So Novak's talking: thoughts on the Plame mess
The Man who Started it All (aside from possibly Karl Rove, or maybe Libby), Robert Novak (who, 8 days after the publication of former Ambassador Wilson's flaming op-ed piece criticizing Bush's rationalization for war, came out with the first public report that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA employee)...
...has broken his silence. Against his lawyer's advice (there's a good strategy, Bob), he is defending himself against statements by former CIA spokesbeing Bill Harlow (NYT: free subscription may be required), that Novak was (allegedly told)
- the story he was going to publish was in fact wrong, that the idea or suggestion for the Niger trip Wilson took did not come from his wife, and that in any case
- even if Novak were to go ahead and write the story, he should not use her name.
Harlow apparently claims that he could not explain the reason for the second point, since disclosure of the fact of Plame's cover was itself classified, and could not be told to Novak- even in order to prevent a far wider and more damaging leak.
So: what's left?
One journalist in contempt and jailed (Miller); one journalist plus his employer caved and testified, saying he had permission from his source (Cooper, which I gather surprised Karl Rove's attorney); one unindicted journalist (Novak) and lots of flying accusations.
My view: Novak's claims don't hold water. He was warned off, told that 1) his story was false-to-fact, and 2) he should not use a particular person's name in the story if he went ahead and published it.
Then he wrote the story, in the process disregarding Harlow's warning. But now he's saying the following, according to the NYT:
Well, that may all be true. It's certainly true as Novak points out that he couldn't have published the words "Wilson's wife suggested the trip" without people instantly making the connection to Valerie; as people keep pointing out, it's not the disclosure of their _relationship_ which was illegal, it's the disclosure of her _employment at the CIA under cover_.
Finally, Novak seems to be suggesting that he doesn't have the mens rea required to have committed a crime (or otherwise violated ethics) because he "reasserted that no CIA official ever told him in advance ''that Valerie Plame Wilson's disclosure would endanger her or anybody else.''" (NYT).
So: no actual warning from the Men in Black Hats that printing the name of a CIA employee would endanger anybody, although they had told him that 1) there was no need, and 2) he shouldn't do it anyway. Novak, I guess, claims that means he wasn't sufficiently warned.
But Novak Knew or Should Have Known:
Novak may not be a traitor, but he's certainly somewhere between a fool, a dupe, and a jerk. Pick your preferred spot in the triangle.
(show)
...has broken his silence. Against his lawyer's advice (there's a good strategy, Bob), he is defending himself against statements by former CIA spokesbeing Bill Harlow (NYT: free subscription may be required), that Novak was (allegedly told)
- the story he was going to publish was in fact wrong, that the idea or suggestion for the Niger trip Wilson took did not come from his wife, and that in any case
- even if Novak were to go ahead and write the story, he should not use her name.
Harlow apparently claims that he could not explain the reason for the second point, since disclosure of the fact of Plame's cover was itself classified, and could not be told to Novak- even in order to prevent a far wider and more damaging leak.
So: what's left?
One journalist in contempt and jailed (Miller); one journalist plus his employer caved and testified, saying he had permission from his source (Cooper, which I gather surprised Karl Rove's attorney); one unindicted journalist (Novak) and lots of flying accusations.
My view: Novak's claims don't hold water. He was warned off, told that 1) his story was false-to-fact, and 2) he should not use a particular person's name in the story if he went ahead and published it.
Then he wrote the story, in the process disregarding Harlow's warning. But now he's saying the following, according to the NYT:
The columnist said Harlow was ''just plain wrong'' in saying he had deliberately disregarded Harlow's comment that Plame had not authorized her husband's trip.
''There never was any question of me talking about Mrs. Wilson 'authorizing.' I was told she 'suggested' the mission, and that is what I asked Harlow,'' he wrote.
Well, that may all be true. It's certainly true as Novak points out that he couldn't have published the words "Wilson's wife suggested the trip" without people instantly making the connection to Valerie; as people keep pointing out, it's not the disclosure of their _relationship_ which was illegal, it's the disclosure of her _employment at the CIA under cover_.
Finally, Novak seems to be suggesting that he doesn't have the mens rea required to have committed a crime (or otherwise violated ethics) because he "reasserted that no CIA official ever told him in advance ''that Valerie Plame Wilson's disclosure would endanger her or anybody else.''" (NYT).
So: no actual warning from the Men in Black Hats that printing the name of a CIA employee would endanger anybody, although they had told him that 1) there was no need, and 2) he shouldn't do it anyway. Novak, I guess, claims that means he wasn't sufficiently warned.
But Novak Knew or Should Have Known:
- that disclosure of the identity of a CIA employee is Heavy Stuff;
- that printing their name without the approval or cooperation of the CIA itself is Bad Juju;
- that if the employee is a covert operative that their life can be put into immediate danger by that disclosure;
- that the lives of every agent, every source, and every friendly operative who have ever been observed (publicly or covertly) contacting or operating in concert with the blown agent are then endangered;
- and that screwing around with this sort of thing isn't Novak's usual political hardball, but rather intelligence dynamite, which disclosure can directly harm the United States to the benefit of its enemies.
Novak may not be a traitor, but he's certainly somewhere between a fool, a dupe, and a jerk. Pick your preferred spot in the triangle.
(hide)
Posted by Eh Nonymous on
Monday August 1, 2005 at 5:24pm
Question: What does Juju mean? I've never seen this world before. Do enlighten me, please!
The media reported the disclosure because it was news. They reported her name because it was a sensational and crucial piece of the story. They were not, however, doing any additional harm that private individuals who were interested had not already done. Key persons - counter-espionage analysts, political reporters, foreign nations in which Ms. Plame had worked - all knew of the news the instant it hit the internet, anywhere. You know how good a few million bloggers are at disseminating news, right?
Well, picture a few thousand people far more sophisticated than the average blogger, with money at their disposal, and the biggest "ears" you can imagine, trawling the news for information of import. Looking for even hints that could lead to the identity of a CIA agent or what the U.S.'s strategic moves or motives are.
Imagine a nationally (and internationally) read columnist putting the words "CIA" in a column, and imagine search engines quivering.
So, yes, "everyone in the world must know by now" - but the rest of the media's actions are not "revealing," more like announcing a fact: bad news, but they're not the cause of it.
Juju? Well, Wikipedia's no help on this one. Try googling "juju definition." What comes back as the "we definition" result is, "the power associated with a juju." Got to say, google, this is not your finest hour. Recursive-looking definitions using nouns to define the same word with a different meaning- not cool.
Looks like that's the first definition of several; a later one is "a charm superstitiously believed to embody magical powers," a fetish, charm, amulet, see also voodoo, hoodoo, fetish, West Africa, and Haiti.
As for "bad juju" - that idiom can best be conveyed not by defining it, by showing an equation that someone else used to arrive at it.
"Indian food + Jaegermeister + Smirnoff Ice = Bad Juju. My stomach isn't peachy at the moment...."
In other words, what I usually call a Bad Hair Day.
The Beatles used it, in their song Come Together. Remember?
"Here come old flat top, he come groovin' up slowly, he got juju eyeballs, he want holy rollers, he got hair down to his knees, got to be good lookin' cuz he's so hard to see"