<p>And it is NOT Rove or Cheney.</p>
<p>BOB NOVAK, My Leak Case Testimony: 'I learned Valerie Plame’s name from Joe Wilson’s entry in ‘Who’s Who in America’… MORE Published reports that I took the Fifth Amendment, made a plea bargain with the prosecutors or was a prosecutorial target were all untrue… MORE… My primary source has not come forward to identify himself… Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer who was my CIA source for the column confirming Mrs. Wilson’s identity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Geesh, even with this, you can’t get it right, barrons.</p>
<p>Where the heck do you get your info? Cracker Jack boxes? Fortune cookies? National Enquirer?</p>
<p>WASHINGTON - Columnist Robert Novak said publicly for the first time Tuesday that White House political adviser Karl Rove was a source for his story outing the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame.</p>
<p>In a column, Novak also says his recollection of his conversation with Rove differs from what the Rove camp has said.</p>
<p>“I have revealed Rove’s name because his attorney has divulged the substance of our conversation, though in a form different from my recollection,” Novak wrote. Novak did not elaborate.</p>
<p>A spokesman for Rove’s legal team, Mark Corallo, said that Rove did not even know Plame’s name at the time he spoke with Novak, that the columnist called Rove, not the other way around, and that Rove simply said he had heard the same information that Novak passed along to him regarding Plame.</p>
<p>“There was not much of a difference” between the recollections of Rove and Novak, said Corallo.</p>
<p>Novak said he is talking now because Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald told the columnist’s lawyer that after 2 1/2 years his investigation of the CIA leak case concerning matters directly relating to Novak has been concluded.</p>
<p>Triggering the criminal investigation, Novak revealed Plame’s CIA employment on July 14, 2003, eight days after her husband, White House critic and former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the administration of manipulating prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat from weapons of mass destruction.</p>
<p>Novak’s secret cooperation with prosecutors while maintaining a public silence about his role kept him out of legal danger and had the effect of providing protection for the Bush White House during the 2004 presidential campaign.</p>
<p>The White House denied Rove played any role in the leak of Plame’s CIA identity and Novak, with his decision to talk to prosecutors, steered clear of potentially being held in contempt of court and jailed. Novak said he had declined to go public at Fitzgerald’s request.</p>
<p>In a syndicated column to be released Wednesday, Novak says he told Fitzgerald in early 2004 that Rove and then-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow had confirmed information about Plame.</p>
<p>Since I didn’t see this news when I glanced through Google news, I started looking around for more information. </p>
<p>It appears that the information may have comes from three sources:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/16032.html[/url]”>http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/16032.html</a>
<a href=“http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2006/07/11/novak-reveals-plame-source/[/url]”>http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2006/07/11/novak-reveals-plame-source/</a>
<a href=“http://www.drudgereport.com/[/url]”>http://www.drudgereport.com/</a></p>
<p>Both the Conservative Voice and the Stop the ACLU websites point to the Drudge Report. The Drudge Report links to the Washington Post article already cited. No where did I find any references to “Who’s Who”.</p>
<p>If someone could point to where this reference came from, I would appreciate it.</p>
<p>I try to stay out of political discussions, but I am “big” on citations. I am troubled by the quotation that leaves out important information:</p>
<p>“Novak said, “I learned Valerie Plame’s name from Joe Wilson’s entry in ‘Who’s Who in America,’” according to the Drudge Report.” (Conservative Voice).</p>
<p>You should quote the whole story–which came out hours after my post which was cut and pasted directly off Drudge. There is a name for people who post stuff and leave out important sections–it is not very nice.</p>
<p>"“The primary source was not a political operative,” he said, and he mentioned Plame’s role in the middle of a conversation about other subjects. “I don’t believe it was part of a plan to discredit anybody.”</p>
<p>A spokesman for Rove, Mark Corallo, said Novak’s account of phoning Rove confirms what the White House strategist has said. “Karl never reached out to any reporters,” Corallo said. “They called him.”</p>
<p>Novak said he and Rove had differing recollections of what happened when he asked about Plame. Novak recalls Rove saying, “Oh, you know that, too?” Rove, according to Corallo, has said he responded, “I’ve heard that, too.”</p>
<p>Harlow, who declined to comment yesterday, has told The Post that he challenged aspects of Novak’s account three days before the column was published and warned the columnist that if he did write about Wilson’s Niger trip, Plame’s name should not be revealed. Novak said he has a different recollection of the conversation.</p>
<p>“I certainly wouldn’t have used her name if anyone had indicated she might be in danger,” Novak said</p>
<p>The “who’s who” reference is from USA Today, of all places.</p>
<p><a href=“http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/07/novak_set_to_te.html[/url]”>http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/07/novak_set_to_te.html</a></p>
<p>Novak: Rove was a source in outing Plame</p>
<p>By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 26 minutes ago</p>
<p>WASHINGTON - Now that Karl Rove won’t be indicted, now that the president won’t fire him, now that it really doesn’t matter anymore, more details of the Valerie Plame leak investigation trickle out.</p>
<p>In his latest syndicated column released Wednesday, columnist Robert Novak revealed his side of the story in the Plame affair, saying Rove was a confirming source for Novak’s story outing the
CIA officer, underscoring Rove’s role in a leak
President Bush once promised to punish.</p>
<p>The columnist said he learned of Plame’s CIA employment from a source he still refuses to publicly identify, and then confirmed with Rove and then-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow, whose roles in talking to Novak have been previously reported.</p>
<p>Novak said for the first time that prosecutors looking into the leaks already knew his sources when he agreed to disclose them.</p>
<p><a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060712/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_novak[/url]”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060712/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_novak</a></p>
<p>Barrons,</p>
<p>All I can say is baloney. You led this thread with
which is categorically false. What more can I say. For you to say “There is a name for people who post stuff and leave out important sections–it is not very nice.” strikes me as the height of irony.</p>
<p>Now, peace (which Iraq certainly needs…) </p>
<p>I will bow out of the discussion, as I have no more to add.</p>
<p>Actually, the “Who’s Who” reference is to Novak’s own column in Human Events.</p>
<p>Rove confirmed something already known to Novak so it is hardly leaking in my book. Novak was just doing good fact checking. Should Rove have lied and say he never heard of Plame?</p>
<p>Plame- did it say in who’s who that she was a CIA agent? I would like to see that entry</p>
<p>Her name was common knowledge, what she DID was not…its word games </p>
<p>And barrons, tsk tsk</p>
<p>And gosh, Rove should have said NOTHING!!! Its not like he doens’t know the concept</p>
<p>:Novak: So is Valerie Plames a CIA agent</p>
<p>Rove: We are not allowed to talk about who or who is not an agent…next question"</p>
<p>“Should Rove have lied?”</p>
<p>Gosh, no! Absolutely not. In fact, if a columnist or anyone else reads the entire Washington DC phonebook to Rove and asks if anyone of them is a CIA agent, then gosh darn, Rove should out’em all, right?</p>
<p>Its funny…its like Rove has always told the truth…he has not come out with his side of this mess publically, to the press, yet he can confirm to his good buddy Novak…convenient truth telling</p>
<p>Just remember, Rove is the font of honesty, integrity and all other things good, as is the rest of the RNC leadership. The swiftboat episode in the last election cycle was performance of a civic duty in getting truth out, as was the jamming of the phone lines in New Hampshire (which put an operative in jail, if I recall correctly - a failure of justice?) and so forth…</p>
<p>Plame- did it say in who’s who that she was a CIA agent? I would like to see that entry</p>
<p>Her name was common knowledge, what she DID was not…its word games </p>
<p>Did you see that source #2 was Bill Harlow, the CIA spokesman, who confirmed Ms. Plame’s identity and employment?</p>
<p>Just remember, Rove is the font of honesty, integrity and all other things good, as is the rest of the RNC leadership. The swiftboat episode in the last election cycle was performance of a civic duty in getting truth out, as was the jamming of the phone lines in New Hampshire (which put an operative in jail, if I recall correctly - a failure of justice?) and so forth…</p>
<p>Lots of dirty dealings on both sides, huh? How ‘bout the convictions related to the dems’ tire slashing.</p>
<p>Bottom line of this whole thing:
<p>Now, when does the investigation regarding the Pulitzer Prize winning stories (and the latest Pulitzer wannabe story) start?</p>
<p>Rove didn’t know what Bill Harlow said. He - by himself - leaked the name of a CIA operative (whether or not Novak already knew it is irrelevant) - and then, apparently lied to the President of the United States about it, or, alternatively, the President of the United States lied to us.</p>
<p>(why am I not surprised that I can’t figure out which…;)</p>
<p>What about Clinton?</p>
<p>Now, when does the investigation regarding the Pulitzer Prize winning stories (and the latest Pulitzer wannabe story) start?</p>
<p>I hear it’s a coming.</p>
<p>How in the WORLD do you know that no damage was done…the company she worked for, all outed, her contacts, outed, etc</p>
<p>To make such a statement with no basis in fact is absurd</p>
<p>No big deal? Guess you don’t take national security very seriouslly then</p>
<p>If you do any research at all, most CIA information often comes from sources that have to trust their contact and trust the USA…if their contact is named, everyone that person had contact with is looked at</p>
<p>It is amazing you would even think what you said is true.</p>
<p>We lost credibiltiy in the world with this, and now, if a CIA agent wants to get someone to help them, how much credence do they have, when at anytime the staff of the President of the USA can say sure they are with the CIA…</p>
<p>I am still in shock…guess that law created to protect CIA agents was eh,. not important</p>
<p>Lets name them all!!!</p>