Snark Is A Tell

It's one of the oldest tactics in debate-dom - if you have no facts to suppport your argument, sneer.  Of course, there is the risk that, when folks notice you sneering, they might wonder about an absence of facts and analysis. 

Which brings us to this post by the always-interesting  Christy Hardin Smith of firedoglake, in which she goes after Bob Novak's decision to ignore CIA press spokesman Bill Harlow and publish Ms. Plame's name:

So, let’s see, the spokesperson for the CIA checks out your journalistic call and gets back to you saying Valerie’s name is NOT to be used…and you blow it off because he doesn’t give you every detail of her covert status, her driver’s license number and do a tap dance to Mr. Bojangles while playing the tune on a kazoo? What, are you a journalistic moron (yeah, don’t bother to answer that…)? Harlow could not, under his SF-312 requirements, disclose any details because it was…wait for it…about covert status.

I like the kazoo concept.  Regardless, this question was asked and answered last summer, and Novak repeated it Wednesday night - Ms. Hardin-Smith might not like the answer, but she ought to address it.

And Novak's answer is, Bill Harlow made no attempt to arrange a high level intervention by Tenet with either Novak or Novak's editors.  In Novak's opinion, based no doubt on his decades of experience with this sort of thing, that was a sure sign of a lack of seriousness on the part of Harlow.

Here is Novak from Aug 1, 2005:

I have previously said that I never would have written those sentences if Bill Harlow, then CIA Director George Tenet or anybody else from the Agency had told me that Valerie Plame Wilson's disclosure would endanger herself or anybody.

Here is Novak with Brit Hume Wednesday:

NOVAK: At that time I had no idea that she was in any way a covered employee. [Harlow had] never said -- if he had ever said to me somebody's life was in danger if you do this, if you got George Tenet come on the phone with me, I would not have written that. But as a matter of fact, her life wasn't in danger and he said it is very -- he said it is very unlikely she will ever go to Europe. That meant to me she was not doing any kind of work as an agent in Europe. So, all he was saying, and it might be embarrassing to her if she went on a vacation trip with her husband if she was identified as a CIA person and that wasn't a good enough reason for leaving the name out.

Now, if someone doesn't like that answer, fine.  However, I think they have the burden of explaining why Novak is being utterly unreasonable in expecting that, if the CIA really wants to kill a story or protect an asset, they can't get the Director on the line for five minutes.  And while explaining that, someone ought to provide some assurance that Novak had no prior experience of just that sort of thing - a high level call asking him to pipe down on something after the press flack was unconvincing.  Finally, it might be instructive to compare and contrast the Harlow-Novak exchange with the secret prisons story, or the NSA wiretapping debacle, where multiple high-level officials, including the President, implored the press to keep quiet.  As an alternative, ask some other reporters for their approach - do they just quash anything a press secretary asks them to quash, or do they like to hear the request from on high?

Or, absent any attempt to address the facts and explanations on offer, break out the kazoo.

MORE:  I'm just warming up - this also caught my eye.  Bob Novak told Alan Colmes that he had been misquoted by Newsday reporters Knut Royce and Timothy Phelps, drawing this response from Ms. Hardin-Smith:

Two things: (1) I sure hope to hell that Newsday recorded the conversation with Bob Novak. Because he just called them sloppy journalists and basically accused them of fabricating his quotes. If they have a tape, and a transcript of said tape, now would be the time to publish it. (And I mean the entire transcript, start to weaselly finish.)

I would not be holding my breath waiting for the Newsday guys to respond.  *MAYBE* Special Counsel Fitzgerald has only recently freed them to defend their journalistic prowess, but Novak made this same charge in Oct 2003, and I don't recall that they had a tape recording then.

BLITZER: All right, the other issue that's come out is this article that appeared in "Newsday," the newspaper on Long Island, July 22 after your July 14 column. The reporters said this. They were following up on your story. "Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. `I didn't dig it out. It was given to me,' he said. `They thought it was significant, they gave me the name, and I used.'"

NOVAK: Now, these reporters made a bad mistake. They said they came to me with the information. I never told them that. And that's not in quotes, is it?

BLITZER:  They said that the sources said they -- your sources had come to you...

NOVAK:  Yes, but that's not in quotes. 

BLITZER:  That's not in quotes.

NOVAK: So then they made that up. I never said that. I said I didn't dig it out in the sense I went through the files of the CIA. It was given to me, as I just told you. There's no inconsistency there at all.

But that is -- you have to be very careful, Wolf, with these things because they say that the idea that -- they're saying they came to me. They did not come to me.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER:  ... the quote part is correct, "I didn't dig it out. It was given to me".

NOVAK:  I just told you it was given to me.  I didn't dig it out of the files there. 

Let me tell you this. There are people putting out stories that the White House was trying to find a pawn to put out this information. They went through six people...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER:  ... to smear Joe Wilson.

NOVAK: Yes. And finally came to me. That's not true. As I have told you in detail this story, nobody came to me. Nobody came to me. I never said that. The story in "Newsday" is absolutely incorrect. It's not in my quotes. They never came to me. I went to them in reporting that story.

I do not recall any vigorous response by Messrs. Royce and Phelps, although I assume they stood by their reporting.

BACKGROUND:  Harlow's version appeared in this WaPo story:

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.

And worth remembering - Novak was not sympathetic to the neocons.  He was much more likely to be chewing the fat with (non-neocon) Armitage in the context of "What about these crazy neocons, waddya gonna do" then to be involved in some grand conspiracy with Lewis Libby.

 

Comments

[Lurker]

Good catch, TM! There were several posts about this "contradictory" comments when it never was contradictory in the first place!!

[Pofarmer]

The intellectual dishonesty people like Ms. Hardin live with daily must be debilitating. I'd like to see her standards applied to the Swift story, then see what her take on it is. (A program which uncontestedly is legal and had proper oversight)

[jerry]

I don't think Novak has editors, that's why he's got that one-man media magnate office set up.

[jerry]

I sure would like to know if she was a NOC and if real damage was done, I guess Fitz has said as much in his Libby indictment statements?

[jwest]

Boy TM, you’re in trouble now.

There will be no conflicting opinions of Christy Harden-Smith or Jane Hamsher tolerated anywhere on the internet. You are about to be banned from your own blog.

Got It?

[cathyf]

`I didn't dig it out. It was given to me,' he said. `They thought it was significant, they gave me the name, and I used.'

Ya know, one of the problems with overusing pronouns is that the more you use them, the more ambiguous your words become. What is "it"? Well, obviously, a whole lot of people took all three of the places where "it" occurred and substituted "Mrs. Valerie Elise Plame Wilson's name and employer."

I certainly don't blame anyone for reading Novak's words that way. However, anyone who doesn't admit that said reading is merely one plausible inference among a multitude of different plausible inferences is either an idiot or feigning stupidity as a rhetorical technique. For an example of what I mean by "feigning stupidity":

Because he just called them sloppy journalists and basically accused them of fabricating his quotes.

No, Ms. Hardin-Smith, Novak "accused" them of interpreting Novak's rather ambiguous words in a reasonable, but incorrect, way. Sure Novak is pretty cranky when explaining it to Blitzer, but he does a reasonably good job of diagraming the sentences and explaining where Knut Royce and Timothy Phelps went wrong and it obviously does not require either "sloppy journalism" or "fabrication" to have misunderstood Novak this way. And when reading the Novak/Blitzer transcript and seeing how Novak talks, I am perfectly willing to believe that what happened was a simple matter of Royce and Phelps innocently misunderstanding Novak's not-hard-to-misunderstand words.

cathy :-)

[jerry]

I like TM, probably read and comment here on JOM more than anywhere else, and I appreciate the welcome as well as the vigorous and humorous responses (when you guy do recognise my existance!) - that's why I'm here.

[Rick Ballard]

No Jerry, he didn't. The indictment is in the right column here, down a bit. Have someone read it to you very slowly and you'll never hear "NOC" or "covert".

I shouldn't say "never hear", I suppose, because I don't know what transmissions you may be receiving through your fillings.

[Sue]

(((((waving vigorously at Jerry)))))

::grin::

[noah]

I stopped by FDL one time and almost wept...

It maybe true that everybody seeks their echo chamber. But I like mine ringing with laughter not hate!

[Pete]

If you are looking for the opposite viewpoint, emptywheel (http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/) has far better arguments and analysis than FDL.

[SunnyDay]

Novak explained himself, Royce and Phelps have not. Are they not allowed to speak? I was one with questions about this interview. However, my basic assumption is that Novak is a good reporter.

Conservative reporters do not have "freedom of the press." ;) NYT does.

I get it.

Hey Jerry! You are the only lib on here who does not get my mental /ignore

:)

[Semanticleo]

NOVAK: So then they made that up.

OK. Case closed.

'Cause Novak's credibility is way more than the journalist's he's accusing.

You see, since he's currently OUR nazi, he can
be excused from his date with Nuremberg. But the deal is off if he strays from the 'facts'. We will go with what 'he said'
versus what 'she said' as long as it reflects what 'we said'.

[Plameout]

Maybe it's jsut me, but wasn't one of Keller's primary lines of defense, in his initial reaction to the backlash against the NYT's publishing the Swift and NSA telephone traffic monitoring cases that, despite repeated efforts from the highest levels inside the White House and Congress, that they just didn't seem all that "serious" about their requests not to publish. Ms. Hardin Smyth seems to take Novak's disclosure much more seriously than anyone inside the CIA or the Administration. And likely much more seriously than we should ever take her or Bill Keller again.

[Seixon]

OK everyone, this is how left-wing logic works. Get ready.

New York Times finds out about a secret government program. Several high level government officials tell them to sit on it. They publish.

Novak finds out about Plame, not knowing that she was even covert. A CIA press spokesman gives him a half-ass request not to publish her name. Novak publishes.

We're supposed to be outraged by the second, but not the first?

Can someone explain this to me?

[topsecretk9]

Two things: (1) I sure hope to hell that Newsday recorded the conversation with Bob Novak. Because he just called them sloppy journalists and basically accused them of fabricating his quotes. If they have a tape, and a transcript of said tape, now would be the time to publish it. (And I mean the entire transcript, start to weaselly finish.)

Precisely what Wilson did to Pincus And Kristoff...only he said he was misattributed too, in order to weasel away from the names were arong, dates wrong.

Don't tell...she's liek OK with that.

[Rick Ballard]

"However, my basic assumption is that Novak is a good reporter."

Does 'good' = 'slippery'? He's as slippery as any of them. He came back to the tremendous difference between "I heard that, too." and "Oh, you hear that, too?" regarding Rove's "confirmation" of Armitage's disclosure that Wilson's wife set up the boondoggle. If "I heard that, too." (without disclosure of the statement made or question asked) is sufficient for Novak to declare "two sources" then I'll stick with "hack".

Aside from that, he shills for the Saudis way too much to get any respect from me. He belongs on the same shelf with Pincus, Priest and Kristof and that's definitely not the top shelf.

[Tom Maguire]

I don't think Novak has editors, that's why he's got that one-man media magnate office set up.

That is the one part of the "call the editor" defense that troubles me, although Kurtz did cite editors at the Chicago paper and the Wapo.

[paul]

It is curious to see the obsessiveness of JH and CHS over prolonging and continuing legal defeat in the face of so much 'pain and embarassment' for Wilson supporters.

Perhaps this is the biological distinction between men and women. After getting kicked in the nuts(see fitzmas pt 1, fitzmas pt deux) a male rxn would be, 'damn that hurts, I want to avoid that feeling from ever happening again'.

The same form of conditioning does not work with the testiculariy challenged.

I am grateful for JH and CHS for giving me a chance to laugh, again and again. Some movies have a funny scene, based on formula. After seeing it once, the repeat is usually not as funny. Thanks to doglake, they keep the same comedy formula, the same characters, and produce the same result-all with minor variation.

[SunnyDay]

Rick - are any reporters top shelf? I take them all with a grain of salt - that's a given. IMO, Novak is as reliable as any, and better than a lot of them.

[Lurking Observer]

Seixon:

It's quite simple, really. These folks have taken Stalin's words to heart: One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.

Thus, blowing the cover off an individual, e.g., Valerie Plame, that's a tragedy. Think of it, a woman who might not be able to do her job.

Blowing the cover off a program, e.g., SWIFT, even if it's legal, aboveboard, and in compliance with everything, now that's merely a statistic (and in this case, them stats can lead to Pulitzers!).

Notice that this does not imply that Republican stats nor Democratic victims might be even more incentive.

Then there's the issue of good faith. If you believe that Dubya is rotten with fascist tendencies, you don't give him or his minions the benefit of the doubt. (Interestingly, Novak could make that claim, too, but that's not important.) But because Tale-telling Joe claimed that Bush had ignored him (and was happily embarrassing Dubya), therefore Hardin and others have put their faith in him.

Hope that clears things up!

[clarice]

Rick, again you hit it right on the nail ..(better than the Comey-Fitz mindmeld even)

[first time commenter]

On the wilsonsupport.org website, under the heading of "The Leak", first sentence:

"In July 2003, Ambassador Wilson spoke out against the Bush Administration’s false claim that Iraq had sought nuclear material in Africa, which had been a primary justification for going to war with Iraq."

Wow. Still going with the "false claim" thing, huh?

[BumperStickerist]

What's gob-smacking is that otherwise functioning people like Semanticleo might accept this at face value:

Here's the excerpt from Wilson that describes the process involved. As you read it, note the lengths Wilson says the CIA goes to avoid doing something obvious.

Robert Novak, some other commentators and the Administration continue to try to completely distort the role that Valerie Wilson played with respect to Ambassador Wilson’s trip to Niger. The facts are beyond dispute. {ed note: ~ cough ~}

The Office of the Vice President requested that the CIA investigate reports of alleged uranium purchases by Iraq from Niger. The CIA set up a meeting to respond to the Vice President’s inquiry.

Another CIA official, not Valerie Wilson, suggested to Valerie Wilson’s supervisor that the Ambassador attend that meeting.

That other CIA official made the recommendation because that official was familiar with the Ambassador’s vast experience in Niger and knew of a previous trip to Africa concerning uranium matters that had been undertaken by the Ambassador on behalf of the CIA in 1999.

Valerie Wilson’s supervisor subsequently asked her to relay a request from him to the Ambassador that he would like the Ambassador to attend the meeting at the CIA. Valerie Wilson did not participate in the meeting.

First, that's at odds with other accounts, but nobody clicks on the links so - screw it - Tom will fisk that better anyway.

Second - the account itself beggars belief.

Why *wouldn't* the CIA involve Valerie in the conversation fairly early?

I mean, for God's sake, the WIFE of the person who's so amazingly well suited for the task assigned by the Veep that Wilson's name sprung unprompted to the mind of a CIA official works for the goddamned CIA. Of course they'd talk to Valerie about this.

sample conversation:
"So, Val, We've got this job that might be up Joe's alley, about a week in Nigeria talking to people about uranium stuff - what's his schedule like, think he'd be interested? Are his shots up to date? When might be a good time to call? Give him a heads-up that we'll be in touch later this week. Thanks."

Instead we're supposed to believe that the CIA worked all this crap out absent any input from Valerie, who happens to work in the CIA?

Oy.

....................................

also, for the record, the central problem with Wilson and credibility is that no sane human being could believe Wilson's claims for one simple reason: One guy went to Niger for one week.

This is like Jimmy Carter going by himself to Panama and certifying their election as 'clean'.

Sure, he might say that, but only the foolish would believe him.

.

[Rick Ballard]

"Rick - are any reporters top shelf?"

SunnyDay, although the majority of reporters on the political beat have earned my deep seated and well earned contempt, I do believe there are actually some at the periphery who are outstanding. Dorothy Rabinowitz almost single handedly put a stop to the prosecutorial abuses in the day care cases. There are others, but when I think of what a journalist could be and what journalists should aspire to be, I think of her.

Novak is a shoddy Saudi shill and a hack who doesn't deseve a moments notice. CNN hired him because of his putative "conservative" credentials although the only thing he ever spouts that has any conservative ring to it at all concerns cutting taxes. He's a Washington "insider" who has created a living from just the type of "second source" smoke and mirrors that he used on the Plame column.

I wish Prince Bandar had taken him with him when he left.

[Pete]

BumperStickerist - Wilson did undertake another CIA mission to Niger in 1999, so it makes sense that they asked him to go again.

Now whatever Wilson's report was, the remarkable thing is that depsite being given a normal and wide distribution, the Bush administration never saw it. They were pushing the nuclear angle, but never saw anything that did not support their case for war. Our intelligence twice wrote to Hadley warning him about the unreliability of the Niger information. Hadley did not tell anyone else in the administration and simply "forgot". Wilson mentions other sources of information too - our embassy in Niger and the report of a NATO four star general. The Bush administration claims to have never seen any of this. That is the part which is simply unbelievable.

[Jeff]

Tom

I find it frankly astonishing how easily you're going on Novak, whose latest intervention is so deeply dishonest in so many dimensions. Let's start with the one you bring up. Now, if you make a call from Tenet the standard for meaningful efforts to get Novak to stop publishing, then of course you get your desired conclusion. But that's not even Novak's standard. He says he would have accepted Harlow telling him that blowing Plame's cover would endanger her or anyone else. And from Novak's changing story, it's becoming clear that the warning was considerably stronger than Novak himself has been insisting, and that he willfully ignored it.

It turns out that Novak's old story about what Harlow told him actually consisted to a considerable extent of Novak's own interpretation of what Harlow was telling him and that interpretation was unreasonable. Harlow wasn't going to tell him her status was classified or that she was covert. So what he told Novak is important.

Here's Novak's old story, which he gave in October 2003 and then repeated in August 2005:

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.

Initially, yesterday he seems to substantially repeat that canonical story, in part:

Bill Harlow said to me that she would likely never have another assignment abroad. He said it might be embarrassing if her CIA connection was written about and he asked me not to write it.

Note the departure, though, from one aspect of his old story: Novak acknowledges that Harlow asked him not to write about her CIA connection, not just her name. That makes complete hash of Novak's attempt at self-justification from last August, where he says:

He 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."

Novak, in characteristically dishonest fashion, is probably misleadingly piggybacking on Harlow's mention in this particular quote of his warning to Novak specifically about her name. Because it's not meaningless if Harlow asked Novak not to write about her CIA connection. (Also, as an aside, I'm skeptical of Novak's fixation on Harlow's supposed fixation on her name, since on Novak's own account Harlow never used her name; which does raise the question of whether Novak brought up her name with him.)

In any case, later in the interview with Hume, Novak also introduces an important departure from his earlier version with regard to Harlow's caution against publishing:

But as a matter of fact, her life wasn't in danger and he said it is very unlikely she would ever go to Europe. That meant to me that she was not doing any kind of work as an agent in Europe. So, all he was saying is it might be embarrassing to her if she went on a vacation trip with her husband if she was identified as a CIA person and that wasn't a good enough reason for keeping her name out.

Notice two things about this. First, Novak here suggests that Harlow specifically said not that she would probably never go abroad in general, as he had earlier represented, bu rather that she would probably never go to Europe again. That leaves a lot of the world, doesn't it? If you were a smart reporter, wouldn't you wonder whether Harlow wasn't implying that she probably would be working elsewhere outside of Europe, especially if they had already discussed - as I suspect they had - that Plame in the past had worked in Europe?

Second, notice how much of what Novak had previously presented as things said by Harlow was actually Novak's own inferential interpretations. It's Novak who imputes the rather absurd meaning to Harlow's words that the Wilsons wouldn't be able to vacation in Europe.

It becomes all-important to know exactly what Harlow said when he told Novak that there would be difficulties if she traveled abroad again. If Harlow said, "She will probably never go on assignment to Europe [note the specific location abroad] again. There will be difficulties if she travels abroad [note the generality of the comment] if you publish about her" - which is roughly how it sounds like it went, at this point in Novak's evolving story - then the obvious implication is, she's not going to go on assignment in Europe, but if she goes elsewhere, which we are leaving open, there will be difficulties for her if she is identified as a CIA agent, so please don't do it.

If that's the way it happened, Novak ignored it, willfully, if you ask me. And one sign that it didn't go the way Novak used to say it went is that his story is falling apart now, and it is clear that part of what he used to say Harlow told him was in fact his own unreasonable inference.

There is evidence of things going something like the way I am suggesting, as well as the hint that Harlow may have told Novak some of what Plame had done in the past, in an old story by Waas that is almost certainly sourced to Harlow as well as others.

[Jeff]

Tom

As for Novak's accusations against the Newsday reporters and Waas - badges of honor, like Richard Perle calling Hersh the closest thing to a terrorist - you're not paying close enough attention to Novak's parsing, outright bs, and evasion. Neither in his appearance with Blitzer nor in his response to Colmes does he say they misquoted him, though you seem to have fell for his effort to make people think that's what happened. On the contrary, he acknowledges that they quoted him correctly, and that he made a misstatement. It would be nice if you were as vigorous in your pursuit of an explanation from Novak for this misstatement - he categorically appears to say that his sources gave him the name, yet now he says none of his three contacts for the column ever even used her name; he said they thought it was important, but now he says Armitage brought it up in passing, and it came up for twenty seconds with Rove - as you are in pursuit of Mitchell for hers.

The only thing Novak can take issue with is with the Newsday reporters' lead-in sentence to that, which he misleadingly refers to on the Hannity show when he says

Some of the things that they said that quoted me that are not in quotes are paraphrases

and which he inaccurately characterizes when he says

they’re incorrect, such as the whole idea that they planted this story with me.

Now, that is not the idea of the Newsday sentence saying that Novak's sources came to him, which is clearly just a paraphrase of the quotation they go on to give from Novak about his sources giving it to him, he not digging it out. Certainly that is a more plausible paraphrase of the quotation from Novak - which again, they cite correctly - than the idea that what Novak meant was that he didn't dig it out from CIA files. Please.

As for Waas, Novak says the story was totally wrong and a total lie. Well, what about it was wrong and a lie, Novak? 1)That investigators suspected that Novak and Rove had coordinated a cover-up story inf all 2003? How does Novak know? 2)That Novak and Rove had a conversation shortly after the investigation was announced about what had happened between them in summer 2003? 3)That Rove testified about the content of the conversation along the lines that Waas reported? Again, how would Novak know? 4)That the substance of the conversation, based on Rove's testimony, went the way Waas reported it? Well, Bob Novak, you have been so deeply unforthcoming thus far, how about telling us whether you had a conversation with Rove in fall 2003 and exactly what the substance of that conversation was. And while you're at it, why don't you clear things up and tell us your version of exactly what Harlow said to you - not your interpretation of his words, but just the words themselves, so we can make our own judgments?

[clarice]

Rick, don't forget Claudia Rossett in the pantheon of good reporters. Without her the OFF scandal would surely have never come to public view.
I am surprised by the way that Wilson didn't name Kristof and Pincus in his suit since he has widely claimed they misstated what he said and misreported him, and those "errors" i.e. about the forgeries caused him such embarrassment before the SSCI.

[Tom Maguire]

He said it might be embarrassing if her CIA connection was written about and he asked me not to write it.

Excellent point.

I hope to come back to this shortly, but I will eventually.

[topsecretk9]

Now whatever Wilson's report was, the remarkable thing is that depsite being given a normal and wide distribution, the Bush administration never saw it.

First of all, you don't even know if it was wide distribution and it apparently reenforces the premise, Iraq sent a dude to Niger that the Nigerien official -- not Wilson-- the Nigerien official interrupted was seeking to trade Uranium.

Sought Uranium IN AFRICA

That is where the dense, narrow view lies. If you are sent to Niger to see if Iraq was SEEKING to trade in Uranium and someone told you they did seek it, just that WE (i.e ONE country) did not participate, concluding Iraq didn't buy Uranium..cased closed...is dumb and really if this is how the CIA works it is no wonder why they have gotten everything wrong.

IF Saddam sought it in Niger and was turned away it's pretty logically to conclude THE DUDE WANTS URANIUM and since much of it is gotten via the black market, it's irresponsible to ASSUME -- No way has he gotten his hands on it.

When one wants to cop some smack, the seek a DEALER, when that dealer says no, that person goes into rehab?

Sought Uranium IN AFRICA

they sent Wilson to ONE country in Africa. ONE. If they had sent Wilson to every country in Africa and every single one said NO Iraq NEVER sought here...he'd have a point. But the ONE country he DID go to saidYEP, HE **SOUGHT **IT

[Larry]

I'd hate to play twister with you, Jeff. Let's make it simple. CIA was not going to send a woman suffering/recovering from severe post-partum depression on covert missions ever again in her entire life and may not have allowed her access to sensitive material.

BTW, wasn't it Val who said she suggested Joe for the job?

[Pofarmer]

Jeff

I think one thing you're leaving out is that Plame had already been outed by Alger Hiss. Correct?

She wasn't going anywhere.

[Jeff]

Yup, Alger Hiss.

And if simple and false suits you, Larry, go for it.

[Great Banana]

Not sure whey we are still parsing all of this. As of right now, it seems that the special counsel has decided that he does not have enough evidence of a crime (i.e., the probable cause standard, which is pretty damn low, not reasonable doubt) to indict anyone for "outing" Plame.

So, in the end, what difference does it make. the left will argue that Harlow seriously tried to get Novak not to publish b/c this would harm national security somehow - all the while poo-pooing the fact that the NYT ignored the WH's request not to publich the SWIFT story for the same reason.

The left has convinced itself that Plame's identity is the most important national security secret of all time. We on the right, see things like the leaking/printing of the SWIFT story, the secret prisons, the wire-tapping, etc., as much more severe.

Even with all the facts laid out, we will never convince the left that there was not a grand conspiracy to "out" plame, and that such "outing" wasn't the worst crime in the history of the country. It is an article of faith on the left.

We will never know the full details of this. Who said what to whom. Even the principals disagree as to what each said in their conversations. I doubt very much that the civil case will last beyond a motion to dismiss or will be pursue vigorously by plaintiffs. So, we aren't going to learn anything from that.

Moreover, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, the left still believes what Wilson said in his NYT Op-ed piece that led to all of this - even though a bi-partisan Senate committee showed that everything Wilson said in that piece was wrong.

So, the left will always believe this is a case of someone speaking "truth to power" and getting slammed (illegally) by the corrupt government.

Wilson and Plame will always be martyrs to the left, regardless of any facts.

so why do we care about this anymore. We've been proven as right as we can be proven - no one is going to be indicted for "outing" plame, Novak said what he is going to say. In reality, except for the conspiracy theories, this is over.

[topsecretk9]

I was just reading someone anaylsis on the lawsuit, and this caught my eye:

2. Fitzgerald's press conference is quoted as providing a basis for a civil lawsuit against people who were not even indicted, giving a good example of why prosecutors should not give press conferences about topics outside the four corners of their charges.

5. It appears from the "JDB" docket number on the NRO version of the Plame complaint that the case was initially assigned to Judge John D. Bates, a George W. Bush appointee. However, it may be that Judge Bates would recuse himself from a lawsuit naming Cheney and Rove in their personal capacities, and it is possible that the case could be sent to Judge Walton, who is handling the Libby trial.

the rest here:
http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/7/13/191450/260

[topsecretk9]

---someone's anaylsis--- ahem

[Carol Herman]

PLUS: The proof is in the pudding. There was NOTHING endanged by the Pflame revelation. As a matter of fact, you can drive a truck through the hole that's opened. Showing this was a set up from the get-go. To hurt Bush's White House. And, to pull out wonderful men from service. True, Libby's out of his job. But the real meat was to go after Cheney and Rove.

It seems there's a persecutorial trick. Where you get someone LOW on your totem pole. And, you get them to "snitch out" higher up's. Instead, Libby's been fighting this all the way. Since that make believe PRESSER. And, the MSM knows it!

It knows it just like it knew Bush won in 2004. And, kerry was "NEVER THIS CLOSE" to anything short of losing. But it didn't stop the presses from their lies.

Anymore than it does today. Where they are LYING that most Americans are gonna vote for the donks.

How do they corrupt their polls? Just the way whores corrupt the act of love. It can be done, ya know? Because YA FAKE IT!

Now, what really, really pisses me off about Novak is that he created the allusion for 3 years now, that Rove said something to him that was "different" from Rove's testimony.

The difference? Novak saids "KNOW." While Rove says he said "HEARD." And, when you hear the sentence "HEARD" flows better.

You heard that?

Or do you just know it?

And, from this ka-ka, Fitzgerald ran for more than a year, collecting paychecks, while the MSM was OOZING secrets; and, he was sure his job was to sucker the White House.

Jig's up. Nixon wasn't as lucky.

[cathyf]

Jeff, you are ignoring a very significant part of the Harlow-Novak conversations which neither Harlow (or at least Harlow's leaks) nor Novak dispute: that Harlow screwed up the press-flack/reporter secret code for "that person is covert" by getting absorbed in the substantive argument over how she was involved in sending her husband to Niger.

The way the dance is supposed to go is that Novak says something like: "I'm going to write that Wilson wasn't sent by the VP's office but by his wife who is a CIA WMD operative." Harlow then replies: "You know I can neither confirm nor deny if Wilson's wife has any relationship with the CIA."

Instead, Harlow went off denying that Valerie Wilson had anything to do with sending Joe Wilson, and implicitly confirmed to Novak that she was not covert.

Earlier, we had some semantic advice about how excessive pronouns can cause one's readers/listeners to misunderstand what one is trying to say. Here's some more semantic advice: when attempting to use the "wink and nudge" method of communicating, avoid long detours onto even slightly off-topic subjects, and especially avoid making forceful off-topic assertions which your listener/reader knows are false. First of all, the digression distracts your listener/reader and could easily cause him/her to completely miss your more subtle signaling. Secondly, if the reader/listener knows that you are either lying or ignorant, then this is a pretty fatal blow to exactly the credibility you need for this sort of thing.

cathy :-)

[topsecretk9]

Harlow says he was strong but he does **not deny that he told Novak she would probably never be sent oversees and it might be embarrassing for **HER** (i.e. not the CIA) when she travels...to my notion.

[Der Hahn]

pofarmer, I think he might be a bit before Val's time (unless I missed the sarcasm bit being on..)

The CIA believed she was burned by Aldrich Ames, and some people have suggested that her cover was compromised a second time by a bungled document transfer from the CIA to the Swiss embassy in Cuba.

[Extraneus]

Besides, doesn't everyone know that Wilson would have had to go to England to disprove the 16 words? It's still amazing what a silly thing this is all based on.

[cathyf]

What Harlow did not do is call Novak back and say, "You know, Bob, I'd like to change my answer to, 'The CIA can neither confirm nor deny any relationship with Joe Wilson's wife,'"

That Plame was not covert was settled when Harlow confirmed that she was in a position to have sent her husband to Niger. (Which he did by arguing about whether or not she had sent him. The assertion would have been silly if she was in no position to have sent him.) In order for Harlow to reopen the topic, he had to do something to retract that. Blathering on about her being inconvenienced on some hypothetical European holiday is not the way to do that.

cathy :-)

[Jane]

Did you guys see Byron York's reaction to the complaint?

"A LEFT-WING BLOG WITH A LEGAL CAPTION"

Tee hee.

[SunnyDay]

Rick - I don't know - I think I probably divide them into those who are right more often than they are wrong, and those who are wrong more often than they are right.

I'm not even familiar with the reporters you and Clarice are talking about. Showing my ignorance. doh.

********************
He's a Washington "insider" who has created a living from just the type of "second source" smoke and mirrors that he used on the Plame column.
I wish Prince Bandar had taken him with him when he left.
************
haha!!

[cathyf]

SunnyDay, put http://www.opinionjournal.com/ on your everyday bookmarks. You'll soon read something by Claudia Rossett or Dorothy Rabinowitz...

cathy :-)

[Lurker]

The comments in this case and by Val regarding her career do not jive with her employment records...as per The Markup

Andy McCarthy also wrote an article about this a year ago.

So the Wilsons will have a hard time proving that Val's employment was destroyed by the actions of WH. She was already gone.

[TM]

Good point by cathyf, thanks.

As to Novak v. Harlow, Jeff was correct with this:

Now, if you make a call from Tenet the standard for meaningful efforts to get Novak to stop publishing, then of course you get your desired conclusion.

I am resigned to Novak and Harlow providing self-serving accounts, so yes - as an objective fact, Harlow's failure to arrange for a high level call strikes me as decisive.

*IF* the Plame thing was such a big deal to Harlow in early July, he should have been crystal clear as to Novak's intentions, and arranged for follow-up if Novak was unconvinced. Harlow's notion that he said this, Novak should have thought that, what could a poor press flack do strikes me as absurd.

I had more thoughts last summer (with links!). An excerpt:

...superficially, the Harlow/Novak dispute looks like an insoluble "he said/he said" problem. However, this sort of debacle - a nationally syndicated columnist ignores a clear warning from the CIA press office and outs a covert agent - does not happen every day, or even every decade.

In any proper bureaucracy, a miscommunication of this magnitude would have produced a mountain of memos. Since (per Wilson's book, "The Politics of Truth") his wife had been warned on July 8 that Novak was pursuing this story, she or her superior should have written a CYA memo to the press office warning them to deal with this with vigor and commitment. The press office should have made plans to contact Novak's editor and/or publisher if Novak was unwilling to cooperate.

The press office also should have conducted an after-the-fact review, generating poetic What Went Wrong, and How We Can Improve memos. And there should be a memo explaining their evident failure to contact Novak's editors - I say "evident" based on the comments of Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor of the WaPo, and Steve Huntley, editorial page editor of the Chicago Sun-Times, as reported by Howard Kurtz in Sept 2003.

Presumably, Fitzgerald has gathered all this material, if it exists. However, a reporter might want to verify with Harlow that such a memo-blizzard actually occurred, or let him regale us with an explanation of why it did not.

A year (and no related indictments) later, I would guess that Harlow did not convince Fitzgerald of much.

[SunnyDay]

Thanks cathy. Y'all can call me la-la. ;)

[Jeff]

Tom - There are two different issues here. First, did the CIA take appropriate steps to discourage Novak? It appears not - but was that an error in judgment or evidence of a lack of concern? It's unclear at this point. But second, is there a way to adjudicate the dispute between Harlow and Novak about how strong Harlow's discouragement was? I am suggesting that the fact that Novak is seriously changing his story, and in specifiable ways, is not in his favor. And yes, if Harlow is exactly right and Novak has been lying, there remains the question of why Harlow didn't call in Tenet to stop Novak. But Novak was assuming that Tenet was behind what Harlow was saying, so if Harlow's version is right and his warning was strong not weak, that is even stronger coming from Tenet.

[Jane]

>But second, is there a way to adjudicate the dispute between Harlow and Novak about how strong Harlow's discouragement was?

That's a question of fact for the Judge or the jury. Presumably if Harlow lacks all the documentation outlined in TM's post above, the evidence is heavily weighted on Novak's side.

What I found convincing from Novak was the fact that he said that the Plame angle was not a big part of his story - it was in the middle of the column, not the headline. If Novak really was defying the CIA that would be a tremendous scoop and he would have given it a lot more play than he did.

[Great Banana]

Jeff,

"But Novak was assuming that Tenet was behind what Harlow was saying, so if Harlow's version is right and his warning was strong not weak, that is even stronger coming from Tenet."

Let's assume that Harlow indeed meant to stop Novak from printing b/c Harlow believed Plame was "covert", but that there was some miscommunication and/or Novak simply ignored it and printed anyway.

What difference does that make to the fact that Fitz apparently has decided that no crime was committed (or at least he cannot establish probable cause that a crime was committed in order to get an indictment) as to the "outing" of plame?

If what you are arguing is that Novak should not have printed it b/c he was warned it would hurt national security - I can agree with you there. If in fact that was the case, maybe Novak should not have printed it. But, based on what has come of the Fitz investigation, and based on what Novak stated, it was not the WH who "outed" Plame.

Also, if you are making the above argument, then you have to admit the Times was wrong to print the SWIFT story, the CIA prisons story, the wire-tapping story, among others, no?

[cathyf]

...so if Harlow's version is right and his warning was strong not weak...

But Harlow's version is not that his warning was strong. Harlow's version, just like Novak's version, is that he did not pull out the "nuclear weapon" phrase of CIA press flackery "neither confirm nor deny that she has a relationship with the CIA." Harlow says that he used the strongest words that he was allowed by law and regulation to use. That is a complete and total lie.

cathy :-)

[Javani]

""In Novak's opinion, based no doubt on his decades of experience with this sort of thing, that was a sure sign of a lack of seriousness on the part of Harlow."

Tom, sincerely, what are you smoking? The head of the CIA calls reporters on fact checks?

Novak ignored what he was told, and tried best he could do to belittle the warning.

Why did he do it?

The answer is in his July 10, 2003 article about another persons.

Novak's on a crusade to root out liberals.

[Javani]

""Harlow says that he used the strongest words that he was allowed by law and regulation to use. That is a complete and total lie.""

Right...because although everyone here accuses every journalist of lying, Novak is the truth teller and he relates the warning story without guile or spin.

Look at human nature. Novak brought up the warning first in his apology article. What does that tell you? He didn't have to bring it up at all... unless he wanted to frame the issue and shoot it down from the beginning. Novak suckered you big time.

[Great Banana]

"Novak's on a crusade to root out liberals. "

We can only hope.

[Great Banana]

Javani,

Repeating my post to Jeff above:

Let's assume that you are correct and that Harlow indeed meant to stop Novak from printing b/c Harlow believed Plame was "covert", but that there was some miscommunication and/or Novak simply ignored it and printed the story anyway "outing" Plame.

What difference does that make to the fact that Fitz apparently has decided that no crime was committed (or at least he cannot establish probable cause that a crime was committed in order to get an indictment) as to the "outing" of plame?

If what you are arguing is that Novak should not have printed it b/c he was actually warned it would hurt national security - I can agree with you there. If in fact that was the case, and Novak really was credibly warned that mentioning Plame would harm national security, Novak should not have printed it.

But, based on what has come of the Fitz investigation, and based on what Novak has now stated, it was not the WH who "outed" Plame - so it is still simply an argument against a reporter a la the NYT re: SWIFT story, not some big conspiracy or crime.

If you are making the above argument, then you have to admit the Times was wrong to print the SWIFT story, the CIA prisons story, the wire-tapping story, among others, no?

[topsecretk9]

Althouse makes a good point:

... if I don't wanna talk about the Plame civil suit. Has anyone ever sought more attention about wanting to be unknown? It's uncanny.

ADDED: Here's a test of whether Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame are sincere in seeking damages for what they say is a wrongful behavior. If the defendants were to agree to settle the case this way, would they agree to have a neutral arbiter calculate the amount they made because of what has happened to them and the amount they would have made if it had not happened, and have the defendants pay them the difference if the second number is larger, and have them pay the defendants the difference if the first number is larger?

Harlow says that he used the strongest words that he was allowed by law and regulation to use.

Well, if she were covert, those words would have to be "I can not confirm or deny", perhaps because he did not use "I can either confirm or deny" means doing so would have been a lie?

Can the CIA lie about someones satus, can they say someone is covert when they are not?

[Neo]

This thing as so many pieces to the puzzle.

Apparently when the media consortium put together the amicus for Miller and Cooper to avoid Fitz's grand jury, they had stated that "no crime" had been committed.
Why ? Because Val had been "outed" twice before Novak wrote about her.

This pretty much nails the fact the Val was not a NOC, but still may have been classified, as the suit seems to indicate. Val would be suing the CIA if they sent her out as a NOC after being twice revealed.

However, officials said the disclosure that Mrs. Plame's cover was blown before the [Novak] news column undermines the prosecution of the government official who might have revealed the name, officials said.
"The law says that to be covered by the act the intelligence community has to take steps to affirmatively protect someone's cover," one official said. "In this case, the CIA failed to do that."

[paulv]

If Harlow really wanted Novak not to mention Plame he did not do his job. How can Novak be fairly plamed (blamed) in the misunderstanding with Harlow with Harlow did not make himself clear when he knew Novak was going to publish.

[Great Banana]

Everyone,

I'm not understanding what the import of the Harolow / Novak dispute is.

I don't see how whether or not Harlow properly communicated to Novak that he should not publish Plame's name has any real bearing on whether or not there was a purposeful, orchestrated "outing" by the WH?

What we are arguing over, is how effective was the CIA in trying to stop information from being published. This is a very distinct matter from the issue of "outing" Plame.

Or, am I missing something?

[Javani]

G. Banana:

I don't have to hang my opinion about Novak on any other opinion I should or should not have had, example SWIFT. It stands alone if I wish it, I'm not a clone who needs the sense of security found in right- or left-wing political correctness.

Novak's lying or spinning. Harlow asked him not to print. In Novak's opinion it was not enough to say it would harm her career, but that Harlow must tell him she would experience physical harm.

So, Novak is setting standards? So, revealing SWIFT is bad, Novak is good? Some here think so.

The answer to Novak's motive is found in his July 10, 2003 article on Frances Fragos Townsend. Same motive there as in his July 14.

[Great Banana]

Unless of course the theory is that Novak was on a special mission to "out" Plame on the orders of his master, Karl Rove, and that he was going to "out" her regardless of what anyone at the CIA said.

In that case, why contact the CIA at all before publishing?

[Tom Maguire]

From Jeff:

There are two different issues here. First, did the CIA take appropriate steps to discourage Novak? It appears not - but was that an error in judgment or evidence of a lack of concern? It's unclear at this point.

If I can't even conflate two arguments on a Friday afternnon, why show up?

I can agree that maybe Novak's judgement was badd, but I will pound the table that harlow's job was to be crystal-clear about Novak's intentions, and dissuade him by all lega and reasonable means.

As to whether Harlow messed up, or the CIA only realized how important Ms. Plame was when the political significance emerged the following week - I don't know how I could prove one of the other, but...

Remember the story of Wilson's sidewalk friend, who ran into Novak on July 8 and learned that Novak might have a story outing Ms. Plame?

Joe *way* under-reacted to that. California cool is one thing, but he traded phone calls with Novak until the 10th before even giving his wife the heads up. She then alerted Bill (Do-Nothing) Harlow, and here we are.

Wilson just didn't seem that serious about what we now see from the lawsuit is a threat to his wife's livelihood, her life, and the life of his kids.

In my world, I would have given the CIA press office a much bigger head start, and made sure Novak kept quiet. Well, if my wife's secrecy was my top priority, anyway.

I ranted on this a while back, so Jeff and I are just rehearsing now, although he at least is introducing new material.

[Great Banana]

Javani,

"I don't have to hang my opinion about Novak on any other opinion I should or should not have had, example SWIFT. It stands alone if I wish it, I'm not a clone who needs the sense of security found in right- or left-wing political correctness."

Oh, that is B.S. as you well know. What you are saying is that you don't have to have any set of standards, you can make every decision based on a pure political prism. That's fine if you want to be that way, but then you have no intellectual honesty and no credibility.

If you can't agree that the WH asking the NYT not to publish the SWIFT story is greater to or equal to Novak allegedly ignoring Harlow - then you have no intellectual honesty and no credibility.

You talk about Novak setting standards? What about Keller setting standards?

In my comment I stated that if Harlow credibly stated that posting Plame's name would harm national security, then Novak should not have published. I don't know one way or another what actually transpired. I do know that the special counsel, Fitzy, has determined that no crime of "outing" plame occurred, or at least he cannot find enough evidence to get an indictment of such a crime.

So, we are left to argue over whether Novak should have published. As I stated above, this is a distinct matter from whether or not the WH wanted to "out" Plame. And, it seems to me, it is more or less the exact same issue as the SWIFT story, among others. The fact that lefties cannot see that shows there lack of seriousness on the whole "national security" v. publishing argument.

[PeterUK]

"I sure would like to know if she was a NOC and if real damage was done,"

Taking into consideration the utter cat's arse the Counter Proliferation Division made of preventing Kim No Dong,Dr Kahn and other assorted psycho-warriors acquiring nuclear weapons,Valerie Plame having more time for her family is at least an improvement in that department.

[PeterUK]

Septicleo,
Are you simply typing out your Scrabble hand?

[sammy small]

This is hillarious;

Ms. American Spy

[cathyf]

Right...because although everyone here accuses every journalist of lying, Novak is the truth teller and he relates the warning story without guile or spin.

javani, my assertion that Harlow lied when he claimed that he used strong words to warn Novak off is not at all based upon Novak telling the truth or lying. I am basing my assertion entirely on Harlow's version. In Harlow's version, he gives a list of the things that he said, and then he gives a characterization of those things which he said which is that they were very strong and that they were the strongest things he could say. I believe Harlow when he lists the things that he said. Harlow's characterization of those things, however, is what is absurdly and outrageously false. Harlow's version, as has been leaked by Harlow and/or his partisans, is that he indicated to Novak that Plame was a non-covert CIA employee. According to Harlow, when he was "attempting to convince Novak not to publish" he never made the slightest attempt to retract that all-important indication.

cathy :-)

[topsecretk9]

Am I missing something? IIRC correctly Harlow spoke to Admin officials before Novak called...IIRC it is nowhere alleged Harlow told AO's she was covert, but the important thing to note is he was aware and apprised of the details surrounding V-Wilson before Novak called...and that includes HOW to respond, especially given an internal warning too...that would include repeating "I can neither confirm to deny"

Seems to me Fitz figured this and that it is Harlow'sstory that's more hanky than Novak's...that is if IIRC.

I still contend there was no legal basis for Harlow to say "confirm or deny" or really asking Novak to NOT to print and that is why he purposefully did not say "confirm or deny" or ask Tenet or another biggy to step in.

[Pofarmer]

"The CIA believed she was burned by Aldrich Ames,"

Sorry, got my bad guys mixed up, but that's the one I was thinking of.

[lurker]

Ms. American Spy

Link it far and link it wide. Jpod loved it!

[PeterUK]

"Wilson did undertake another CIA mission to Niger in 1999, so it makes sense that they asked him to go again."

The Scene Langley,
Covert ag**t Va***ie P**me steps elegantly from her top of the range open tourer,she is wearing O*kl*y d*rk gl**ses,her luxurient golden hair covered by a limited edtion hand printed Armani headscarf.

"Morning Val", said the girl at reception,"Isn't it a lovely day?"

"I could answer that,but then I would have to kill you",replied V*l

She hurries on to her office.

"Morning Val",said her boss,"How's Joe?"

"I could tell you that but ....sorry boss you have clearance,Joe has gone to Niger on business"

"You don't say,"said her boss,"We have just sent a guy to Niger,Africa isn't it?"...."Whats Joe's second name, perhaps they can get together over a mint tea".

[Pofarmer]

"The CIA believed she was burned by Aldrich Ames,"

Sorry, got my bad guys mixed up, but that's the one I was thinking of.

[Peter]

From CNN's website

"Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that Americans by an almost 3-to-1 margin hold the GOP-controlled Congress in low regard and profess a desire to see Democrats wrest control after a dozen years of Republican rule."

Replican party is about to die a horrid death and it will take the religious right with them. Good work
Bush-supporting-boy-men!

[noah]

Learn something new every day! Ya mean to tellme that the Wilson's knew Novak was going to publish BEFORE his column came out? And now we know that the WH really had nothing to do with her outing except Rove confirming that she was involved in sending Wilson to Africa (nothing about her being covert).

And the Wilson's are suing and lunatic retard is whining. SOS.

[topsecretk9]

Does anyone know if -- considering the nepotism legalities -- if a difference in classified status matters, or is it just an across the board thing?

[noah]

Peter...you may be able to double your money by putting it where your ignorant sarcastic mouth is at Tradesports.com!

[noah]

Aldrich Ames sort of sounds like Alger Hiss...same number of syllables.

[Jane]

>I'm not understanding what the import of the Haroow / Novak dispute is.

Great Banana,

I think you are right, there is no import. The rest of us are just picking nits.

I think, but don't know, that the Wilson's intend to skirt around the covert/classified angle of Plame's employment, suggesting that is not a necessary element of their claim for damages. They seem to want to suggest that any exposure violated her rights - well except for the cover of Vanity Fair, and they don't blame Harlow or Novak but rather Karl Rove.

The lawsuit gets more ridiculous every time I look at it. It reads more like a temper tantrum than a pleading.

But what do I know?

[noah]

Peter...the contract price at Tradesports can be quite sensitive to volume. We could do a deal to in effect bet on the outcome by agreeing to buy/sell simultaneously.

[Neo]

There is no way that Val Flame was "covert." Exposed in the mid-1990s by Aldrich Ames (Bill Gertz's "Moscow spy") and in an "unsealed" pouch that the Cuban opened and read, she was compromised. (There is some sort of irony between the "unsealed" pouch and Leopold's "Sealed v Sealed", but I don't know what it is).

As I said in my previous post, if Val had continued to be on "covert" status after these two exposures, she was either the bravest or dumbest "covert" at the CIA. Most likely she would have been suing the CIA for over exposure.

[peter]

Maybe Noah doesn't understand the meaning of the words he uses. Where was the ignorance in what I posted?
Where was the sarcasm? What's with the "double your money" thing?

What a spew!

[pgl]

I guess it's to Tom's credit that he posed a version of this over at Firedoglake. Fair is fair - and here is my view of Tom's query which I left over at FDL:

"Let me get Tom’s question straight with an analogy. Suppose someone from the FDA called Pfizer to tell them that one of their drugs was a serious health risk to anyone taking that drug. Shouldn’t Pfizer decide to either pull the drug ASAP or at least check with their own scientists as to the FDA concern? I guess if the FDA commisssioner did not personally meet with the CEO of Pfizer, continuing to market and sell this drug would be AOK with Tom. Lord - the more I think about Tom’s argument, I can see why the doofus's at the National Review have not even run such a pathetic canard."

Taking the word of a serial liar (Novak) uttered at the place where rightwing liars go because they know they will not be challenged (Fox News). Public discourse has hit a new low!

[noah]

Peter...unless of course you are a "girly man"!! Hee Hee

[lurker]

I don't pay attention to AP-IPSOS polls since they poll mostly the democrats. This time they polled only 1000.

Don't forget how Zogby polled the exit numbers in favor of Kerry back in 2004.

Don't forget how many states were red back in 2004.

[peter]

Does anyone know what Noah is talking about?

[noah]

Oh....you are the girly man.

[topsecretk9]

Pete, I suggest you study this page and stop living and dying by these polls

http://www.pollingreport.com/cong2004.htm

[peter]

Yea a 3 to 1 margin. It must just be sampling error (now Noah. THAT was sarcasm).

You know what I love the most about this site. It's listening to all of you count the fairies on the head of needle while your party burns itself to the ground.

[lurker]

Ah,...tradesport! Of course, I know what Noah's talking about. Google it and start your bets with Noah.

[noah]

Tradesports offers futures contracts on political events. A lot of money was lost, for example, betting that Rove would be indicted...probably by steely-eyed girly men such as yourself!

[topsecretk9]

here is 2004

"And if the election for Congress were held today, would you want to see the Republicans or Democrats win control of Congress?"

.

Republicans Democrats Neither
(vol.) Not
Sure
% % % %
Among likely voters:
10/18-20/04 46 47 4 3
10/4-6/04 44 48 5 3
9/20-22/04 49 46 3 2
9/7-9/04 49 46 3 2
.

Trend, among registered voters:

9/7-9/04 47 45 5 3
8/3-5/04 44 48 6 2
7/5-7/04 43 47 6 4
6/7-9/04 42 47 7 4
5/3-5/04 41 50 6 3
4/5-7/04 43 46 8 3
3/1-3/04 43 44 8 5
2/2-4/04 41 44 11 4
1/5-7/04 44 42 9 5
12/1-3/03 42 44 10 4
10/21-23/03 44 44 8 4
10/7-9/03 43 46 7 4
8/19-21/03 40 45 9 6
6/17-19/03 40 47 10 3
6/3-5/03 42 42 10 6
5/20-22/03 45 43 8 4
5/6-8/03 41 45 9 5
4/15-17/03 47 39 10 4
4/1-3/03 47 41 8 4
3/18-20/03 44 41 11 4
3/4-6/03 39 43 12 6

[lurker]

Tina Benkiser's argument regarding DeLay.

[peter]

Wow name calling. That will sure stop the tidal wave washing over your pathetic party. Blub blub.

[topsecretk9]

or this

Time/CNN Poll conducted by Harris Interactive. May 12-13, 2004. N=563 likely voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.1.

.

"If the election for Congress were being held today, do you think you would vote for the Democratic candidate for Congress in your district, or for the Republican candidate?" Options rotated

.

Repub-
lican Demo-
crat Other
(vol.) Not
Sure
% % % %
5/12-13/04

(R)40 (D) 53 2 5

todays is :
Those surveyed say they favor Democrats, (D)51-to-(R)40 percent.

[noah]

Not a Republican Peter. Count girly men not fairies, sweety.

[lurker]

Noah, there are other sites in addition to tradesport that reflect more accurate numbers than these damn polls.

[noah]

You started the name calling Peter.

[lurker]

BTW, we should've known why Iran wanted to wait until August before negotiating the terms with USA. So that they can order Hizbollah to wipe out Israel.