I don't know how I'd even begin to think about commenting on this. Why in the hell is crap like this published in major newspapers across the country (and not, sadly, in "the funnies")? And he writes an entire column (if you can call it that) on "was she covert?" without ever mentioning his own role and interests in these matters? I mean COME ON.
Of course the whole piece is a stunningly lame attempt at ass-covering. But his list of "questions" that should have been asked really takes the cake.
Was she not on an administrative, not operational, track at Langley? How could she be covert if, in public view, she drove to work each day at Langley? What about comments to me by then CIA spokesman Bill Harlow that Plame never would be given another foreign assignment? What about testimony to the FBI that her CIA employment was common knowledge in Washington?
Of course not a single one of those is relevant to her being covert. And, what? Novak's trying to argue that covert operatives shouldn't be allowed to drive or something? The man's a mendacious menace. Why he's still widely published is beyond me.
Posted by armand at March 22, 2007 01:45 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Mediaaside from the fact that her safety overseas is not necessarily indexed to her being visible in and around langley, this clearly overlooks entirely what to me is the most critical reason not to reveal covert operatives. in realy life, many individual agents are replaceable, but the trust and fidelity of our sources elsewhere might not be, and some of those relationships take years to cultivate. if in casually revealing an operative's identity we compromise the safety of the people who were feeding her information overseas, we lose not only that source, but any other potential source who sees what's happened and recognizes that he or she cannot trust that his betrayal of his own people will not become public in connection with some political hit job in the U.S. i agree; this approach to the issue is a joke, and the failure to explicitly acknowledge his own involvement in the larger context is simply unethical. if we were licensing journalists, his would be revoked.
Posted by: moon at March 23, 2007 10:06 AM | PERMALINK