Novak's word is as good as crap- his original article says exactly what happened, and his story has since changed because he's realized what he's done. As for his 'ignorance' defense- ignorance of the law is not an excuse, and never will be.
As for Clifford's article:
Plame Game apologists have been linking to a Clifford May article on NRO in which he claims, basically, that "everybody knew" that Valerie Plame "worked for the CIA."
"That wasn't news to me. I had been told that ? but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhand manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of."
Oh, no biggie then. Here's the thing, though. The context of May's article makes it overwhelmingly likely just when May learned this - either while researching a July 11 NRO article attacking Wilson and other critics of the Administrations WMD case, or between the publication of that article and Novak's column. As May notes, Novak's column ran on July 14. May published a second column about Wilson on July 18.
In other words, it's entirely possible that May's informant "who formerly worked in the government" doesn't refute the existence of the smear operation; rather, he was part of it. (Hesiod thinks he knows who the someone is.)
You gotta love: He said it in an offhand manner! No former government official who is connected enough to know whose wives work for the CIA and who had information relevant to my article on a hot, breaking issue would ever try to pique my interest by mentioning something in "an offhand manner!"
Say this for May, though: he didn't use the information, even if he didn't quite realise why he was getting it. Naive, but not especially vile, is how I promise to think of him.
Wall Street Journal's reporting that Mr.s Wilson was a covert operative. Apparently the information was leaked to Novak, a Ms. Andrea Mitchell of ABC News, and Time Magazine.
Stanley Hauerwas wrote:[W]hy is it that no one is angry at the inequality of income in this country? I mean, the inequality of income is unbelievable. Unbelievable. Why isn’t that ever an issue of politics? Because you don’t live in a democracy. You live in a plutocracy. Money rules.
Here's another article that suggests a theory "that would make more sense" than trying to discredit Wilson with accusations of nepotism. It talks about neoconservative loathing for the CIA's understatements about threats to this nation, or something. The article's confusing as hell to read, and I don't know what the hell it's talking about. Can anyone make sense of it?
As far as Novak is concerned, it's suggesting he wasn't a White House pawn or collaborator because he disagrees with Bush's policies.
The neocons have traditionally claimed that American intel appartuses underestimate the threat to the US. It's part of their hawkish outlook and scare-mongering election tactics. Under the theory that White House officials called six journalists and told them Wilson's wife was CIA, it creates the following "logical" scenario:
Wilson's wife underestimates threats to American security
Wilson likely does the same, as he would hear her opinions
Wilson reported that there was no threat of Iraq obtaining nuclear materials in Africa
Since Wilson is underestimating threats, his analysis is inaccurate, and Iraq is obtaining nuclear materials in Africa
It requires way too much double-thought for my liking, but I understand what was trying to be done if it's true.
Stanley Hauerwas wrote:[W]hy is it that no one is angry at the inequality of income in this country? I mean, the inequality of income is unbelievable. Unbelievable. Why isn’t that ever an issue of politics? Because you don’t live in a democracy. You live in a plutocracy. Money rules.
