Powered by TypePad

« Bold Predictions 2006: The Plame Game | Main | Rove To Be Indicted? »

December 14, 2005



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."


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.


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.


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?


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



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


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


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.


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


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.


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.



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.


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.


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

The comments to this entry are closed.