whether he and Woodward shared a source.  And frankly, it seems too easy - if Novak's first source was Richard Armitage, then why was Woodward not sure whether his source had given evidence to Fitzgerald? (I need a link here; it is not in Woodward's statement)  A possible answer - maybe Woodward does not know who else his source spoke to, especially if Woodward spoke to Armitage in mid-June and Novak got to him in July.

Well, what has Fitzgerald been thinking about?  Where is the insidious White House conspiracy, and why did it emanate from the State Department?  And, if Armitage is the source for both, why are we not hearing about a vexation at the Special Counsel's office - surely Armitage's little memory lapse obstructed the investigation?  Or did Fitzgerald forget to ask if Armitage spoke to other reporters?

Developing...

MORE:  If, I say *IF*, Stephen Hadley was the common source to Woodward and Novak, Fitzgerald would look a lot less ridiculous.  Let's keep that in mind.  However, we have the same questions about silence from the Special Counsel on obstruction and false statements for failure to mention Woodward in a timely fashion.

That said, Novak was a war critic, and presumably not a friend of the neo-cons.  That does not mean they would not talk to him, but Armitage would have been more likely to consider Novak to be a friendly ear.

Things to do - check Novak's account of his column from Oct 1, 2003.  He claims his interest was piqued by the appearance of the Wilson column on July 6; Joe Wilson heard from him on July 8, which is consistent with that.

And let's pick up a gem in the rough, while posing a new question - if the Plame story can have two Novaks, why can't it have two Luskins?

Don Luksin wrote this on July 23, 2003.  In the current context, its significance goes up since one of his sources was Bob Novak himself.  Over to Don:

This story is just not going to go away, despite the big-press silence this week. Based on my conversations in the last 36 hours with Washington contacts, here's how I'm very sure it's going to turn out -- and it will hinge on two key questions.

Was Plame really a covert operative? Yes, but this will be difficult to officially confirm and there will be debates as to just how covert she really was, and what real harm was done by outing her.

Who outed her, the White House or the CIA? Both. Both are understandably furious with Wilson -- the White House for the embarrassment he has caused and for what they see as his disingenuous and partisan statements in the media.  But outing Ms. Plame was not to punish Wilson, but to refute him: Ms. Plame's involvement in Wilson's selection for the Niger assignment trivializes him, makes him seem less an expert and more of a hack on a nepotistic boondoggle. The administration officials who spoke to the press probably weren't even thinking about outing Ms. Plame, as such -- after all, Wilson had effectively already done that when he outed himself by going public with his CIA-sponsored work. And therein lies the reason why the CIA is furious at Wilson -- what he has done is an enormous breach or protocol and security.

Glancing at his June 2003 archives, it does not appear that Novak was focusing on Iraq or intelligence.  However, it is interesting that on July 10 Novak wrote a column decrying the Rand Beers defection and the tendency of the Bush Admin to put Dems in important posts.  The July 14 "outing" column obviously followed up on that theme.

Now, I am not saying that Mr. Novak is not above a bit of mis-direction, but he did not include the State Department in that "who outed Plame" list.  Call it a boost for Hadley.  (Full disclosure - I tapped Hadley in Sept 2003, so I am prepping for a big "I Told You So" moment.)

More to do - as I recall, Tenet and McLaughlin of the CIA checked in as not being Woodward's source.  But how cool would it be if one of them was?

MORE:  What does it mean?  In his 40th anniversary column from May 2003, Bob Novak wrote this:

We  [Evans and Novak] were reporters, and we determined that every one of our columns would contain at least one previously unpublished fact -- not just an outpouring of opinion.

Hmm - added pressure for Novak to run Valerie's name?  Or are there other unpublished facts in his famous July 14 2003 column? 

MERITING GREATER PROMINENCE:  Checking Novak's archives, Lexis kicks up about nine columns from Jan 1 2001 to July 1 2003 where Novak mentions Armitage by name, each time as a hero of the piece.

Hadley gets zero mentions.  Condi Rice gets about a dozen.

That doesn't mean Novak didn't speak with Hadley.  However, Novak praised Armitage regularly, seemed to use him as a source (just from reading between the lines of some of the columns), shared Armitage's skepticism about the war in Iraq - he would have to be a much friendlier source than Hadley.

Comments

[MJW]

Clarice, Novak doesn't really seem to say he thinks his source is the same as Woodward's; he just says Woodward thinks he is. Here is a transcript, shamelessly stolen from The NewsObserver:

"Well, as you know, I was the one who wrote the first story about Joe Wilson’s wife working for the CIA - one throwaway line in a long column, in the sixth paragraph of the story."

"The way it has snowballed out of all proportion is a result of a campaign by the left and the bad, extremely bad, management of the issue by - in my opinion - by the White House."

"Once you give an issue to a special prosecutor, you lose control of it. You do not know what is going to happen."

"Bob Woodward speculates that his source is the same as my source. He says that’s the case. He is not going to reveal this name, and certainly I am not either until such time as this person comes forward and says he wants his name to be revealed."

"I am confident the president knows who the source is. I would be amazed if he doesn't. So I think, don't bug me. Don't bug Bob Woodword. Bug the President as to whether he should reveal who the source is."

[clarice]

Thanks, I don't know what Woodward thinks. He hasn't told me or anyone else that I can tell, but as to Novak it sounds to me like he's getting sick of the heat.

[kim]

Well, we'll all know it's Tenet, but the public show will be the medal and the nation's gratefulness for years of service, including the crowning irony of supplying the intelligence about Plame's identity.
==============================================

[topsecretk9]

Thanks MJW
thats puts it in better perspective...one thing Novak did do was call attention to his newest column on the Barret Report suppression (something that would flip the left out if it were the Bushies doing it) Also, one of the key suppressers is ...surprise...Dorgan-- who is returning something like $68,000 to Abramoff tribes announced (but underreported today)

Funny, the Barret investigation involves a "civic minded" whistle-blower...where is the lefty outrage?

[clarice]

Our own Rick Ballard has written a piece on that today.(well, yesterday..time flies.)Barrett

Niters.

[topsecretk9]

which reminds me just how disingenuous the Dems big call for Fitz to provide a "report" was, BTW

[topsecretk9]

which reminds me just how disingenuous the Dems big call for Fitz to provide a "report" was, BTW

[kim]

That 2nd to last paragraph, there, MJW, says it all. Novak is speaking of a singularity, one person. He's pretty sure that they have the same source. And everyone should be able to see the difference between his being a source in July and in June. And why he'd like to preserve what is left of his privacy.

But there is yet another layer of absurdity besides the obvious one of Tenet being the certain leaker but also it being impossible for him to leak. The other layer is that it is an inevitability that Wilson's campaign would raise the visibility of his wife. To think otherwise is absurd.

We've seen a good example of just why absurdity has such a keen hold on the modern imagination and sensibility.
==============================

[kim]

You know, in the last million years, or so.
==========================================

[kim]

Now I think Fitz woke up as a cockroach about a year ago and now is just getting even with the ones who screamed when they saw him.
===========================================

[MJW]

Kim, I agree Novak is sending some mixed signals, but my overall impression is that he's just going with Woodward's assumption that their sources are the same.

[Pollyusa]

Syl

Thank you for you kind words. You are quite right that the email made no mention of Plame. I sometimes think that because an important fact is in my head that it's clear to everyone.

I did say Rove may have testified first about the fact that he and Cooper had a conversation and then at a later time disclosed the Plame part. The fact that the email doesn't mention Plame is part of the basis for my speculation. I most definitely should have included that fact.

[Terrie]

In his August 1, 2005 column, Robert Novak wrote, “I eagerly await the end of this investigation when I may be able to correct other misinformation about me and the case.” You can find the quote at the end of the column here: http://tinyurl.com/9hjck.

Tom established that Novak likes to publish at least one new fact in every column. So why hasn't Novak written yet to correct the misinformation? A combative scoop hound, he is obviously chafing under the criticism he has received across the political spectrum since his July 14, 2003 column.

In the August 1st column, Novak attributes his silence on all matters Plame-related -- except his rebuttal to Harlow in that column -- to his attorneys' counsel. If he shares Woodward's source, then Novak might still be in Fitzgerald's tickler file and lawyered up accordingly. In MJW's News Observer story, Novak refers to his source's unwillingness to publicize his identity, which sounds like Woodward's conditional release to testify about the source but not reveal his name publicly.

How does Novak define "partisan gunslinger"? Surely Novak could clarify that mystery at least without violating his source's confidentiality.

[kim]

Tenet fits all the pieces of the puzzle. Novak did give it away.
================================================