Rove vs. Wilson vs. Novak vs....

First, we hear that Karl Rove told a grand jury that journalists told him that Valerie Plame was an undercover operative of the CIA, not vice versa. If true, then Karl's off the hook. If false, he committed perjury.

Complicating matters is Joseph Wilson's recent interview on CNN, where he said:

"My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity"

But isn't that the whole point of this battle? Hey Joe, maybe you should just shut your trap if it's going to undermine your case. And if that's true, Joe, thanks for lying to us and making us look like idiots.

[updated 7/21/05 - from Media Matters comes this correction:

In an interview Friday, Wilson said his comment was meant to reflect that his wife lost her ability to be a covert agent because of the leak, not that she had stopped working for the CIA beforehand.]

Next up: Novak's article cited two Bush administration officials. If Novak went to the other government source first, then confirmed his first conversation with Rove, and Rove replied "he had heard something like that" - presto, Novak is comfortable going with the story because two sources have verified his information.

I find it very unlikely that the conversation with Novak would have presented Rove with his first knowledge of Valerie Plame's name...but that's for a grand jury to decide. Maybe