Word spread fast last night that [tag]Robert Novak[/tag] was finally going to start dishing the [tag]Plame[/tag]-related dirt, now that the [tag]Fitzgerald[/tag] criminal investigation has wrapped up and no one else, it appears, will be indicted.
But those of us hoping for substantive revelations were left wanting.
Syndicated columnist Robert D. [tag]Novak[/tag] acknowledged for the first time yesterday that he identified three confidential administration [tag]sources[/tag] during testimony in the CIA leak investigation, saying he did so because they had granted him legal waivers to testify and because Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald already knew of their role.
In a column to be published today, Novak said he told Fitzgerald in early 2004 that White House senior adviser [tag]Karl Rove[/tag] and then-CIA spokesman [tag]Bill Harlow[/tag] had confirmed for him, at his request, information about CIA operative Valerie Plame. Novak said he also told Fitzgerald about another senior administration official who originally provided him with the information about Plame, and whose identity he says he cannot reveal even now.
“I’m still constrained as a reporter,” Novak said in an interview. “It was not on the record, and he has never revealed himself as being the source, and until he does I don’t feel I should.”
So, let’s review what we learned since last night from Novak: Rove was one of his secret sources (which we already knew); the CIA confirmed Plame information to him (which we also knew); and there’s still another unnamed source that Novak won’t reveal (which doesn’t tell us anything).
Perhaps the only real news here is that Novak [tag]testified[/tag] before the grand jury because his lawyer told him he’d probably go to jail if he didn’t. In other words, if Novak followed Judith Miller’s tack, he would have met Judith Miller’s fate. To make things easier on himself, Novak agreed to testify. One wonders how Novak’s sources around DC will feel about his willingness to break confidentiality to save his skin.
Regardless, while the revelations are minimal, Novak’s new information does raise a few questions and contradictory points.
For example, Novak now claims that he contacted Rove, who confirmed the Plame information. When the story first broke a couple of years ago, however, Novak said the White House called him, not the other way around. “I didn’t dig it out [Plame’s identity], it was given to me…. They [the White House] thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it.”
Also, Novak concedes that his account of his conversation with the CIA’s Bill Harlow is different from Harlow’s version of events.
Moreover, as Faiz noted, Novak had pledged to “reveal all” after the investigation concluded, but now, Novak still won’t reveal his “primary administration source.”
Overall, the “revelations” are a bit of a letdown. Novak’s tell-all doesn’t tell all, it contradicts earlier comments, it omits key details, and it raises as many questions as it answers.