Chris,

   I think this Joe Wilson story goes a long way in defining where it is our differences lie. It becomes clear when we discuss this that we're looking at the same evidence and going in two different directions. I will say that since no case has been made to support either of our views officially that each of us are adding "the way we see it" to our take on  the issue.

-------------------------------------------------------------

When has this been established? Novak quickly debunked the theory that this was an outright scandalous smear attempt. "I did not receive a planned leak," he wrote.

I would say he realized what part he played in this disaster and how deep he could end up in it and tried a little CYA.

Furthermore, Scott McClellan has said "There has been no specific information that has come to our attention to suggest — beyond media reports — to suggest that someone in the White House was involved in leaking classified information."

Scotty McClellan was fairly new to the job when this all broke and proved himself to be quite a boob. At the time I thought someone who did not like Bush must have dumped this clown in his lap. Now, I don't know. I think perhaps they chose an idiot for the job so they could always say later "Well that idiot McClellan had no clue what he was talking about." and actually look good saying that.

This "leak" was a poor judgment call made by Robert Novak to include the full name of Mr. Wilson's wife.

Ok, are you seriously going to try to dump this in poor Bob's lap? He's a reporter and any moron knows these days whatever you say to these guys is fair game. They never should have said any of it to him and the only reason to do so aside from complete incompetancy is because they wanted it to end up in print. I'd say that's case closed there.

Why did he do so? First, we need to look at the intent of the column.

Ahh, he did so because that's what he does for a living. We don't need to look at the intent of the column because it has nothing to do with these guys telling him what they did...which was a crime.

The purpose was to discredit the Yellowcake investigation by Joe Wilson in Africa by submitting that his wife had recommended him for the position. This introduces the illegal aspect of nepotism which would accomplish the goal of discrediting his research, albeit only somewhat. The name was used for this purpose, and this purpose alone.

Again, perhaps this is what Bob had in mind...or what you feel he had in mind but it's entirely unrelated to what we're discussing and is an extreme reach to try to...I don't know...rationalize maybe?...the Bush administration committing a crime.

Furthermore, if you scrutinize the text that supposedly identifies an administration official as the source of the name, you will see that is not the case. The text in question is this:

"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report."

My God Chris...are you serious here? You're trying to find a way to squeeze out some sort of "doubt" about how he worded this thing and if that implicates the Bush administration. That's surreal. Don't you think ol' Bobby would have asked why it was Mr. Wilson's wife was recommending him and why her recommendation would matter? I mean if my wife calls these clowns up and says I should be sent to investigate why Baker and Halliburton are so tied up in this rebuilding Iraq deal you think they are gonna jump all over that idea because my wife said so? You really want to work to distance them huh? That's one hell of a stretch.  

Examining these two sentences closely makes it clear that he wasn't naming the two administration officials as the source of her name. They were the source of the claims of nepotism. I could be inferred that they were the source of the name, but Novak explicitly stated the opposite in the quote I mentioned above on this topic.

You do know that one of the big rules in journalism is to protect your sources so nothing ol' Bob says in that regard should even be considered. Bob's motive at this point would certainly be to try to find a way to distance himself and protect his sources...that would be considered doing his job.

Also, when asked if the leak went up to high levels in the White House, Joe Wilson stated, "No, on the contrary, I don't have any specific information. I would hope that an investigation would yield the information as to who was responsible for the precise leak."

Keep in mind here this had been stewing for months before the media got hold of it and I think it was all due to Mr. Wilson's frustration that he got so public with it. Otherwise our morons in the media would never had latched on to this thing. That also gave them months to destroy documents before good old Ashcroft rode in and the FBI sent out the memo to "save any information and documents including e-mails that may pertain to the investigation"...nice timing.   

Additionally, this calls into question his immediate, passionate condemnation of Karl Rove as the leaker, after which he recanted, "In one speech I gave out in Seattle not too long  ago, I mentioned the name Karl Rove. I think I was probably carried away by the  spirit of the moment." He then confessed, "I don't have any knowledge  that Karl Rove himself was either the leaker or the  authorizer of the leak." He went on to say, however, "I have great confidence  that, at a minimum, [Rove] condoned it and  certainly did nothing to shut it down," but, as has now established, had no evidence to back up such beliefs.

Again, I think Wilson was frustrated and for good reason. His wife had been outted months before and he was probably told to just sit and be quiet and they'd sort it out. I think after months of silence, his wife's life had been endangered after all and a crime had been committed, he finally blew his stack in front of the media. Not good really. It would have better served an investigation if they could have handled it quietly. But the guy was angry and I don't blame him. How would you react if someone threatened your wife's life

Not to mention that prior to this whole fiasco, Wilson had been quoted as saying it would be his life's mission to, "to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs."

I really don't think any of these guys in the Bush administration are popular...and I think there's good reason for that as well.

As I already stated, I feel it was a poor decision by Novak to use her name. It was no-doubt wrong, but there is no evidence to indicate Bush or his administration actually did this.

Again, my point is we certainly see the "evidence" with different eyes. You seem to want to argue that this was Bob's fault and really that's absurd. They gave him the name...the info that she recommended her husband...hell it's pretty obvious they gave him the whole package and it's grasping for straws to try to break it down to "all he wrote was they said she recommended him"...really I'll say it again, you think Bobby was that lousy a reporter that he wouldn't have asked why this guy's wife was recommending him and why she carries any water at all?

Yet the media grabbed it, and demonized the administration over it, without having all the facts.

I'd say the media handled it like crap but Joe Wilson went off and made sure they were listening...several times in fact.  

In that respect, are you then implying Cheney was complicit in outing her name?

To be blunt I don't think anyone goes to the bathroom without Cheney knowing about it.
 
   
Novak himself (the reporter) disputed it in a follow up article. The quote I presented earlier is from this article. He denies it was from the Bush Administration.

Once again this is his job...protect your sources at all costs or you'll have none. He really is not a factor in this regard.