NationStates Jolt Archive

1. Rove was not his primary source.
2. Armitage told him everything about Plame and Wilson.

"When Richard Armitage finally acknowledged last week he was my source three years ago in revealing Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA employee, the former deputy secretary of state's interviews obscured what he really did," Bob Novak claims in a column set for Thursday release.

Novak, attempting to set the record straight, writes: "First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he 'thought' might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked, and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former Amb. Joseph Wilson. Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column."

Novak slams Armitage for holding back all this time.

Armitage's silence for "two and one-half years caused intense pain for his colleagues in government and enabled partisan Democrats in Congress to falsely accuse Rove of being my primary source," Novak explains.

"When Armitage now says he was mute because of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's request, that does not explain his silent three months between his claimed first realization that he was the source and Fitzgerald's appointment on Dec. 30. Armitage's tardy self-disclosure is tainted because it is deceptive."

Wait wait wait. Novak, who could of cleared the entire situation up in about 10 seconds is lambasting Armitage for not fessing up?

What

the

fuck?

Oh,say it isnt so....:p

Wait wait wait. Novak, who could of cleared the entire situation up in about 10 seconds is lambasting Armitage for not fessing up?

What

the

fuck?

Well, Novak says it's "press confidentiality", which is ass-covering doublespeak for "I loved watching this play out".

Well, Novak says it's "press confidentiality", which is ass-covering doublespeak for "I loved watching this play out".

He was also well aware who would wail loudest and whom the most shit would stick too.
And this revelation wont reach nearly as many people.

Ya know, the question I've had since the whole Armitage thing broke was this:

There were people calling for the head of the person who leaked the names. (Yes, I was one.)

Will these people now call for charges against Armitage?

I'd like to see those charges.

You guys actually believe Novak? Y'all will believe anyone, I guess, which explains your continued trust of this administration.

I mean, maybe Novak's telling the truth this time, but it's not like he's got a track record of doing it, and given who his allies are on this subject, you're a sucker if you take his word on this subject--and make no mistake, that's what you're doing, taking his word on it, as though he's a trustworthy source.

You guys actually believe Novak? Y'all will believe anyone, I guess, which explains your continued trust of this administration.

I mean, maybe Novak's telling the truth this time, but it's not like he's got a track record of doing it, and given who his allies are on this subject, you're a sucker if you take his word on this subject--and make no mistake, that's what you're doing, taking his word on it, as though he's a trustworthy source.

IIRC, you wanted the person who was the primary source of the leaks put behind bars.

Why haven't you called for Armitage to be put on trial immediately?

Seems like there's more than enough evidence.

IIRC, you wanted the person who was the primary source of the leaks put behind bars.

Why haven't you called for Armitage to be put on trial immediately?

Seems like there's more than enough evidence.

Actually, I have called for it, and I stand by it. And what does that have to do with whether or not Novak is trustworthy? Armitage ought to be charged with whatever he can be charged with. I trust Fitzgerald to make the call on it, just like I trusted him when he said there would be no charges against Rove--for now. I see no need to change that stance.

Actually, I have called for it, and I stand by it. And what does that have to do with whether or not Novak is trustworthy? Armitage ought to be charged with whatever he can be charged with. I trust Fitzgerald to make the call on it, just like I trusted him when he said there would be no charges against Rove--for now. I see no need to change that stance.

I find it interesting that Fitzgerald knew that Armitage was first from the very beginning, and didn't charge him.

He had the evidence in hand, and didn't charge him. Don't you consider that malfeasance?

I find it interesting that Fitzgerald knew that Armitage was first from the very beginning, and didn't charge him.

He had the evidence in hand, and didn't charge him. Don't you consider that malfeasance?I'm not a prosecutor, nor do I claim to be, so I'm hardly the person to claim malfeasance, and I never have in this case. I've always been content to wait for Fitzgerald decide what can be charged and convicted.

Besides, no matter who's convicted, the fact remains that Rove admitted to the grand jury that he was a source for the story, which confirms his douchebaggery. Whether he was first or second or third makes no difference. He aided in outing the CIA operative who was heading the search for WMD intel in Iraq, for no other reason than to try to head off a politically damaging story.

Don't forget that, and don't try to sweep it away--Rove, whether he is convicted or not, admitted to taking part in the outing of Valerie Plame, a NOC agent working in a highly sensitive area of US intel.

One last thing--I still maintain that if you're gettng gleeful about what Novak says, you're a sucker for believing him.

One other bit of fallout from this is going to be a very quiet dismissal of charges against Libby.

One last thing--I still maintain that if you're gettng gleeful about what Novak says, you're a sucker for believing him.
I'm not a sucker for believing Armitage when he admitted he was the first, and was the primary source for Novak. Nor for believing Fitzgerald's admission that he knew about this all along.

One other bit of fallout from this is going to be a very quiet dismissal of charges against Libby.

Why? Libby's not charged with outing Plame. He's charged with perjury and obstruction. Nothing's changed on that front.

I'm not a sucker for believing Armitage when he admitted he was the first, and was the primary source for Novak. Nor for believing Fitzgerald's admission that he knew about this all along.

But you're a sucker if you believe Novak's spin on it. Like I said, he might be accurately describing it, but it would be the first time he's been honest about this whole matter.

Why? Libby's not charged with outing Plame. He's charged with perjury and obstruction. Nothing's changed on that front.
While he may be technically guilty, the dismissal will be about politics. It's just a hunch, but I wanted to get it 'in print' so I could say I told you so at a later date.

But you're a sucker if you believe Novak's spin on it. Like I said, he might be accurately describing it, but it would be the first time he's been honest about this whole matter.

Well, like every other asshat journalist, he has been hiding behind the ass-covering doublespeak of "protecting his source".

Any journalist who hides behind that, then, in your estimation, is a liar from the start.

While he may be technically guilty, the dismissal will be about politics. It's just a hunch, but I wanted to get it 'in print' so I could say I told you so at a later date.

I doubt there will be a dismissal. A pardon, on the other hand....

Frankly, I imagine the pardons will be flying hot and heavy come December 2008, so much so that Clinton will look like a piker by comparison.

Well, like every other asshat journalist, he has been hiding behind the ass-covering doublespeak of "protecting his source".

Any journalist who hides behind that, then, in your estimation, is a liar from the start.

Not even close, though I'm not surprised that you tried this bit of spin.

Not even close, though I'm not surprised that you tried this bit of spin.

It's not spin. It's what Novak hid behind all this time.

It's not spin. It's what Novak hid behind all this time.

I'm not talking about Novak. I'm talking about your mischaracterization of my post. I'm not playing that game anymore, DK. I'm not defending against your crap spin of my posts anymore. You're a bullshit artist--a good one, mind you--but you're still a bullshit artist, and I'm not going to go round and round showing that your characterizations are crap. People around here are smart enough to see it, and they generally do. So instead, when you do it, you'll be dismissed with all the disdain you so richly deserve.

I'm not talking about Novak. I'm talking about your mischaracterization of my post. I'm not playing that game anymore, DK. I'm not defending against your crap spin of my posts anymore. You're a bullshit artist--a good one, mind you--but you're still a bullshit artist, and I'm not going to go round and round showing that your characterizations are crap. People around here are smart enough to see it, and they generally do. So instead, when you do it, you'll be dismissed with all the disdain you so richly deserve.

How is that a mischaracterization of your post? Novak has only hid behind "press confidentiality", and for that you call him a liar.

Ergo, if he's a liar because of that, then every journalist who hides behind that sort of confidentiality is a liar.

And calling me names won't change that.

How is that a mischaracterization of your post? Novak has only hid behind "press confidentiality", and for that you call him a liar.

Ergo, if he's a liar because of that, then every journalist who hides behind that sort of confidentiality is a liar.

And calling me names won't change that.
Those are the mischaracterizations. Figure it out for yourself.

Those are the mischaracterizations. Figure it out for yourself.

You said he was a liar. That we couldn't trust what Novak said.

It's not a mischaracterization, and you know it.

Logic is used to show that if you believe that Novak's lies, which were all "press confidentiality" claims, are truly lies, then any reporter who engages in "press confidentiality" is also a liar.

QED

You said he was a liar. That we couldn't trust what Novak said.

It's not a mischaracterization, and you know it.

Logic is used to show that if you believe that Novak's lies, which were all "press confidentiality" claims, are truly lies, then any reporter who engages in "press confidentiality" is also a liar.

QED

So the only lies Novak can tell are about press confidentiality? Hmm, I don't seem to remember limiting the scope of my charge in such a way. You did.

Go fuck yourself, DK.

So the only lies Novak can tell are about press confidentiality? Hmm, I don't seem to remember limiting the scope of my charge in such a way. You did.

Go fuck yourself, DK.

You've given no other examples of "Novak's lies".

Proof is required. Links please.

So the only lies Novak can tell are about press confidentiality? Hmm, I don't seem to remember limiting the scope of my charge in such a way. You did.

Go fuck yourself, DK.

You're still playing DK's little troll games . . .

You're still playing DK's little troll games . . .

If you think it's trolling, put a post in Moderation.

If you think it's trolling, put a post in Moderation.

I don't beleive in mods and I don't go whining to them when someone pisses me off.

I don't beleive in mods and I don't go whining to them when someone pisses me off.

Then it must not be trolling.

Then it must not be trolling.
Nice to see I can come back after a few days absence and still find the same arguments at the same points as when I left. :p

Not trolling in the sense that you are just pointlessly trying to offend or otherwise occupy people's time, but trolling in the sense that it's a communication from you -- well, let's be honest, you can be a grade-A irritating little critter under a bridge.

For instance, here you are -- yet again -- ignoring the topic of your own thread in order to concentrate on trying to attack Nazz, even though you have nothing to attack him with -- yet again. You merely latch onto any random remark from him and try to attach all kinds of other ideas to it that were not said by him and have no relation to what he actually said. He said Novak is a liar. He never said anything even remotely like "all journalists who claim to be protecting a source are liars." Your pointless insistence that he said something he did not say is annoying to the point of trollishness.

Normally, I expect you not to trot out this kind of BS until you have already failed to defend whatever argument you were trying to make, but this time -- what is your argument in this thread? That Armitage should face charges if he did indeed leak Plame's identity? Who is opposing that? So, what -- you figured, if the evil liberals fail to take the bait, then you may as well amuse yourself by annoying Nazz?

Anyone miss me? Want to know why I left? Exhibit A, this thread.

Anyone miss me? Want to know why I left? Exhibit A, this thread.
Didn't get far though, did you? ;)