"When Novak told a CIA spokesman he was going to write a column about Wilson's wife, the spokesman urged him not to print her name "for security reasons," according to one CIA official. Intelligence officials said they believed Novak understood there were reasons other than Plame's personal security not to use her name, even though the CIA has declined to confirm whether she was undercover.

"Novak said in an interview last night that the request came at the end of a conversation about Wilson's trip to Niger and his wife's role in it. 'They said it's doubtful she'll ever again have a foreign assignment,' he said. 'They said if her name was printed, it might be difficult if she was traveling abroad, and they said they would prefer I didn't use her name. It was a very weak request. If it was put on a stronger basis, I would have considered it.'"

This means that, effectively, the CIA itself participated in leaking Plame's identity. Think about the sequence of events. Novak talks to administration officials who tell him about Plame. He has the integrity to call someone at CIA to confirm his risky story before he runs with it -- and they confirmed it! Instead of saying "Valerie who? We've never heard of anyone named Valerie" or simply that "We don't answer media inquiries about CIA personnel" -- the CIA itself confirmed it, and in so doing the CIA itself leaked it.

Now why would they do that? Well, maybe she wasn't really a covert operative, the revelation of whose name would create any particular danger for her (in which case the administration's leaks wouldn't be so scandalous). Or maybe she was covert, and the CIA was as pissed off at Wilson as the Bush administration, but for their own special reason: because Wilson had gone public with the findings of a CIA-sponsored study, thus effectively leaking himself. And who recommended him for the job? The little woman... Valerie Plame. So it looks like George Tenet ought to be asking for two investigations here.

What the Post reports, by the way, is precisely what Novak told me in confidence on July 23, but at Novak's request I did not report it in my coverage of the issue on this blog or the version for National Review Online. Also, I note that Tom Maguire of the Just One Minute blog has flagged the significance of this element of the Post story. Tom absolutely for sure is the one-stop-shop in the blogosphere for the Plame story -- to see his indispensable Plame timeline, click here.

There are some strange inaccuracies in the Post story, for what it's worth. First, the story claims "The only recipient of a leak about the identity of Wilson's wife who went public with it was Novak, the conservative columnist..." For some reason they have forgotten about Time Magazine's July 17 story in which they wrote, "And some government officials have noted to TIME in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction." If the Post had reported that, would they have identified Time as "the liberal magazine"? I doubt it. Howard Kurtz, the Post's media reporter, fails to mention Time as well, in a column today focused on the ethics of Novak's decision to run with the story.

I note en passant that another Post story today by Mike Allen makes an especially hilarious error. He says, "Novak published her maiden name, Plame, which she had used overseas and has not been using publicly." This echoes complaints by Wilson that revelation of his wife's maiden name was especially dangerous for here (see, for example, this NBC "Today" interview -- link thanks to Maguire). Yet Wilson himself used his wife's maiden name publicly -- on the web page giving his biography at the Middle East Institute, where he is listed as among "media resources" (link thanks to Seamole, thanks to Maguire).

Now on to more personal matters. I've gotten a little wavelet of not-very-friendly emails from Paul Krugman fans who have taken the Washington Post story yesterday as vindication of claims made in Krugman's July 22 New York Times column, and have taken the opportunity to shower me with opprobrium because I dared question him about it. In point of fact, in my critique of Krugman's column here and for National Review Online, I never even slightly questioned Krugman for saying that administration officials had leaked Plame's name. How could I have? That was plain as day from the Novak and Time articles that Krugman cited. It was never in question.

No, what I faulted Krugman for was his entirely unwarranted-at-the-time statement that Plame was a "covert operative." Nothing in the Post story sheds any new light on that question. Indeed, in the passage I quoted above, the Post is at pains to note that the CIA has never confirmed whether or not Plame was covert. It's still a mystery. Krugman may be right, and he may be wrong. My point is that he was just guessing on the pages of the "newspaper of record." As usual, opinion disguised as fact. To disagree is to lie.

Apparently all the emails have been inspired by a posting on a left-wing blog called "Billmon." The particular way Billmon -- whoever he is -- frames his "I told you so" is to try to find fault with the fact that my original comments here and for NRO are heavily annotated with amplifications made the day after they were originally posted, in which I examine in detail the possible sources from which Krugman may derived his claim that Plame was covert. Hey -- what's wrong with that? I only wish Krugman had the integrity to amplify upon (or heaven forefend, perhaps even to retract) some of the multitude of claims he makes that turn out to be either wrong, or require further explanation in light of new knowledge. But noooo. When I do that, it's a confession of weakness, and an opportunity for Krugman fans to unite in lip-smacking satisfaction that Krugman's most potent critic is wrong wrong wrong and therefore must be wrong wrong wrong in all the terrible things he's ever said about Krugman.

When is Krugman going to say he was wrong wrong wrong about the NASDAQ in February 2000 (just the opposite -- in his new book he pretends he was right). When is he going to say he was wrong about an imminent "third oil crisis" or about SARS spreading around the world and wrecking the economy, or about the BBC's claims about "sexed-up" intelligence, or about American soldiers in Iraq dying of thirst because the army isn't giving them enough water? Huh, what about those Billmon, if that is indeed your name? You're going to have a long wait before the Post publishes something you can claim vindicates Krugman on those babies.

Finally, I note with particular distaste that Billmon sent me an email himself (herself? who knows... he/she doesn't have the courage or integrity to blog or email under his/her actual name), to which I responded. He/she posted my response on his/her blog without my permission. That's a no-no... a serious violation of the netiquette observed by all decent netizens, and a copyright violation to boot. I've written to Billmon insisting that my comments be removed. We'll see. I'm not expecting much from him/her.

Update... Turns out to be a him. "Billmon" is William Montague, according to an email I just got responding to my demand to remove my remarks from his website. Among other things, the message to me said, "See ya in court, asshole." Leftists are such wonderful, caring people... aren't they?

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:28 AM | link    

There's more...visit the archives!