Misc. Ramblings

The Plame CIA "outing" debacle gets more and more interesting [everyone else in the world who has a life can just skip on down to the next item - ed.]. It seems that conservative columnist Robert Novak has a new column in which he makes certain claims.

First, he asserts that he is "a veteran of 48 years in Washington." Assuming this is true, one presumes he is saying he is wise in the ways of Washington and is, therefore, an expert rather than a journalistic dilettante.

If we accept this at face value then, I believe, it is fair to judge him in that light.

Novak goes on to say that one CIA source told Post reporters that he (the CIA source) "had 'warned' me [Novak] that if I 'did write about it her name should not be revealed.'" Novak does not dispute this report but says it's nonsense to not reveal the agent's name because anyone could just look in Who's Who and get the name. Novak is silent as to whether quoting Who's Who would reveal that Plame was an undercover agent. As noted before, revealing the name of a CIA secret agent is a federal offense because it endangers the security of the United States, the agent, and any operatives the agent may have worked with. This is especially true in time of war which, President Bush and other Republicans love to remind us, we are constantly in.

As a sidebar, it is exceedingly curious that no charges have been leveled against Novak, yet. One hates to speculate as to why, since most of the obvious reasons are so unseemly. But lets think about this for a minute and list some of the possibilities. One, the man didn't do anything illegal. Two, he did something illegal but he cut a deal with prosecutors in an attempt to save himself and point the blame at someone else. Three, he did something illegal and certain people in the Justice Department are doing their best to look the other way. Four, he did something illegal and will be indicted.

Getting back to his column, Novak says he was told by the CIA source that if Novak revealed her name, "she [Plame, the undercover agent] probably never again would be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties.'" In the world of reading between the lines, using the word "difficulties", in relation to an undercover agent, is a red flag to anyone who has any understanding of nuanced communications. If, in fact, Novak was an experience Washington hand, he should have realized that he was being warned not to reveal undercover agent Plame's name because of national security concerns.

Instead, Novak says "I never would have written those sentences [outing Plame] if Harlow, then-CIA Director George Tenet or anybody else from the agency had told me that Valerie Plame Wilson's disclosure would endanger herself or anybody." Funny how a self-described experienced reporter like Novak now conveniently seems blind to the, I believe, clear warning he received.

I am not a lawyer or a judge (insert disclaimer here]. So, I leave it up to you to decide what is happening here. But what seems clear to me is that either Novak is not the experienced reporter he asserts he is, or he is making what appears to me some very questionable and potentially legally actionable statements.