Robert Novak, who began the odyssey known as the Plame Game, speaks now about what really happened to spark his column. Novak has written a book on the subject, “The Prince of Darkness”, which is now out in stores.

“It is important to note that Armitage reached out to me before Joe Wilson went public on the New York Times op-ed page and on “Meet the Press” with an account of his Niger report that he said contradicted 16 words in Bush’s January 2003 State of the Union address: (“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa.”)

I was ushered into Armitage’s big State Department inner office promptly at 3 p.m. Neither of us set ground rules for my visit. I assumed, however, that what Armitage said would not be attributed to him but would not be off the record. That is, I could write about information he gave me but would not identify him by name. During a long career, I had come to appreciate that sort of thing in countless interviews without putting it into so many words. I viewed what Armitage told me to be just as privileged as if he had made me swear a blood oath.

Armitage was giving me high-level insider gossip, unusual in a first meeting. About halfway through our session, I brought up Bush’s sixteen words. What Armitage told me generally confirmed what I had learned from sources the previous day while I was reporting for the Fran Townsend column.

I then asked Armitage a question that had been puzzling me but, for the sake of my future peace of mind, would better have been left unasked.

Why would the CIA send Joseph Wilson, not an expert in nuclear proliferation and with no intelligence experience, on the mission to Niger?

“Well,” Armitage replied, “you know his wife works at CIA, and she suggested that he be sent to Niger.” “His wife works at CIA?” I asked. “Yeah, in counterproliferation.”

He mentioned her first name, Valerie. Armitage smiled and said: “That’s real Evans and Novak, isn’t it?” I believe he meant that was the kind of inside information that my late partner, Rowland Evans, and I had featured in our column for so long. I interpreted that as meaning Armitage expected to see the item published in my column.

The exchange about Wilson’s wife lasted no more than sixty seconds.

I never spoke to Armitage again about Wilson. But he acknowledged to me nearly three months later through his political adviser, lobbyist Ken Duberstein, that he was indeed the primary source for my information about Wilson’s wife. Shortly thereafter, he secretly revealed his role to federal authorities investigating the leak of Mrs. Wilson’s name but did not inform White House officials, apparently including the president.

After Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago named as a special prosecutor in the case, indicated to me he knew Armitage was my source, I cooperated fully with him. At the special prosecutor’s request and on my lawyers’ advice, I kept silent about this — a silence that subjected me to much abuse. I was urged by several friends, including some journalists, to give up my source’s name. But I felt bound by the journalist’s code to protect his identity.

At the heart of Novak’s column was a case of Nepotism, which is a violation under federal employee laws. Yet the heart of this story that had Novak interested was more than that. Novak’s interest, as he said on many occassions, was simply as he put it, “Why Wilson?” No experience, no credentials in intel, why in the hell would the CIA put it’s ass on the line with such an amature?

After finding out Wilson’s wife put his name in the hat that made it all the more interesting.

Unfortunately before anyone could dig further, the “leak investigation” got amazingly initiated by one Chuck Schumer, thereby stunting any further look at this curious story.

Instead in Novak’s own words we now know that Fitzgerald had an agenda and as there was no reason to complete the investigation as he knew from the outset that Armitage was the leaker.

I think that it’s time the DOJ began a preliminary probe of the Fitzgerald investigation. Chuck Schumer want’s to call Fitzgerald in for questioning, when in fact it might be a more prudent idea to call Schumer in instead.