Holy Guacamole: Novak Did NOT!! Cite "Administration" As Source

[chiburb]

From a blog called "The Rant": (Link follows snip)

Snip:

Each of us writing in the Blogosphere knows the power of words, if we didn't beleive words have meaning and power we wouldn't be doing this. Accordingly we are also aware that presentation is everything. When Robert Novak phrased the outing of Valerie Plame in a manner that appeared to imply an administration source that was no accident. Let's revisit the questionable reference,


"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report."

Looking closely at these two sentences it is clear Novak does not claim an administration source for his knowledge. In fact he makes no attribution what so ever and that is the problem. No where in this article does he attempt to substantiate his claim concerning Valerie Plame's status with the CIA, instead he leaves it to the reader to draw the obvious conclusion by starting the sentence after the assertion with, "Two senior administration officials told me".

Either the administration told Novak Valerie Plame is a CIA operative or they didn't. Novak certainly wants us to believe they did. Either the administration is lying or Novak is.

Read the whole thing here:

http://www.therant.info/archive/001187.html

[Fixated]

1. ....

Good point. Maybe he'll address it.

[salin]

2. we have to find the original column

b/c Josh Marshall shows how the wording is different. High Ranking WH official in the Novak story, but Admin official in the WP story that admitted the leak by two people.

Since he was parsing words- I rather trust his analysis over this blog. But would have to see the original Novak item to say for sure.

[chiburb]

3. The "Snip" is from the original, here is the link:

To the whole column:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml

[salin]

7. Interesting this - in the WP -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11208-2003Sep27?language=printer

By the way. This refutes that. From the washington post story on the CIA calling for the investigation.

Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. Wilson had just revealed that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account touched off a political fracas over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.

[Emboldened Chimp]

12. Andrea Mitchell might be one of the six

Just heard Randi Rhodes talking about it. Anyone else hear this?

[sinkingfeeling]

4. Here's a link to the column......

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml

[ElsewheresDaughter]

5. ok how do you account for the "2 senior WH officials made calls to 6

news reporters and news outlets with the infomation about wilson's wife"?...it is not just Novak......MSNBC Buchanan and Press...they just said this and will discuss it tonight with Wilson

[PunkinPi]

6. FWIW, my SO is reasonably sure ,

that when this story broke a couple of months ago, that Novak verbally confirmed the source came from inside the WH on Crossfire.

[DoYouEverWonder]

17. I saw that one

He definitely confirmed it on that show.

[RobertSeattle]

8. I'm waiting for "It all depends on your definition of source"

[chiburb]

9. My point is...

I'm as excited as anyone here about the possibilities of this being the end of Rove and/or Cheney.
BUT...
This is the 1st time I've seen something that makes me wonder if NOVAK isn't being set up here (?).
I'm guilty of reading the original as I wanted to read it, not as it was actually written. Is it possible we've all been had?

[salin]

11. how do you explain the reference in the WPost

story that I linked above. One "admin official" singles out two "White House Officials" as leaking to 6 journalists.

If this is a semantic set up of Novak - then someone didn't tell the 'admin official' who spoke to the WP.

[chiburb]

13. I don't 'explain" anything..

I'm as hopeful as everyone, but would the WH denials be so vehement if they HAD leaked to Novak?
What we need is an independent investigation... I trust AssCrack less than I do Rove or Novak.

[PunkinPi]

10. live just on CSPAN - reporter shouted the question to bush

"Did a member of your staff out a CIA agent, sir?" As bush was walking out of 'do not call list' announcement.

[Bozita]

15. a reporter with cajones?

They must have spiked the water in the WH with testosterone.

[Gin]

16. Rove did the same thing before with Novak....and was fired from

the first Bush campaign...these fools don't learn from past mistakes.
Hope they all go down hard.

[LittleApple81]

14. so what is this DU thread all about then?

Oaf of Office just posted:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=432100

"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml

[chiburb]

18. Haven't a clue... n/t

.

[KoKo]

20. There's a discrepancy in the two sentences. Novak says first: Two Senior

Administration officials told him that Wilson's wife was responsible for Wilson going to Niger.

But, in the next sentence Novak says: The CIA says that it's "counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him.

The discrepancy (in my view and I had to read this over and over) is that the Aminstration was making it sound like Wilson only went to Niger because his wife ON HER OWN (not Cheney) asked him to. But, Novak then talked to the CIA and they told him No......that it was THEIR OWN "Counter-proliferation officials" who selected Wilson. They asked his wife to contact him, but it wasn't her decision it was CIA's decision to ask her to ask him.

Just my opinion...from parsing those two sentences trying to figure out what the deal with Novak's report was.

[Oilwellian]

19. Oh yes he did...

<snip>
And while we're on the subject of patriotism, let's talk about the affair of Joseph Wilson's wife. Mr. Wilson is the former ambassador who was sent to Niger by the C.I.A. to investigate reports of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases and who recently went public with his findings. Since then administration allies have sought to discredit him - it's unpleasant stuff. But here's the kicker:both the columnist Robert Novak and Time magazine say that administration officials told them that they believed that Mr. Wilson had been chosen through the influence of his wife, whom they identified as a C.I.A. operative.

Think about that: if their characterization of Mr. Wilson's wife is true (he refuses to confirm or deny it), Bush administration officials have exposed the identity of a covert operative. That happens to be a criminal act; it's also definitely unpatriotic.

http://truthout.org/docs_03/072303D.shtml


Uh, think about what you're posting here. The original smear tactic this administration used, was Wilson being chosen for this trip to Niger because of his wife's link to the CIA. Tell me who YOU think exposed Mrs Wilson if not Bush administration officials?

[chiburb]

21. Once again, I THINK it was Rove or Cheney...

To answer your question.
HOWEVER, the fact that Novak did NOT cite the WH or Administration re Plame's identity escaped me 'till reading the page cited in the OP.
I'm sure it escaped all of us, since I've seen no reference to that since the story broke in July.
Yep, the WP story seems to confirm what we THOUGHT we read back then (ands we've linked to here), but we were obviously wrong.
Their (so far) strong denials have me a little concerned..