Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ch'i
I agree in that whoever it was that leaked the information probably did not do it out of political spite. But why has Novak refused to reveal his source, unless he were given incentive not to, or connected in some way?
|
Reporters have been known to go to jail rather than reveal a source.
http://www.rcfp.org/news/2005/0613-con-report.html
http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/...r/nw1124-3.htm
http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/articl...parentid=40976
etc....etc....etc....
Now we can add the LA Times to the list, though you can hear the disapointment in the writers prose.
Quote:
THE VALERIE PLAME AFFAIR, which once seemed like a political morality play, has morphed into a dark comedy of errors. One more scene remains to be enacted — the criminal trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney — but it would have been better for all concerned if the curtain had been brought down on this drama long ago.
Last week it was revealed that former Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage, not a White House political operative, was Robert Novak's primary source for his now infamous July 2003 syndicated column about a fact-finding mission to Africa by former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. In that column Novak cited "two administration officials" who had told him that Wilson's wife, a CIA operative named Valerie Plame, had suggested sending Wilson to Niger to determine if that nation had supplied uranium to Saddam Hussein.
....
Still, the latest twists and turns in the Plame-Wilson affair make us wish that we had been right when we observed, almost exactly three years ago, that "no one should count on catching the leaker, at least in a legally airtight manner."
|
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...-pe-california
I can hear the disapointment in that last sentance.