So Why Is Novak "Talking' Now?

Is he hoping he'll get back on CNN? Is he on the wagon? What exactly is he up to?
Don't trust that ugly basturd one bit!

The spotlight convinces him he is still alive.

that was my first suspicion (and Novak is one who raises a lot of suspicions).

It would be hilarious if Rove was finally turning against his master, but
I don't think that's the case. Rather its probably more of the same old
deception and obstruction of justice. These crooks won't stop at anything.

now he is threatening to spill his guts, he may have the leverage here folks.....

He can't stand being off camera or out of the headines. All he's got now is his little newspaper column, and he hates that. He's flipping on BushCo because he's been flushed by everybody. Nobody talks to him any more; nobody even wants to sit near him at a basketball game.



He's embittered as hell and has to take it out on someone, so it might as well be the administration in a last-ditch attempt to get some publicity.

Bush has to respond one of two ways>

Mr. Novak is wrong

or

The DA knows Mr. Novak's source and I will answer the DA's
questions should he ask,


If he says Novak is wrong that could come back to bite him if he is lying. Even if it is inconsequential to the case...its will smell of obstructionism and the press will have mclellan twisting in the wind for weeks,


If on the other hand he does not deny then the question has to be Mr. President who is Mr. Novals source and why have you not fired this person? WHich he wil not sanswer, Mr. President have you discussed the matter with that individual? then Mr. President if you know who it is and you have not fired nor discussed, how do you reconcile that with wanting to get to the bottom of this. Goes back to a credibility issue.

Since Novak is the guy who outed Plame in an article he wrote, isn't he just as guilty in this situation as whoever leaked this agent's identity?

If he was just the recipient of the leak, and not the leaker, all he is guilty of is writing about it. I don't think that is a crime. ( He was probably set up, and now realizes it)He has obviously told Fitzgerald who it is or made some kind of deal. I don't like the old bastard any more than Bush, but if it would break this thing open, I might change my mind.

Fitz..."You tell me what you know, who's involved and I won't send your ass to jail." :shrug: That's my guess. Fitzgerald knows what Bush knows, is my guess. This may be a set-up for the idiot?

Hence there was no reason to make a deal. He reported what two senior WH officials told him, which is not in violation of any law of the land.

He did, however, tell Fitzgerald who his sources were. Not doing so would have been a violation of the law. And, interestingly, it was not the first time Mr. Novak revealed a source to a federal grand jury.

Bob is a bitter old man. Perhaps what we should take note of is that numerous other reporters have been able to speak publicly about their sources. Bob has not. He has not even told his beast friends in private who his sources were. He gets angry when asked publicly about them. Perhaps he would like to be released to discuss who his first source was, because he is at risk of becoming even more bitter when he hears people like Chris Matthews identifying that person on MSNBC yesterday.

of an agent to the public, isn't that the same as anyone in gov't. leaking that identity? I'm not a lawyer, so I don't see the legal distinction.

They are entitled to the information as part of their job, have security clearances, have sworn not to violate those SCs, and thus have a level of responsibility that a reporter does not.

He's trying to deflect some unwanted attention from himself to the White House. If Bush has to fend off unwanted questions about who leaked and why he's gone back on his promise to fire anyone involved, then Novak gets to spend one last Christmas out of jail.

But that's just my guess.

What did Novak's editors know and when did they know it? It seems that almost all of the "reporters" involved in this have taken a big hit to their employability and believablity IF they knew something and didn't tell their editors about it. Miller - jail and unemployment; Cooper no jail and still has a job, but took a hit to his credibility with the whole "release" issue; Vivica Novak - leave of absence currently. What does those editors know and when did they know it ... and why aren't they talking about it? There is no reason for the Times editors NOT to talk about what they know. After all, they stood behind Miller for all that time and now know that they were foolish to have done so. They have nothing to gain but credibility, at this point, by telling what they know.

He only recently dried out.

that they are proud of how they have been deminished by lies. Even Novak has some pride (as a journalist - albeit partisan).

Stacey Tallitsch
Democrat for Congress
Louisiana First District

http://www.lafirst.org