Meet the Press: Those people who were expecting shrill histrionics in Robert Novak's back and forth with Tim Russert were disappointed. Novak came across ok, although there were a few long pauses and annoyed looks (a few microexpressions), but nothing overtly "gotcha!" He stated his case in a straightforward manner.

Since the July column came out, Novak has backpedalled a bit; Now, the leak has become an "Oh, and by the way" statement. Novak notes that in his original article, the Plame reference was buried in paragraph 6 of 10. Hence, it wasn't all that important, in his view. If you just watched Novak on "Meet the Press," your first inclination would probably be to believe him (hey, I'm gullible).

However, Novak's story fell apart (in my opinion) because he decided to get a little bit too cute with Russert: In the process of rationalizing his use of the word "operative," as a general phrase versus "covert agent," Novak said words (more or less) to the following effect: "If somebody did a Nexis search of my columns, they'd find an overuse of "operative" . . . to describe political hacks, etc."

Great suggestion . . . only too clever by half. Since we 're making suggestions for Nexis searches, I have one: Novak could have very easily done a Nexis (or a Google) search on "Valerie Plame," both with and without Ambassador Wilson's name. That would have made it eminently clear if she was operating under cover or not. (I used Factiva, the joint Reuters/Dow Jones archive, but Nexis will give you the same results. Try it: Search for "Valerie Plame" "prior to July 14, 2003," the date Novak's column outed Wilson's wife).

This leads to the conclusion that not only did Novak blow a covert operative's cover, he did so with a minimum amount of homework, and no due diligence. That Nexis search would have revealed that while Wilson has tons of press going back 10 years, Plame has none -- at least none prior to Novak's intelligence faux pas. (Google shows the same). So as much as this is the result of a leak from the administration, its also the result of lazy, poorly researched journalism.

This suggest to me that Novak merely ran with what he was given, no questions asked.

Novak said the CIA gave him a "weak" request not to out her. Had Novak done the Nexis search, he would surely have known he was dealing with, as he originally said, an operative. At the very least, he would have discovered he was revealing the name of a CIA employee who had never ever been mentioned in the press before. At the very least, it should have given him pause, and made him rethink whether to mention "Mrs. Wilson."

His statement that he wouldn't have published Plame's name if CIA Chief Tenet called him and asked him not too -- is both silly and full of hubris. Reporters (and hostiles posing as reporters) would start calling the CIA to get denials and requests not to publish certain names. Its ludicrous to suggest that the CIA should do any more than an ambigous no comment/don't publish statement.

My Conclusion? Novak's original story was in full cooperation with the leakers. He purposefully outed a CIA agent, knowing full well what he was doing. His subsequent revisions and rationalizations don't withstand scrutiny.

I conclude that Novak is a a lazy journalist, a partisan tool, and a liar. Why do I write such things? Because -- unlike Novak -- I do my homework.

He who lives by the Nexis, dies by the Nexis . . .

Posted at 02:00 PM in Media, Politics | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c52a953ef00d83461777453ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Nexis debunks Novak's tale . . . :