• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Novak's Original Source for "Outing" Plame?

EBU

Thinker
E
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
176
Last month, Robert Novak said that two of his sources for the column in which he identified Valerie Plame as a CIA operative were Karl Rove and Bill Harlow (CIA public information officer), but he refused to name the third source. Yesterday Newsweek named Richard Armitage as that source. Novak refused to confirm that, but he did say that it's "high time" that his source reveal himself.

So was it Armitage? Will Armitage come clean? Does anyone still care?
 
EBU said:
Here's one link:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=116511

Here's another:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/11/cia.leak/index.html
Click to expand...

Thanks. I was trying to get some frame of reference.

From the CNN article...

Novak said Rove confirmed information from another source, whose identity Novak is still keeping under wraps.

But he said special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knows the source's identity, and Novak said he does not think that person will be charged with unmasking now-former CIA agent Valerie Plame.
Click to expand...

Didn't Novak finally reveal the original source very, very recently (within the last couple of weeks or so)?
 
Rob Lister said:
Thanks. I was trying to get some frame of reference.

From the CNN article...



Didn't Novak finally reveal the original source very, very recently (within the last couple of weeks or so)?
Click to expand...

No, Novak hasn't revealed that source. The latest issue of Newsweek has an article saying it's Armitage. Today on Meet the Press, Novak was asked about that article. He said he would not name the source himself, but that's where he said it's "high time" for the source to reveal himself.

So that's what I was asking about: will Novak's nudge be enough for Armitage (or whoever) to come clean? And if he does, will it make any difference to anyone?
 
EBU said:
No, Novak hasn't revealed that source. The latest issue of Newsweek has an article saying it's Armitage. Today on Meet the Press, Novak was asked about that article. He said he would not name the source himself, but that's where he said it's "high time" for the source to reveal himself.

So that's what I was asking about: will Novak's nudge be enough for Armitage (or whoever) to come clean? And if he does, will it make any difference to anyone?
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. Thanks for the timely links.

Why would the primary source come clean though? Hasn't it already been established that no crime was commited in the revealing of the name? Yea, I know it might suck to to Libby accused of covering up what is, or appears to be, a non-crime, but why would the primary source come clean?
 
Apollyon said:
Fitzgerald. Armitage testified long ago. If Fitzgerald had any reason to charge him it would have been done already.
Click to expand...
That might be a good answer, but not to the question I asked: Who established that no crime was committed in the revealing of the name? ... as claimed by Rob Lister.
 
Bjorn said:
That might be a good answer, but not to the question I asked: Who established that no crime was committed in the revealing of the name? ... as claimed by Rob Lister.
Click to expand...
Once again, the answer is Fitzgerald. Since Fitzgerald was tasked with levying charges on those he felt committed a crime, has already spoken to all the suspects involved, and subsequently didn't charge anyone for revealing Plame's name, one must infer that Fitzgerald either didn't find any crime was committed or he didn't do his job properly. I'll have to assume the former unless someone can prove the latter. If you have proof that Fitzgerald didn't do his job properly, by all means, present it. I'm more than willing to change my mind if such evidence is produced.
 
Bjorn said:
Who established that no crime was committed in the revealing of the name? ... as claimed by Rob Lister.
Click to expand...

Since when is a question a claim? He ASKED for confirmation that it's been established. That's quite a distance from claiming that it has been.

Aaron
 
HeavyAaron said:
Since when is a question a claim? He ASKED for confirmation that it's been established. That's quite a distance from claiming that it has been.

Aaron
Click to expand...
FWIW, Bjorn specifically asked "who":

Bjorn said:
Curious: Established by whom?
Click to expand...

Bjorn said:
That might be a good answer, but not to the question I asked: Who established that no crime was committed in the revealing of the name? ... as claimed by Rob Lister.
Click to expand...

Both times Apollyon answered "Fitzgerald."
 
Apollyon said:
one must infer that Fitzgerald either didn't find any crime was committed or he didn't do his job properly.
Click to expand...
In all fairness, there is a third answer: people lied under oath to Fitzgerald's grand jury.

If, for example, Armitage did commit a crime, but he and others lied under oath to cover Armitage, Fitzgerald may be unable to garner sufficient evidence to charge Armitage. Nor might he be able to prove the collusion to hide Armitage's crime.

That's all speculation though. I have no evidence of such collusion and merely present it as a third alternative.
 
According to the source, Armitage admitted this to Powell. Wouldn't this implicate Powell as well.

A side question, why doesn't the source ever want to be identified?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/

The Man Who Said Too Much
A book coauthored by NEWSWEEK's Michael Isikoff details Richard Armitage's central role in the Valerie Plame leak.
By Michael Isikoff

On the phone with Powell that morning, Armitage was "in deep distress," says a source directly familiar with the conversation who asked not to be identified because of legal sensitivities. "I'm sure he's talking about me."
Click to expand...
 
marksman said:
In all fairness, there is a third answer: people lied under oath to Fitzgerald's grand jury.

If, for example, Armitage did commit a crime, but he and others lied under oath to cover Armitage, Fitzgerald may be unable to garner sufficient evidence to charge Armitage. Nor might he be able to prove the collusion to hide Armitage's crime.

That's all speculation though. I have no evidence of such collusion and merely present it as a third alternative.
Click to expand...
Agreed, though I think that falls under the first category. I didn't delve into why Fitzgerald didn't find that a crime was committed, merely that he didn't. However, considering the time he spent on this investigation and with all the documentation available from the various sources, it would seem that if there was collusion, or a coverup, it probably would have become apparent at some point unless everybody was in on it.
 
Apollyon said:
... if there was collusion, or a coverup, it probably would have become apparent at some point unless everybody was in on it.
Click to expand...
All conspiracies have "everyone in on it." That's proof of just how clever these conspirators are.

(...remove tongue from cheek...)
 
Christopher Hitchens, who has written extensively on the subject, winds it down.
...there was always another layer to the Joseph Wilson fantasy. Easy enough as it was to prove that he had completely missed the West African evidence that was staring him in the face, there remained the charge that his nonreport on a real threat had led to a government-sponsored vendetta against him and his wife, Valerie Plame.

http://www.slate.com/id/2148555

Now that the left has found out that the person who "outed" Plame was not the pro-war neocon they hoped for but a person opposed to regime change, will there tenor change? Hitchens points out - yes, it has.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom