Today’s Plame Game meter

On CNN Monday, Novak recounted how the story came about: “In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson’s report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction.” In Wednesday’s column Novak again stressed how the information about Plame practically fell into his lap, almost as an afterthought from a Bush insider. He wrote it came up “during a long conversation with a senior administration official.” And, “It was an offhand revelation from this official.” Yet back in July, he gave a much different account to Newsday: “I didn’t dig [the Plame tip] out, it was given to me,” he said. “They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it.”

Novak’s statements this week directly contradict what he said three months ago. [UPDATE: Novak told Wolf Blitzer yesterday that the Newday reporters misunderstood what he said in July. However, in the same transcript, he acknowledges the accuracy of the above quote.]

[A] former senior CIA intelligence officer confirms to Salon that Plame is both an analyst and an officer who works undercover, and was undercover when Novak outed her. Now that her identity has been exposed she cannot again work overseas, and the network of agents she once oversaw may be at risk.

I think this falls under the “unbelievably disturbing’ category.

“It’s slime and defend,” said one Republican aide on Capitol Hill, describing the White House’s effort to raise questions about Mr. Wilson’s motivations and its simultaneous effort to shore up support in the Republican ranks.

I’d be more comfortable if the White House directed a little more outrage at the leak itself and less about the peripheral issues. [But isn’t this just an example of spin control, which all administrations do?–ed. Let’s go to this Chicago Tribune story and compare and contrast, shall we?:

[T]he leaking of classified information is not a common occurrence and the Bush administration has reacted aggressively when it has occurred. Shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, Bush ordered that classified briefings to the Senate and House intelligence committees be cut off because, the White House charged, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) had revealed classified information when he told reporters that the U.S. had intercepted a call from a suspected terrorist. The briefings were later reinstated. In June 2002, the White House threatened to have the FBI investigate lawmakers to determine who leaked information about two Sept. 10, 2001, messages intercepted by U.S. intelligence officials that some said provided a warning about the attacks the next day.

In both of those instances, the White House felt it necessary to take an active role. Now it’s “slime and defend?”] My suspicion is the White House strategy won’t work. First, it doesn’t jibe with the poll numbers. Second, it will alienate key Republicans. The Times sttory concludes with:

[O]ne Republican with close ties to the administration said the White House was monitoring five Republicans in Congress, all of whom have an independent streak on foreign policy and intelligence matters: Senators John McCain of Arizona, Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and John W. Warner of Virginia, and Representative Porter J. Goss of Florida.

Cue Hagel in today’s Washington Post:

As the White House hunkered down, it got the first taste of criticism from within Bush’s own party. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said that Bush “needs to get this behind him” by taking a more active role. “He has that main responsibility to see this through and see it through quickly, and that would include, if I was president, sitting down with my vice president and asking what he knows about it,” the outspoken Hagel said last night on CNBC’s “Capital Report.”