Conservative columnist Robert Novak...RIP

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/18/robert.novak.obituary/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Conservative columnist and former CNN "Crossfire" co-host Robert Novak died after a yearlong battle with cancer, his family said Tuesday. He was 78.

Novak died at home, over a year after doctors diagnosed him with a malignant brain tumor in August 2008.

He was a veteran columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times and a regular commentator for CNN for 25 years, beginning when the network launched in 1980.

For most of that time, he was a co-host of the political debate program "Crossfire." But he also hosted a show with his longtime column co-author, Rowland Evans, and appeared as a panelist on shows like "The Capital Gang" and on PBS' "The McLaughlin Group."

Friends dubbed him "The Prince of Darkness" for his pessimistic persona, and he used the nickname as the title of his 2007 memoir.

Novak got his first newspaper job in 1948, when he was still in high school.

He served in the Army during the Korean War before turning to the news business, eventually starting his column with Evans at the now-defunct New York Herald-Tribune in 1963.

In 2003, he found himself at the center of the scandal over the exposure of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson, when he published a column revealing her CIA status days after her husband challenged a key Bush administration justification for the invasion of Iraq.

The scandal ultimately led to the conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators probing the leak.

Novak cooperated with a special prosecutor and was not charged in the case.

The Rove investigation in full swing and Novak ends up dead.

Things that make you go hmmmmm.

Rove gave him cancer???...hmmmm :rolleyes:

1) You didn't have the cause of death when I posted (and you know that)

2) I think Rove is more than capable of covering up the real facts in Novak's death.

1) You didn't have the cause of death when I posted (and you know that)



it was pretty common knowledge that he was battling cancer... ;)

it was pretty common knowledge that he was battling cancer... ;)
To those who got the Rove emails about it.

To those who got the Rove emails about it.

i don't even know what this means...but okayyyy

The news about Novak's cancer is not new. I knew about this ages ago.

And once again proving what's common knowledge in the right-wing world isn't to the rest of us.

read a newspaper every once in awhile...can't get all your news from Jon Stewart... ;) :P

yes, because getting my news from the Rove mouthpiece Fox like Julie does makes for such a well rounded person.

karl rove didn't tell me novak had cancer...i don't think he told Julie either...where are you going with this...you didn't know he had cancer...ok...move on...

You're the one who changed your first post after I posted. And then acted like I was a total asshole because I'm not up on the health of a traitor newsman who's been a mouthpieces for Rove and Cheney.

You're the one who changed your first post after I posted. And then acted like I was a total asshole because I'm not up on the health of a traitor newsman who's been a mouthpieces for Rove and Cheney.

i changed the post because it was breaking news with no story yet...when the story posted...i edited it...geez...so paranoid...

I'm not paranoid. He was a traitor who worked for Rove and Cheney. Rove is now being investigated to great degree. His traitor news pal is now dead.

I just followed the leads, like posters here who fill Hillary caused Foster's death.

I'm not paranoid. He was a traitor who worked for Rove and Cheney. Rove is now being investigated to great degree. His traitor news pal is now dead.

I just followed the leads, like posters here who fill Hillary caused Foster's death.

Because of course it's easier to just go off half-cocked and assume that Rove killed Novak than it would be to actually read the story and see that he'd had brain cancer for a while.

As for him working for Fox, Fox isn't even mentioned in the story Vinnie posted. It sure sounds like anti-Fox paranoia to me.

Didn't care for his political leanings but he sure kept the old Crossfire and Capitol Gang shows interesting.

R.I.P.

Because of course it's easier to just go off half-cocked and assume that Rove killed Novak than it would be to actually read the story and see that he'd had brain cancer for a while.

As for him working for Fox, Fox isn't even mentioned in the story Vinnie posted. It sure sounds like anti-Fox paranoia to me.
Julie, what part of the crap vinnie and I posted back and forth did you not read? All of it?

Because it's clear from what we said to each other he posted NOTHING, just that Novak was dead. The full story came later.

And how funny is it that you are the queen of calling democrats names and labelling them everything evil under the sun, but I'm paranoid for mentioning Rove when we all know that Novak became a traitor to the USA because of the classified info Rove and Cheney shared with him, and the CIA lives he was willing to put in danger.

A traitor? Please. One of the women who wrote the law that Novak is accused of having broken (Victoria Toensing) said that this particular situation shout not have come under this law in the first place. Here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2305-2005Jan11.html) is a piece she wrote on the subject for the Washington Post:

The Plame Game: Was This a Crime?

By Victoria Toensing and Bruce W. Sanford

Wednesday, January 12, 2005; Page A21

Why have so many people rushed to assume that a crime was committed when someone "in the administration" gave columnist Robert D. Novak the name of CIA "operative" Valerie Plame? Novak published her name while suggesting that nepotism might have lurked behind the CIA assignment of her husband, Joseph Wilson, to a job for which he was credentially challenged: The agency sent him to Niger to determine whether Iraq was interested in acquiring uranium from that country, although he was an expert neither on nuclear weapons nor on Niger.

Journalists are being threatened with jail for not testifying who gave them information about Plame -- even journalists who did not write about Plame but only talked with sources about her. Ironically, the special prosecutor has pursued this case with characteristic zeal after major publications editorialized that a full investigation and prosecution of the government source was necessary. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution even claimed that the allegations came "perilously close to treason."

It's time for a timeout on a misguided and mechanical investigation in which there is serious doubt that a crime was even committed. Federal courts have stated that a reporter should not be subpoenaed when the testimony sought is remote from criminal conduct or when there is no compelling "government interest," i.e., no crime. As two people who drafted and negotiated the scope of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, we can tell you: The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct.

When the act was passed, Congress had no intention of prosecuting a reporter who wanted to expose wrongdoing and, in the process, once or twice published the name of a covert agent. Novak is safe from indictment. But Congress also did not intend for government employees to be vulnerable to prosecution for an unintentional or careless spilling of the beans about an undercover identity. A dauntingly high standard was therefore required for the prosecutor to charge the leaker.

At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover must be classified, and she must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years. This requirement does not mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week's work. It means permanent assignment in a foreign country. Since Plame had been living in Washington for some time when the July 2003 column was published, and was working at a desk job in Langley (a no-no for a person with a need for cover), there is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as "covert."

The law also requires that the disclosure be made intentionally, with the knowledge that the government is taking "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the United States. Merely knowing that Plame works for the CIA does not provide the knowledge that the government is keeping her relationship secret. In fact, just the opposite is the case. If it were known on the Washington cocktail circuit, as has been alleged, that Wilson's wife is with the agency, a possessor of that gossip would have no reason to believe that information is classified -- or that "affirmative measures" were being taken to protect her cover.

There are ways of perceiving whether the government was actually taking the required necessary affirmative measures to conceal its relationship with Plame. We can look, for example, at how the CIA reacted when Novak informed the press office that he was going to publish her name. Did the general counsel call to threaten prosecution, as we know has been done to other reporters under similar circumstances? No. Did then-Director George Tenet or his deputy pick up the phone to tell Novak that the publication of her name would threaten national security and her safety, as we know is done when the CIA is serious about prohibiting publication? No. Did some high-ranking government official ask to visit Novak or the president of his newspaper syndicate to talk him out of publishing -- another common strategy to prevent a story? No.

Novak has written that the CIA person designated to talk with him replied that although Plame was probably not getting another foreign assignment, exposure "might cause difficulties if she were to travel abroad." He certainly never told Novak that Plame would be endangered. Such a meager response falls far legally shy of "affirmative measures."

There is even more telling CIA conduct about Plame's status. According to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq," when the agency asked Plame's husband to take on the Niger assignment, he did not have to sign a confidentiality agreement, a requirement for just about anybody else doing work for an intelligence agency. This omission opened the door for Wilson to write an op-ed piece for the New York Times describing his Niger trip. Did it not occur to our super sleuths of spycraft that a nationally distributed piece about the incendiary topic of weapons of mass destruction -- which happens to be Wilson's wife's expertise -- could result in her involvement being raised?

The special prosecutor and reporters should ask Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan, who is overseeing the grand jury, to conduct a hearing to require the CIA to identify all affirmative measures it was taking to shield Plame's identity. Before we even think about sending reporters to prison for doing their jobs, the court should determine that all the elements of a crime are present.

Victoria Toensing was chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee from 1981 to 1984 and served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration. Bruce Sanford is a Washington lawyer specializing in First Amendment issues. The authors will take questions today at 2 p.m. on www.washingtonpost.com.

richard amrmitage is the person who leaked out valarie plame.
her and hubby joe wilson made their millons with their book and interviews
plame was not a agent she only worked there.

Ah yes, the excuse machines in full throttle.

Who cares that CIA agents everywhere were at risk because of this man, Plame's husband didn't like Bush so it was OK.

Ah yes, the excuse machines in full throttle.

Who cares that CIA agents everywhere were at risk because of this man, Plame's husband didn't like Bush so it was OK.

Why were CIA agents everywhere at risk? Didn't you read what Ms. Toensing wrote? You'd think that the person who wrote the law would have some idea of what it is supposed to mean.

Tremendous journalist of great wit, credibility, and integrity, unlike many of the nitwit shills for Obama(Krugman).

Wit? Intellect yes, but I never got a lot of belly laughs from the guy.

As his own obit stated:

"Friends dubbed him "The Prince of Darkness" for his pessimistic persona..."

Wit? Intellect yes, but I never got a lot of belly laughs from the guy.

As his own obit stated:

"Friends dubbed him "The Prince of Darkness" for his pessimistic persona..."

He wasn't a comedian.

I guess the "P" stands for something different in this R.I.P. thread....

Novak was a great reporter. Started in the business by covering sports in college. Also had the rep in Washington as a bit of a ladies man in his earlier days before the combover. And loved his cocktails after work as well!!

Also a thoughtful convert to Catholicism.

But he couldn't stand the Tar Heels as a big Maryland supporter and season ticket holder.

R.I.P.

I guess the "P" stands for something different in this R.I.P. thread....
It's the politics forum, if vinnie thought his betrayal of the USA wasn't up for grabs, I'm sure he'd have put this in the "Everything Else" forum.

Your "Betrayal of the USA" is coming across as Lunatic Fringe. And to keep at it the day after the man died reflects some deep seeded hate of all things conservative.

PS: I realize it's the Politics Forum but the "P" can still stand for Pace!

I don't recall you getting all upset when people insulted Michael Jackson in his death thread. Oh, right, that was OK because you don't like him either.

I'm just playing the game the way the right has laid it out around here. Of course, the nasty comments of our resident right-wing nutjobs never seem to bother you, so why should mine?

It's a shame when someone's death becomes a political fight. The guy isn't even in the ground, for God's sake.

I think that was my point.

Ms tigger: I can assure you that I read NONE of the Michael Jackson posts. I suppose that says something about me but No Interest would be an understatement.

WSJ editorial:

Prince of Light

One irony of Robert Novak's long and admirable career as a journalist is that he wasn't a curmudgeon, though he played one on TV. In person, he was warm, loyal to friends and especially generous to young writers, even if he was fearless and unsparing toward the public officials he devoted his life to covering—or, to put it more accurately, uncovering. Novak, who died yesterday at age 78, was among America's greatest political reporters.

Novak first made a mark covering the Senate and House Ways and Means Committee for this newspaper. In 1963, he joined Rowland Evans to form a column-writing duo that broke more stories than many journalists write. Over a half-century career that ended only last year with a diagnosis of brain cancer, Novak afflicted politicians of all parties with his remarkable sourcing and nose for news.

He was attracted to LBJ, but over time he became increasingly skeptical of the political class and its habit of accruing power to itself. He was a staunch anti-Communist and became an advocate for supply-side economics. His column probably reached the apex of its influence during the Reagan years, as he chronicled the battles between the Gipper's true believers and the GOP establishment that sought to defeat them. He preferred the believers.

All of this earned Novak the moniker of "conservative" in Washington's taxonomy, but above all he brought to his work a reporter's skepticism about the powerful. This is in contrast to most modern Washington journalists, who have become apologists for the federal government's dominance in American life. Novak was as hard on Republicans who failed to live up to their small-government principles as he was on Democrats who sought to expand the welfare state.

In recent years, Novak became a target of the political left, both because of his gruff TV persona (he let people call him the "prince of darkness") and especially for his 2003 column that "outed" CIA analyst Valerie Plame. The Plame scoop was merely another case of Novak doing his job, and he protected his source (then Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage) and behaved honorably even as others in the press corps abandoned First Amendment principles to cheer on a special prosecutor willing to throw reporters in jail.

Late in his life, Novak converted to Catholicism and we trust his faith provided solace in his final months. We are confident that St. Peter will soon be demanding to know who among the saints told Novak about how much the Angel Gabriel spent on his new halo..

Thanks K.L. Hadn't seen that.

I did read his autobiography "Prince of Darkness" a couple of years ago. A guy you'd want to have a beer with and "shoot the shit".

So I'm not supposed to dispute the BS twist of facts in the articles posted about him because it's a death thread?

Once again, gotta love the different rules when it's one of your own.

"Frankly my dear......"....... :)

Exactly, I've always been aware of that.

I state my opinion of one of your guys, you freak.

KL states the WSJ opinion of the guy, you're thrilled.

Same death thread that you said shouldn't be about politics, except when it's about your politics.

Once again, gotta love the different rules when it's one of your own.

He's wasn't one of my guys.

Easy there tigger.

In my RIP post, I mentioned he was a good reporter, a ladies man by rep, liked to "bend the elbow", converted to Catholicism and didn't like my Tar Heels.

Where does one get something worthy of a "P" in that post?

I liked KL's post of the WSJ obit because it tried to say something constructive and nice about a man who just passed away.

I hardly think I was "freaking". Take the gloves off..... :)