Because it was a Bob Novak column that originally outed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent, there have been a world of questions about what Novak knew, who his sources were, and what the CIA told him when he called to confirm the information he received from “two senior administration officials.” Novak, however, hasn’t said much of anything, in any of the many media in which he regularly appears.
Last week, however, a Washington Post story apparently got his attention. In a front-page piece, the Post quoted former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow as saying that he spoke to Novak at least least three days before the original 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. Upon learning that Plame was in fact an undercover operative, Harlow called Novak again to insist that Plame be left out of the news.
Today, Novak made an exception to his no-comment policy because he felt that Harlow attacked his “integrity as a journalist.” There are so many distortions and misstatements of fact in Novak’s column, it’s hard to know where to start. I’ll stick to the big ones.
[Harlow] 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.”
Harlow said to the Post that he did not tell me Mrs. Wilson “was undercover because that was classified.” What he did say was, as I reported in a previous column, “she probably never again would be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause ‘difficulties.’ ” According to CIA sources, she was brought home from foreign assignments in 1997, when agency officials feared she had been “outed” by the traitor Aldrich Ames.
I have previously said that I never would have written those sentences if 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.
None of this makes sense. Harlow implored Novak not to identify Plame, but this game about using her name is ridiculous. The CIA didn’t want Novak to identity her at all. It would have also been a problem if Novak described her as “Wilson’s wife.” Novak is playing the same word games as Karl Rove’s lawyer.
Because Plame’s identity was classified, Harlow couldn’t tell Novak about the disclosure endangering lives. Harlow did the next best thing — emphasizing in the strongest terms possible that Karl Rove’s leak was wrong and that Plame had to be left out of Novak’s column. Novak ran it anyway.
Elsewhere in today’s defense, Novak defends the substance of the original column, including the idea that Plame was actually responsible for Wilson’s trip to Niger. Larry Johnson, a former Plame colleague at the CIA, didn’t find Novak’s defense particularly persuasive.
In stark contrast to what the two “senior” Administration officials told him, CIA officials, both former and current, are on record saying that Novak is wrong and that Plame neither suggested nor authorized the mission. So what does Bob “the responsible journalist” Novak do? He insists that the info about Plame is right even though officials in her chain of command say the opposite. Who are you going to believe?
Novak also attempts to take refuge in the so-called “bipartisan” Senate Intelligence Committee report on the matter, which makes note of a memo sent by Valerie Plame outlining her husband’s bona fides to her boss in the Counter Proliferation Division (CPD). What the Senate Republicans conveniently left out of the report is the simple fact that Val’s boss had first asked her to write the memo. Senior mangers in CPD suggested the mission and authorized it. Plame’s only role was to respond to a supervisor’s request for information. Valerie Plame was not a decision maker or manager at the CIA. The SSCI can confirm that very easily. She had no authority to make a decision to send her husband anywhere on official business.
Here’s a side note to ponder: why did Novak write today’s column? It’s filled with mendacious claims, which he had to realize would be quickly debunked. So why bother? He even acknowledges that his lawyer encouraged him not to write it.
Does Novak want to appear before the grand jury again?