But, why would Novak use the incorrect "Flame" in the article from October 2003 and use the correct "Plame" in his original article from July 2003?
Am I missing something here?
Posted by Romdinstler Jones at October 19, 2005 09:48 AMIt was in Novak's 10/1/03 column right after the news of the investigation.
It is Plame in the original.
Posted by pollyusa at October 19, 2005 09:59 AMIgnore my first post, let me rephrase:
In the first article Novak wrote on this subject, he used the name "Plame" to identify Wilson's wife. This article was published in July 2003. Then, in October 2003, Novak writes another article. By this time, everyone knows that the name of Wilson's wife is "Plame", not "Flame". So why would Novak use the name "Flame" in his October 2003 article when he must have known full well that "Plame" was correct? Or, alternatively, why would Human Events use the name "Flame" when their editors should have known that "Plame" is correct?
Posted by Romdinstler Jones at October 19, 2005 10:08 AMAccording to Novak, the P and F characters are very close together on the keyboard.
Posted by tempus at October 19, 2005 11:57 AMMuch ado about a transcription-monkey's error, methinks. Note that the only version of Novak's October '03 piece that has the "Flame" spelling is the Human Events iteration, dated October 6, 2003. It is correct in all other online versions I have seen, including the one on Townhall.com, bearing the earlier date of October 1, 2003. (Plus, as ntoed previously, why would Novak get the name right in July only to get it wrong in OCtober?) I think that a mechanical character reader or an underpaid transcriber somewhere in the Third World is responsible for the single discrepant spelling in Human Events (WTF is that publication, anyway -- the newsletter for George Costanza's favorite charity, "The Human Fund"?).
Posted by Sebastian Dangerfield at October 19, 2005 12:34 PMI think Sebastian may be right. Ah well, back to work!
Posted by Primordial Ooze at October 19, 2005 12:40 PMIn languages rooted in Aramaic, the "f" orthographic symbol is the same as the "p" symbol with the exception of a simple diacritical mark. In Hebrew a dot in the middle of the "feh" character changes its phonetic quality to "peh". Probably similar in Arabic (though I've never studied Arabic). Mebbe it was Chalabi who provided Miller the "Flame" that burns so cold? Things that make you go "hmmmm." (:>
Posted by Donald Cormac at October 19, 2005 12:40 PMMary Matalin's possible indictment in Plamegate makes the little interchange between James Carville and Bob Novak back on August 4 perhaps worth revisiting. That was the one where Novak freaked and stormed out after (supposedly) eyeing the "Who's Who" book on Carville's desk.
Did Novak hear "Flame" from Judy Miller (or vice versa), then correct it via "Who's Who?"
Billmon has a post on Donald Cormac's point, i.e., that "F" and "P" characters are very similar in Hebrew and Arabic. Interesting....
Posted by smiley at October 19, 2005 03:07 PMHi--aspTrader here. The guy who eriposte references on the front page of this post.
Here's the reply I posted to a person at NextHurrah who expressed skepticism.
Thanks for the reply Cal Gal. You might be right that this PLAME name FLAME game is just a red herring. And certain events I've yanked into the fleshing out of this speculation can be explained in other ways.
On the other hand, as I've written before, the theory that the use of the name "Flame" is significant explains two episodes that have unsatisfactory explanations otherwise:
1 Novak's sensitivity to the Who's Who volume on the CNN interviewer's desk while sitting next to Carville.
Does anyone now believe that the INTERVIEWER had the idea of putting the Who's Who volume on the desk? What would have been the point? Novak's said in his article that he got the name from Who's Who and sure enough the name is in Who's Who. Big deal? Flame instead of Plame? "No big deal," Novak would have said, "you know how typos can take place. I'm not a good typist."
But if it wasn't the interviewer's idea, who would have thought to do it? Our man James-Hand-em-an-anchor-Carville? Why would he suggest that for a mere typo? But if the "Flame" name is of significance, how would Carville have known? Can anyone think of a way? 8-)
2 Fitzgerald lifting the contempt citation from Judy Miller even though she couldn't "recall" her initial source.
Fitzgerald got three judges to agree to put two reporters in jail for not giving up their source because of the national security implications of his evidence. And Miller went to jail until she agreed to cooperate. And then she says she can't remember the source for her first encounter with the "Valerie Flame" name. And, then, are you ready for this: Fitz agrees to let her leave the courthouse?
The theory that the "Flame" name is important is the only explanation I know of that (1) has Judy Miller saying that she couldn't recall the source name and (2) she is now free of contempt... and (3) Fitz has everything he wanted (evidence of the source) in the first place.
Posted by aspTrader at October 19, 2005 03:57 PMMadderRose, it sure does put a different light on the Novak and Carville exchange.
Posted by Judith at October 19, 2005 06:38 PMFascinating stuff.
I think a lot depends on how the word "Flame" was written in Miller's notebook. Depending on her handwriting, the "F" could have been changed from a "P".
Why might she have done this? In the early weeks when the investigation started, it would have been important for Novak and Miller to show that the release of the information about Plame was not a concerted and carefully planned effort. The best way to show this would have been to show that whoever told them the name didn't even tell them the correct name and therefore could not have been persuing a real vendetta against Plame. Miller changes her notebook name "Plame" to "Flame" and then encourages Novak to write "Flame" instead of Plame in his article. Thus when both testify they can say that Libby/Rove didn't even reveal the real name to them. They can say that he just mumbled something about someone named "Plame" or "Flame" They can point to this as proof that there was no real intention or plan of outing Plame.
This theory depends on the exact way "Flame" appears in the Miller's notebook. We'll have to wait to see if the "P" was changed into an "F" or there was a clear "F" to begin with.
Even if there is a clear "F," It is also possible that Miller just came up with the name "Flame" and wrote it in her notebook to throw people off the track and then contacted Novak about it. He really liked the idea and borrowed it for his article.
It is hard to believe that Miller is such an incompetent journalist that she got the name wrong of such an important person in such an important story. It is much easier to believe that Miller wrote "Flame" as part of a cover-up story.
Posted by at October 19, 2005 07:27 PMI'm interested in the fact that Cliff May shows up in this mess.
Before the war and in the immediate aftermath he was on TV constantly fanning the "flames" to start this war and to keep support going through fear. Since Fitzgerald's investigation started in earnest Mr. May has disappeared along with that other sleaze bag Frank Gaffney. These guys are great friends of both Judy Miller and Bob Novak.
They are also deep into the intelligence community, at least the black ops part.
What if "flame" was what they wanted Valerie do do, flame out, become nonexistent and therefore not a threat.
Think back folks, what people were all over the airwaves ginning up America for this war. How many times did we hear 9/11 in the same breath as Saddam, or Iraq, or WMD.
Please respond folks I'd love to read some of your thoughts on this.
Posted by Peggy at October 19, 2005 08:09 PMhas anybody actually seen the Who's Who entry? does it say "plame" or "wilson"? is there a scan of it online somewhere?
Posted by wh@ever at October 19, 2005 08:26 PMThis thing is fizzling. We all got our hopes up too much. Libby -- and only Libby, judging by Rove's fingerpointing being reported today -- will be indicted, dismissed from the administration, completely forgotten, and pardoned in three years. This whole episode will be completely forgotten, relegated to the Superdome dustbin of history, in a month. Crap.
Posted by John at October 20, 2005 03:24 AMaspTrader:
I'll not weigh in further on the (F)(P)lame thing, which I really think is a case of mechanical or scrivener's error (see above), as tantalizing as it is. As to your second point, i.e., why did Fitzgerald lift the contempt citation after Miller testified that she couldn't recall who told her about "Valerie Flame" OR "Victoria Wilson," it's very simple. She answered the question. The contempt citation was for refusing to testify. Answering, "I don't remember" is testifying, and by so answering she is no longer in contempt for refusing to testify. That the answer is a bald-faced lie (we reasonably infer) is another matter, one that Fitz could take up separately (which he might not as he has bigger fish to fry) or that a non-special prosecutor in the D.C. U.S. Attorney's office could take up. It's frustrating that, after all this, she still protects Scooter (although not completely) or this mysterious "other source" (if s/he exists), but it would be hard to say that it's contempt of the subpoena. If her behavior amounts to obstruction, there's a federal criminal contempt statute that might be invoked (though it needs to be charged on its own), but using that statute (which can allow a prosecutor to avoid trying the case to a jury) is legally dicey when it's being used in lieu of a simple perjury prosecution (requiring a grand jury indictmnet and all that).
My thought is that the way this was 'supposed' to work is that the six or so reporter contacts were expected to all write of Plame and her 'outing' would look like common knowledge. In addition the Administration would just ignore it and let it die down over time while the Wilson's (Plame and all) would only be able to lick their wounds. The damage and the wanted effect of punishment of a taker would be done.
When only Novak bit the ones in the spotlight hit on the F over P to lend a little confusion and a side door of silly mistakitis e.g. "No wonder we did not know who she was..."
Not much, but if everyone held the line and the investigators would allow themselves to be deceived---the story would go the way of the AWOL/Dan Rather escapade. Swollowed up in confusion and forced aside.
Posted by Cole... at October 20, 2005 06:22 PMSebastian Dangerfield,
You make a good point that there is another explanation for Judy not now being in contempt. I've written a more extended piece in eriposte's latest post as a comment.
I guess the thing that is striking to me is that this "Flame" reference appears to be significant to several people in a few different ways.
It would be great to know what you think after you read my latest comment in eriposte's latest post on the subject.
Posted by aspTrader at October 21, 2005 02:55 AMCole,
I think we've underestimated the intelligence of the folks who wanted to expose Plame. What they needed to do is LAUNDER the name through some means that would be more difficult for US justice to pursue.
It seems to me that the Novak/Carville episode underlines how clear BOTH men were to the implications of the Plame/Flame distinction. What else could their sensitivity mean? I'm open to hearing what else it might mean.
I believe there is a document, now in Fitz' hands with the name "Valerie Flame" in it.
THAT explains Novak's, Carville's, AND Fitzgerald's behavior more powerfully than any other explanation I've heard.
Am I missing something?
Posted by aspTrader at October 21, 2005 03:00 AM