[link|http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20031001.shtml|October 1, 2003]:

During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.

How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry.

Emphasis added.

Taking his comments at face value, it would seem that Rove was not his source, but it was probably someone reasonably high up the administration. Who knows, it might have been Colin Powell for all we know. It would appear that it wasn't Condi Rice (as he uses "he").

(Note that [link|http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=982|David Corn] gives a dramatically different account of the events.)

[link|http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/30/novak.reporters/index.html|June 30, 2005]:

BOB NOVAK: Well, I deplore the thought of reporters -- I've been a reporter all my life -- going to jail for any period of time for not revealing sources, and there needs to be a federal shield law preventing that as there are shield laws in 49 out of 50 states. But, Ed, I -- my lawyer said I cannot answer any specific questions about this case until it is resolved, which I hope is very soon.

IIRC, it's illegal to talk about testimony given to a grand jury. It would seem a no-brainer that Novak would have testified. As such, Novak is correct to not say whether he's testified or not.

If her name and employer were well known, then I would expect that there would be no indictments. If so, then I expect that this will wind up in the next year or so and then most of us will wonder what all the fuss was about.

But we'll see.

Cheers,
Scott.