Novak Told Rove About Plame
By Captain Ed on National Politics
Captain's Quarters
The New York Times now has a source within the grand jury proceedings in the Robert Fitzgerald investigation into the alleged leak of Valerie Plame's status as a CIA operative. The new article for tomorrow's edition by David Johnston and Richard Stevenson reveals that Karl Rove spoke with Robert Novak before he released his column -- but that Novak told Rove about Plame, including her name, and not the other way around:
<<<
Karl Rove, the White House senior adviser, spoke with the columnist Robert D. Novak as he was preparing an article in July 2003 that identified a C.I.A. officer who was undercover, someone who has been officially briefed on the matter said.
Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.
After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too."
The previously undisclosed telephone conversation, which took place on July 8, 2003, was initiated by Mr. Novak, the person who has been briefed on the matter said.
>>>
In fact, despite the characterization of Rove as a partisan attack dog looking for revenge, it turns out that Novak called Rove. Just like the earlier revelation about Rove's conversation with Cooper, Novak called Rove and started out by asking Rove about a completely different subject. He wanted a comment about the promotion of a Janet Reno aide to a key counterterrorism job at the White House, and only filled Rove in on Plame after getting Rove's reaction to his initial query.
That flies in the face of any notion that Rove set out to damage Wilson or Plame. Unless Rove wanted to set records for the laziest but most efficient character assassination in political history, waiting around for two different journalists to call him on unrelated matters and hoping that they mentioned Wilson doesn't sound like a very effective way to wreak revenge on a political opponent.
However, the ability of the New York Times to publish this story tonight demonstrates the irony of their stance on the entire Rove story. In order to get this information, the Times has to have a source either on the grand jury or in the office of the Special Prosecutor. Either way, this leak violates the law; grand jury testimony in special investigations are supposed to remain secret. Given that the Gray Lady has led the charge against Rove and his supposedly illegal leak, doesn't this seem a wee bit ... hypocritical?
BUMP TO TOP: It seems this will still be the story of the week, despite the collapse of all credibility for allegations that Rove leaked the story to Novak and Cooper for revenge. I'll let it ride near the top today.
UPDATE: John Podhoretz sums this up nicely (via Michelle Malkin):
This surely qualifies as one of the "hey, big whoop"
stories of all time. And I am not saying this because I
am some partisan gunslinger. Simple fairness says that an
official called by a journalist who volunteers a piece of
gossip and then responds, "I heard that too," is not
retailing a piece of incendiary information intended to
destroy lives and place CIA assets in harm's way.
And I'm going to be blunt here. Anybody who says
different has an agenda that has nothing whatever to do
with Joseph Wilson, Valerie Plame, the Intelligence
Identities Protection Act of 1982, or much of anything
else besides doing damage to the Bush administration and
character-assassinating Karl Rove.
I think it may even be more than that, at least on the media's part, and specific to the New York Times. They know who Judith Miller's source is, and they're trying their best to keep it quiet. One wonders why they're carrying so much water for a story they never broke. Could it have something to do with their publication of Joseph Wilson's original op-ed article that started the whole mess?
captainsquartersblog.com
nytimes.com |
