Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
So everything works as long as you take Novak's word over Harlow's & anyone elses.



Novak said he had multiple sources for everything he reported.
Rove came forward and revealed himself as one of Novak's sources. Although not the primary source on Plame. (Who is, again, beleived to be Richard Armitage.)
This gives credibility to what Novak says. Eventually other "Deep Throat" type sources will reveal themselves, and confirm Novak's account.
And again, Novak said the same things in sworn testimony. That doesn't indicate that he lied.

Quote:

M E M said:
Harlow's motive to lie would be???



He might have said the wrong thing by CIA protocol, or alienated himself from Bush-haters in the CIA. He may be part of a conspiracy to cover for Plame and smear Novak. There are many reasons he might lie.

And Novaks' motive to lie would be...?

Novak gave testimony under oath to the truth of events as he reported them. If he were lying, I think he would admit it, rather than commit a crime by lying under oath.

Quote:

M E M said:
Tenet was the head honcho at the CIA at the time & I don't think it's reasonable that Novak somehow expects the head of the CIA to take his valuable time just to emphasize the seriousness of their request not to use Plame's name. If Novak was a partisan liberal columnist, that rationalizing honestly wouldn't fly with me.



Not necessarily expecting Tenet to call him personally. But if Plame were truly an undercover agent and endangered, Novak should have gotten a phone call from someone in a supervisory capacity at the CIA.
That no one felt it important enough to call Novak and halt the story, that just speaks to the bogusness of the allegation her cover was blown.