Rove's source was.. Novak?

Somebody help me, I can't stop writing on this story.

The New York Times (with a Hat Tip to Drudge) is reporting in a story peppered with horribly ambiguous grammar that Karl Rove did in fact discuss Plame's identity with Novak - however, the twist to this particular tale is that (apparently) Novak gave Plame's name to Rove, not the other way around.

I use the word "apparently" because the story is so filled with misplaced modifiers and awkward mutilations of the English language that it's difficult to determine what the heck the Times authors are intending to say. But, we shall give it the old College Try.

An aside: The article is also full of reiterations of the Known Fact™ that Bush promised to fire anyone involved in the leak. We've dealt with that so much already that to belabor the point here would be the rhetorical equivalent of beating a dead horse.

WASHINGTON, July 14 - Karl Rove, the White House senior adviser, spoke with the columnist Robert D. Novak as he was preparing an article in July 2003 that identified a C.I.A. officer who was undercover, someone who has been officially briefed on the matter said Thursday.

Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.

My best understanding of these two horribly mangled paragraphs is that Rove is claiming that he learned both Plame's name and occupation from Novak, which would certainly clear him under the IIPA, even if he were not automatically cleared under the "five years" rule. (For an examination of Rove's liability under the Espionage Act, see the Baseball Crank's excellent post.

The confusion wanders on:

After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too."

The previously undisclosed telephone conversation, which took place on July 8, 2003, was initiated by Mr. Novak, the person who has been briefed on the matter said.

Six days later, Mr. Novak's syndicated column reported that two senior administration officials had told him that Mr. Wilson's "wife had suggested sending him" to Africa. That column was the first instance in which Ms. Wilson was publicly identified as a C.I.A. operative. The column provoked angry demands for an investigation into who disclosed Ms. Wilson's name to Mr. Novak.

The Justice Department appointed Patrick J. Fitzgerald, a top federal prosecutor in Chicago, to lead the inquiry. Mr. Rove said in an interview last year that he did not know the C.I.A. officer's name and did not leak it.

The person who provided the information about Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak declined to be identified, citing requests by Mr. Fitzgerald that no one discuss the case. The person discussed the matter in the belief that Mr. Rove was truthful in saying he did not disclose Ms. Wilson's identity.

Despite the strange syntax, we are reasonably confident that negative answers are firming up to questions 8 and 11. This is, of course, bad news to liberals who are looking for a scalp.

On Oct. 1, 2003, Mr. Novak wrote another column in which he described calling two officials. The first source, who is unknown, was described by Mr. Novak as "no partisan gunslinger" who provided the outlines of the story. The second, confirming source, Mr. Novak wrote, responded, "Oh, you know about it."

Hmm.. who is this first source? No speculation is offered.

Asked by investigators how he knew enough to leave Mr. Novak with the impression that his information was accurate, Mr. Rove said he heard portions of the story from other journalists, but had not heard Ms. Wilson's name.

This is the first I have heard, albeit indirectly, from the mouth of Rove in answer to Burning Question #10.

The rest of the article drives a stake through the heart of the contention that Rove was seeking out friendly reporters to distribute this information in an attempt to exact political retribution on Wilson:

Mr. Novak began his conversation with Mr. Rove by asking about the promotion of Frances Fragos Townsend, who had been a close aide to Janet Reno when she was attorney general, to a senior counterterrorism job at the White House, the person who was briefed on the matter said.

Mr. Novak then turned to the subject of Ms. Wilson, identifying her by name, the person said. Mr. Novak said he knew that in contrast to Mr. Wilson's suggestion in his Op-Ed article that he had been sent to Niger because of Mr. Cheney's interest in the matter, Mr. Wilson had been sent at the urging of his wife.

It is important to note that, thus far, neither conversation that we now have record of (Cooper and Novak) was initiated by Rove, and in neither conversation did Rove bring the matter of Valerie Plame up.

Mr. Rove's allies have stressed that he did not call reporters with information about the case, rebutting the theory that the White House was actively seeking to intimidate or punish Mr. Wilson by harming his wife's career. They have also emphasized that Mr. Rove appeared not to know anything about Ms. Wilson other than that she worked at the C.I.A. and was married to Mr. Wilson.

Seems about right to me from the facts we know thus far. The story is getting verrry interesting indeed. And if, as some sources are suggesting, the Times is preparing to slowly let the Miller information dribble, it could only get more interesting as time goes on.

Which is bad news for yours truly, because I'm simultaneously sick of writing about this, and unable to write about anything else whatsoever.