PeterDavid.net

Well, there is one potential bright side to this. The source might be Karl Rove. Maybe he'll actually get into trouble.

Naaah, probably not.

Very well put, PAD. This is probably the first thing I've read on this that actually put into words what I felt.

You have some on the right gleeful because they love to see the mainstream media in trouble, you have some on the left gleeful because they don't like Judith Miller's reporting on WMD (and they are willing to break lots of eggs if it gives them a chance to make a Karl Rove Omlet), you have reporters seeming to believe that they are above the law...amazing.

Must... log off... go... on vacation...

Ok, last post before my five hour drive: I imagine there will be some chilling effect, but at the same time, could this be the kick in the pants that the news industry needs to refocus itself and get back to serious, in-depth reporting that justifies the sacrifices many in the current news-o-tainment industry aren't willing to make? I'd argue that when you know the stuff you're reporting is crap, it's hard to lay down for it. I know that the case in question is a serious case, and to be honest, I don't know if it necessarily right to endanger an active intelligence asset by revealing their identity without being willing to reveal your own, but Time's response reeks of the response of an entertainment company that played in the serious journalism field and wasn't willing to deal with the consequences.

I'm sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree. These "reporters" should be thanking their lucky stars that they're only getting cited for contempt and not being put on trial for treason. You do know that what they did is treason, right? Freedom of the Press is important, but not so important that they should be immune to the laws that apply to everyone else. What "public good" came out of revealing Valerie Plame's name? Who did this benefit other than the Bush administraion, which was looking for a way to strike back at Valerie's husband for comitting the unbelievable sin of criticizing them? These "reporters" had to know that they were being used as pawns in a game of politics, and they played along willingly... so let them suffer the consequences of doing so.

I'm reminded of something from (I believe) one of Robert Heinlein's essays, to the effect that he was sure that Time published several facts per year; but that he had personally been on hand for a number of events reported in Time, and not once did what Time reported reflect what had actually happened.

I've always taken the newsmags with a largish grain of salt (sometimes accompanied by a margarita), but Time seems to have become the most egregious for inserting editorial comment into their "reporting" (in recent years, even boosting past US News & World Report, IMO). In short, they haven't gotten any of my money for some time, and this sure isn't going to help matters any.

What I love are all the blogs and others who blast "the mainstream media" for being liberal. Who owns most papers and television stations? Big corporations (and I say that working for a Gannett paper). I work in sports, but have seen less chasing after Bush and his friends than there was with Clinton and Whitewater, Monicagate, etc. Yet the Neocons still whine about "the liberal media". I've found that the most important thing in the media is not getting your slant in, but getting the damned thing out on time. I would love to see another Woodward and Bernstein attack this administration, but that seems unlikely. Especially since the Washington Post would probably be forced to reveal who Deep Throat was right after the Watergate story broke. There just are very few good investigative reporters anymore.

See, its a double edged sword. If it is indeed Karl Rove who gave up the agents name, it sucks sources are revealed, but its in order to seek out a greater injustice. Alot of us know the guy was dirty, they could never find anything to tag on him because of all this D.C. backscratching. Now we may have his balls in a sling, if he is pointed out as being the guy who let out her name and put her life at risk, I say its a nessasary evil. Just my opinion...

Frankly, guys, I'm a little disappointed. I already addressed the "above the law" aspect of this, and yet two of you immediately say, "The reporters think they are above the law" as if I didn't address that at all.

Tell me something: Any of you ever drive above the speed limit? Ever? In your life? I'm going to go with "Yes." Now did you do so because you believed you were above the law? Or did you do it knowing that you were taking a calculated risk, and that if you got nailed by a cop, you were going to have to deal with the consequences and pay the fine?

I'm going to guess that it's the second one.

Same thing here.

The reporters in question did NOT think they were above the law. How do I know this? Because they both flat out stated THEY WERE PREPARED TO GO TO JAIL FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. If they REALLY thought they were above the law, they would have--I dunno--fled the country or offered vigorous protests. They would have contended that journalists should get some sort of individual break.

They did neither. They were breaking the law, they KNEW they were breaking the law, they were doing so on what they felt was a matter of principle, and they were READY TO SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES, WITHOUT PROTEST.

There is something noble about acting on principle and being willing to suffer the consequences inherent in the legal system in order to protect someone else so the greater good can be served. This "they thought they were above the law" stuff is simply dead wrong, and grotesquely unfair to the reporters in question.

And for the love of God, could we PLEASE save the word "treason" for people who are actually, genuinely trying to, y'know, OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT? That's becoming more overused than Hitler references.

PAD

Where the #@$& is the loud, sustained outcry that they're not going after Bob Novak? You know... THE GUY WHO ACTUALLY PUBLICLY OUTED HER?

And now, since PAD disagreed with me on the porn publishing requirements, I get to disagree with him on this.

These journalists are being asked to give up a source? By not giving up that information, they are protecting somebody who gave up another confidential source (and by extension, her network of contacts) and these sources are in danger of losing their lives for being revealed.

The journalists were used. They were used to commit a crime, to destroy intelligence assets in a time of war, and they were used by someone in the highest echelons of the United States government. And journalists are protecting this criminal? Screw 'em.

Let me add: I"m a journalist. I'm against forcing real reporters to give up anonymous sources. If Novak's own colleagues in the press had immediately made it clear that they considered his act of "reporting" to be as appalling as it actually was, maybe folks now wouldn't be so eager to call for reporters' balls.

I have yet to decide on where I stand on this issue.

I know the SC ruling seemed to pin things down more toward federal grand juries where this is national security on the line (or some such nonsense).

Here we have a situation where journalists are going to jail, and the bastard who gave Plume's name out is not.

But you can't honestly expect me to believe that, should those journalists willingly give up their source, that that source is going to jail. Not if it's somebody from the White House.

I actually have to agree with PAD on this one. And not because Glenn, Nivek and Scott don't have a point that I agree with... I do. If it had been my wife that was outed as a CIA agent and her life endangered by some right wing douchebag (as Jon Stewart amusingly calls Novak at every turn), I would have made it my mission in life to get that guy fired and/or killed.

But... the principle is what's important here, and the principle is, no matter what it was used to do, reporters do not give up their sources. If the principle becomes "reporters do not give up their sources, so ask their boss and/or sponsoring company and *they'll* do it" than the whole thing loses all meaning.

It's the freedom of speech thing. You sometimes hate that it's there, because it allows people to use speech as a weapon for causes you hate, but you have to defend the principle and not the specific usage at every turn.

The state of journalism is pretty messed up these days, and I think this court ruling is a only one symptom of this greater problem. Gallup polls show that currently, only a minority of Americans trust the news, and the reason for this is because of a seemingly endless stream of scandals involving the issue of accuracy and integrity of the media. From reporters of prestigious publications who just blatantly make up facts (or even stories!), to senior journalists who don't bother to do the basic source-checking required in Journalism 101, "the hits just keep on coming."

For an anonymous source to be considered to be reliable, one has to have faith in the media organization that cites such a source. Unfortunately, such faith just does not seem to be there anymore, and so, we now seem to be in a situation where if a reporter makes an accusation using an anonymous source, few will now take such accusations at face value. We are now a country of skeptics, and the media, like the government, big business, the church, and other institutions before it, is now feeling the brunt of this disillusionment.

The only person here who should be thrown in jail is the guy who is skating along, blissful in the knowledge that as a favorite son of the administration, he won't be pursued: Robert Novak. Hell, Matt Cooper only wrote his article AFTER that asshead outed Plame, and Judith Miller NEVER wrote hers. Treason my ass. Clearly, most of America has no fucking idea what treason is. Here's a brief primer:

Benedict Arnold: Treason.

The Rosenbergs (if guilty, and I lean to the side of them being innocent): Treason.

John Wilkes Booth: Treason.

Robert Hanssen: Treason.

Journalist protecting a confidential source: NOT TREASON. Even if it brings down a horribly corrupt administration.

And as an aside, there's a difference between anonymity in newspaper articles versus on the net. The latter is people who want to be able to state their opinions without having to attach their names to them.

Actually, there's a big controversy these days about White House "background briefings". These are brieings that usually take place after the actual press conferences where someone (presumably Scott McClellan, the president's spokesman) offers to reporters more interesting soundbites on the condition that he will be anonymous. This is not at all because he's unauthorized to say what he's saying... it's simply because the White House realizes that "A senior White House official said off the record..." will sound more to readers/viewers like "the inside truth", than "Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said today at a press conference..." So in effect, they're using reporters own confidentiality principle as a tool to more effectively get their talking points out.

But what constitutes a reporter is murky at best, and has since those days gotten even more fuzzy.

Yep. Especially with that "Jeff Gannon/James Guckert" guy.

Maybe the solution is to set up some statutory standards. Not that anyone who doesn't meet those standards isn't allowed to report... but that anyone who does meet those standards is afforded some protections akin to what lawyers and doctors have.

this latest development--in which Time Inc. is knuckling under to grand jury pressure over revealing sources, even though the reporters themselves were ready to do time under a contempt citation rather than give up their sourcess--trumps it all. It sends a frightening double-edged message: Sources, beware. And grand juries, go after reporters.

Actually, it tells grand juries to go after the corporations.

But yes, it does create a chilling effect for sources... at least in the case of corporate owned media. But I think we all knew by now that corporate media was no longer trustworthy or reliable, and was too much concerned about the bottom line. This just follows in that pattern. Perhaps reporters will now have to change the way they do their work, to ensure that the corporation will no longer have access to their confidential information (as I understand it, Time got access to this info through e-mails the reporter exchanged).

One outstanding question for me is... what the heck is going on with Bob Novak? Judy Miller, who never even revealed the name of the CIA agent, is under threat of going to jail if she doesn't reveal who told it to her. Novak, who was the first to break the agent's name, isn't any under any threat whatsoever. Does the government have ANY explanation fdor this? I mean, I realize the explanation probably is "Novak is a conservative columnist who was helping us out by leaking the name of the wife of a prominent administration critic, so we don't want him prosecuted" but surely they must have an alternate explanation they can offer to the public? Surely SOMEONE has questioned this?

It may not be textbook, but if you betray someone doing their job to protecting this country for personal, political, or financial gain, your a Tratior. Given that we used to execute people for giving away troop locations, I dont see where this is far removed from that.

>> Given that we used to execute people for giving away troop locations, I dont see where this is far removed from that. >>

We also used to keep black people as slaves, allow children to work in coal mines and prevent women from owning property or voting. Your point would be.

"It may not be textbook, but if you betray someone doing their job to protecting this country for personal, political, or financial gain, your a Tratior. Given that we used to execute people for giving away troop locations, I dont see where this is far removed from that."

You don't get it, do you? The people being prosecuted DID NOT give this woman's name to the public. Robert Novak did. And he is not being prosecuted.

"What I love are all the blogs and others who blast "the mainstream media" for being liberal. Who owns most papers and television stations? Big corporations (and I say that working for a Gannett paper)."

Just because Rupert Murdoch owned the Village Voice at some point did not prevent it from being a left wing newspaper. Larry Flint owns many magazines that are not pornographic. ATT owns the company that makes my processed cheese spread, yet I can't use it to call my bookie. The point is, ownership of a newspaper is not evidence of any bias in and of itself.

"Frankly, guys, I'm a little disappointed. I already addressed the "above the law" aspect of this, and yet two of you immediately say, "The reporters think they are above the law" as if I didn't address that at all."

Just to be clear, I was not talking about the actual reporters in this case, only some of their "defenders".(One idiot suggested that Bush immediately pardon them which would, among other things, really get the moonbats screaming coverup--not without reason, in this case) Miller and the other guy whose name excapes me have, so far as I can tell, behaved honerably.

Novak is an interesting case. I suspect he gave up his source willingly but the circumstances of the "leak" may not have been enough to justify prosecution. If the source also went after ohter reporters, that would be different. My bet is that Miller and the others are being pressured to show that the Novak source was peddling this story around town.

I'm slightly surprised that so many liberals are eager to see Novak jailed for reporting the truth. granted, I can see why we would want to keep the identity of CIA spies and undercover police officers secret but how do you balance this out with free speech? If we can outlaw the telling of one kind of truth why can't we outlaw any? Imagine if the military had the power to jail anyone who reported on a new weapons system, or troop movements (I realize that there must be some point where one CAN, in fact, do this--if I got on TV and started giving out the longitude and latitude of a marine convoy on a secret mission to capture A Qaeda leaders I might expect some consequences...but I'd hate to see some blanket law against anything of the kind).

Oh, the irony. The media begged to know Novak's source. The result of the inquiry is that reporters are being threatened with jail if they don't give up their source. I agree, it would seem like Novak should also be in trouble. But putting that aside for the moment, I do enjoy the irony of the situation.

In my opinion, there is a balance. I can see PAD's position. I can also see how there are times when the source should be revealed. I really don't think a top Republican official will be named, but that is only my guess. The fervor over this, though is quite entertaining.

Iowa Jim

Bill wrote:

"I'm slightly surprised that so many liberals are eager to see Novak jailed for reporting the truth. granted, I can see why we would want to keep the identity of CIA spies and undercover police officers secret but how do you balance this out with free speech? If we can outlaw the telling of one kind of truth why can't we outlaw any? Imagine if the military had the power to jail anyone who reported on a new weapons system, or troop movements (I realize that there must be some point where one CAN, in fact, do this--if I got on TV and started giving out the longitude and latitude of a marine convoy on a secret mission to capture A Qaeda leaders I might expect some consequences...but I'd hate to see some blanket law against anything of the kind)."

I've stated more than once on this blog that I hold freedom of speech to be as important a right as there is, and have come down against any threats to it, such as the flag-burning admendment. But, I have understood that there is one limit to it - releasing confidential information and government secrets, particularly information which could get people killed. And I thought that there were some laws restricting this - this is why, for instance, the government can still black out sections of documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.

I guess, personally, I am totally against restricting someone from expressing an idea, no matter how abhorent someone else (including me) may find it. But releasing of INFORMATION - from damaging acts such as, for example, releasing the ATM PIN numbers of all U.S. Senators, or the Fortune 500, or every customer of one bank in Maine, for that matter, to dangerous acts such as releasing detailed schematics for military technology - or the identities of undercover agents - is different, and may, as necessity dictates, be regulated. Does this leave open a possibility of restriction of First Admendment rights? Possibly; and this would have to be strictly guarded against. But allowing freedom of expression to allow absolutely unlimited freedom of revelation is, I think, just too potentially disastrous.

As far as Novak goes - I would be lying if I said that I was completely conversant on all of the facts in this case, but as he is the one who released this agent's name to the public - and out of no necessity at all of which I am aware - he should be the one at the forefront of any investigation, the first in line to take any potential punishment for recklessly endangering this woman's life. If he acted out of political favoritism, and is now being protected quid pro quo, that is a disgusting abuse of power.

And now, such disgusting abuses will likely be harder to uncover, with Time Inc. willing to reveal their reporters' sources. I'm not hardly a fan of Karl Rove, but if the ability of reporters to investigate corruption and crime is weakened, possibly irrepairably, in the effort to remove one political operative, then I have strong doubts that the price is worth it.

(Or, to take the long view, even if somehow the whole Bush Administration was brought down by this [not that I'm saying it will be; I'm presenting the most extreme possible outcome here]. Even if an investigation revealed that this group was willing to endanger others' lives to solidify its own power and attack political opponents [in the most extrere possible scenario here], destroying the reporter-source confidentiality mechanism could prevent any such corruption from being revealed in any future administrations, trading one current corrupt government for many unchecked ones in the future.)

Knuckles: John Wilkes Booth: Treason.
Luigi Novi: Well, yeah, that and murder.

Btw, I haven't heard much about this story; can someone tell me WHY Novak revealed Plame's identity? There is value in concealing the identity of someone who confirms that the President is engaging in illegal activity. What value is there in revealing someone's identity as a CIA agent?

"And now, since PAD disagreed with me on the porn publishing requirements, I get to disagree with him on this."

Ah, but the difference is, I'm right both times.

If the journalists went to jail in order to protect their source and your response is, "They deserve what they get, screw 'em," I totally get where you're coming from. the thing is, the journalists were willing to--and there's no other way to phrase it--take what was coming to them.

You, Glenn, should be outraged by the same thing as I am, albeit for different reasons. You should be outraged at Time for caving in so that the journalists avoid punishment. I'm outraged Time caved in because of the impact it's going to have on the entirety of news gathering and the craven example it sets.

PAD

"Just because Rupert Murdoch owned the Village Voice at some point did not prevent it from being a left wing newspaper. Larry Flint owns many magazines that are not pornographic. ATT owns the company that makes my processed cheese spread, yet I can't use it to call my bookie. The point is, ownership of a newspaper is not evidence of any bias in and of itself."

Kinda true. But the fact that all the critics leave out when blasting the media with claims of Lib biase and going on about surveys that show that the majority of reporters voted D is the fact that most of the owners AND the editors that they put in place vote R. You're right when pointing out that a parent company may have little to do with a newspaper in the day to day of things. But most of the papers and TV news shows are run on the top levels by conservatives put in place by other conservatives. I could be the biggest bed wetting lib of all time and working for a huge newspaper and never get one story printed about how bad Bush is if the editor didn't want it in the news pages (not counting Op/Ed here.)

Most the claims of biase I've seen come from people who are actually saying, "we don't like what you said about us no matter how true it may have been." Or they point to Op/Ed shows or pieces. It's actually kinda rare that you see an enitire "news" or Op/Ed organ (Fox news, Village Voice, Air America) that is just so biased that it screams its biase at you to the point of not being able to not notice it.

And Rupert Murdoch may not be the greatest choice here. Yeah, he has shown a flair for kicking the truth around a bit with Fox News and other things he has done but he has often shown a greater love for money then politics. This is the same guy who started a TV network/channel in China with the Chinese Gov't that was little more then a propaganda tool for them. Often against the west. Why? Because they would only let him in (and get the $$$) if he played ball their way.

Luigi,

As I remember it, there were questions about why Joe Clarke was given the assignment to investigate the sale of uranaium in Africa. Novak reported that he got it because of his connections, ie. a wife who worked for the CIA.

There is still some question over whether or not there was a crime involved. It is illegal to disclose the identity of a CIA spy, that seems certain, but some say that Valery Plame's occupation was not a secret. There is also an interesting problem here--assume for the minute that Plame WAS a covert spy and that the administration WAS guilty of putting her life in dager by willy nilly revelations about town designed to discredit her--how could Novak or any reporter rveal this malfeasence without breaking the law?

Luke,
You raise good points. My guess is that Novak's excuse could be that he was reporting a potential abuse of power by Clarke and that the truth about his wife was an essential part of the story. Calrke says that his wife had nothing to do with his getting the assignment, others disagree. If Novak is charged he will simplay state that he was reporting on how a vital bit of national security was entrusted to an incompetant based on nepotism (NOTE- I'm not saying that this is a valid interpretation of events but it is a defensible one). They would likely not choose to prosecute because if they did Novak could request a lot of people to testify about things they do not want to testify about.

At any rate, if Rove ultimately is the one who did this he will have risked a great deal on very little. If I were him I would not have relied on Time Magazine's promise to keep its sources confidential--would you? I mean, if this becomes a huge scandle they will sell a hell of a lot of magazines. Not to PAD but many will be willing to take up the slack.

I love this server error stuff. It's like being stuck in a bad TV Sci-Fi time warp show. I can see listings on Recent Comments that I can't find and read, I can post stuff now that doesn't show up for 30 minutes or more but seems to be there kinda sorta and I can read stuff in threads that I don't see listed on the Recent Comments board yet. Will somebody please call Q or The Great Machine and tell them to unstick me in time? I'm getting very confused here. maybe a bit timesick too. But it's ok. This place could use a bit of color.

;)

By not giving up that information, they are protecting somebody who gave up another confidential source

It makes no difference. If the reporters make an arbitrary judgment call in this case and say "Well, I've decided that this information shouldn't be privileged" then no source will ever be certain that their confidentiality will be maintained, and that will create the chilling effect PAD described. Principles are principles; this is the same reason groups like the ACLU defend groups like the KKK, even though their principles are diamterically opposed. You can't just stick to your principles when it's convenient and comfortable.

I'm slightly surprised that so many liberals are eager to see Novak jailed for reporting the truth.

I don't think that's the case. I think from the very beginning, people wanted an investigation that focused on the source of the leaks; The White House (Novak outright said in his article these were senior administration officials)... not the reporters who the information was given to. I think what people are outraged about now, is that if the prosecutor's office has decided that the legal burden should be on the messenger, then why the heck is someone who didn't even reveal the identity being prosecuted, rather than the guy who did? It's not a case of people wanting Novak to go to jail, as much as being outraged at what appears to be a blatantly politically guided prosectution.

By the way, it's Joe Wilson who was the CIA agent's husband. Richard Clarke is a different former administration official who criticized administration malfeasance related to the war on terror.

"Freedom of the Press is important, but not so important that they should be immune to the laws that apply to everyone else"

Then people shouldn't be free to say what they want under fear of what the law will do to them?

Sounds totalitarian to me.

I agree with whoever it was said that we should set up standards, ways in which we can protect the press. And why would anyone who likes freedom of the press want you to give up your sources? All I know is that if I was an informer for the police, and they revealed MY name, heads would roll (Including mine, if I ratted on the Mafia) Why should press sources be any different? Also, I don't see how not taking Novack to court is anything other than gross political favoritism. and if this person's life WAS indangered, then there is a whole host of charges you could haul him up on besides treason. Attempted manslaughter for one. Why should it just be treason?

Novak outed Plame first in his column, but he received the information after the other reporters -- the damage had already been done by the time Novak outed Plame. It wouldn't surprise me if Novak's source was kept from the public but not the investigation.

For the most part it's not illegal to pass classified you aren't entitled to have in the way Plame was outed publicly. The liability goes to he who was entitled to know the classified information but passed it to those who weren't entitled.

Yeah, Novak was just the one without the integrety to resist using the information (or with the predisposition to do the administration a favor).

"Luigi Novi: Well, yeah, that and murder."

Tomato, tomahto.

"Novak outed Plame first in his column, but he received the information after the other reporters -- the damage had already been done by the time Novak outed Plame. It wouldn't surprise me if Novak's source was kept from the public but not the investigation."

I'm sorry, what? Novak received the information from the exact same source the other reporters did: whomever it was in the White House that was shopping it around (Lawrence O'Donnel's interesting theory is that it's none other than Bob's Big Boy himself, Karl Rove). There is an entire cadre of reporters that know who the source was, as they all received the same information from them. Novak was the only piece of shit willing to use it to try and discredit Joe Wilson. This, of course, backfired.

Heck. Just for fun, here's a quote (and a link to the source, if'n I can remember my very feeble HTML):

" The officer's name was disclosed on July 14 in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak, who said his sources were two senior administration officials.

Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. Wilson had just revealed that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account touched off a political fracas over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq."

Washington Post

Here's one I haven't read, yet, but will.

Coup D'Etat

From my initial glance, it proves to be interesting, and from a very reliable source. Should be some good reading.

Actually, I'm just loving the whole "finally getting hyperlinks to work" thing.

You, Glenn, should be outraged by the same thing as I am, albeit for different reasons. You should be outraged at Time for caving in so that the journalists avoid punishment.

Well, one could take the POV that it's not Cooper's writing anymore, it's Time's. Cooper's writing for them is almost certainly work for hire, in every legal sense. If so, legally it's Time's responsibility-- and therefore, their choice.

FWIW, it seems that the prosecutor already had the information on who the leaker was (probably from Novak); what he needed was a second witness for an upcoming perjury charge. See here.

This case is covered in a very murky shade of grey.

Did the reporters think they were above the law? Not on some simplistic 'I'm a reporter, so step back Jack" level, I'm sure. But at the same time, I doubt it escaped their attention that they work for large, powerful organizations, complete with very healthy legal departments more than capable of arguing the fine points of reporters' shield laws till the cows come home.

And, oh look, those cows were getting pretty close to the barn... According to CNN:
"Under federal law, civil contempt can carry up to 18 months in jail or the length of the grand jury's term, whichever is shorter. Hogan said the term of the grand jury in this case expires in October, so Miller and Cooper only face up to four months in jail."

They also knew the information they were dealing in wouldn't exactly displease people in some very influential and powerful quarters.

In the end, Time punks out, and who knows what backroom deals were cut. Time takes a bit of a hit to its reputation among the fraction of the public whose radar this story actually registers on. Some sources will be a little bit more skittish, but they're still Time freaking magazine and sooner rather than later, the lure of their big name will become too much to resist again and people will rationalize their way into feeling safe dealing with them again.

Nobility isn't a word I'd use in talking about this affair.

Novak received the information from the exact same source the other reporters did: whomever it was in the White House that was shopping it around (Lawrence O'Donnel's interesting theory is that it's none other than Bob's Big Boy himself, Karl Rove). There is an entire cadre of reporters that know who the source was, as they all received the same information from them. Novak was the only piece of shit willing to use it to try and discredit Joe Wilson.

Rumor among reporters isn't going to get anyone prosecuted. Nobody minds claiming to be the source of information that's already been leaked, as is my understanding of Novak's leak. It's pinning who sprang the initial leak who counts.

"Well, one could take the POV that it's not Cooper's writing anymore, it's Time's. Cooper's writing for them is almost certainly work for hire, in every legal sense. If so, legally it's Time's responsibility-- and therefore, their choice."

I don't think anyone's disputing that. What's at issue is that they made a bad choice. The wrong and convenient and self-serving choice, at the expense of the entirety of the journalistic community. If NOTHING else, any source who wants to remain off the record would have to be out of his mind to talk to anyone from Time magazine. Were I a Time magazine investigative reporter, I'd be spitting tacks in regards to my publisher's actions, because I've just been kneecapped in my ability to do my job.

PAD

Peter, blame the US legal system for the word treason, because that is what defines the act of revealing an undercover operative's name as such.

And no one has been "kneecapped." What they did was illegal, there should be no protection for it.

And as for what James Carter had to say...

"Then people shouldn't be free to say what they want under fear of what the law will do to them?"

Yes, it's called "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" or many other examples of the limits to free speech. Nice attempt to twist what I said, but no cigar.

"Yes, it's called "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater""

Uh oh, NOW you've gone and done it...

"Peter, blame the US legal system for the word treason, because that is what defines the act of revealing an undercover operative's name as such."

The fact that they didn't wage war against the US and didn't attempt to overthrow the government makes me think it's not. You could try to make the argument that they gave "aid and comfort to the enemy," but that's a stretch at best. Plus I have to think that the government would not hesitate to try them for treason if they thought they actually had a case, so the fact that they're not makes me think it's a poor argument at best.

"And no one has been "kneecapped." What they did was illegal, there should be no protection for it."

Wow. Okay, a third time, which is strange, because I'd think that saying it once would be sufficient and twice would be more than sufficient...

I never said there was "protection" for it. In fact, I explained in detail why offering journalist/source protection was problematic at best, impossible at worst. But there is nevertheless a journalistic code of conduct, if you will, that says you don't give up a source, even if it means jail time. Period. And when I say the Time publisher kneecapped his investigative reporters, what I'm saying (I can't BELIEVE I have to spell this out) is that their job has just been made much, much harder. Before this incident, a Time investigative reporter could say with confidence to a source wishing to remain anonymous, "I will keep your identity confidential. You have my word. Even if it means being thrown in jail for contempt, I will not give you up." That promise now means absolutely nothing, because the source could reasonably say, "Yeah, but your publisher could well turn in my name and all your notes the first time a Grand Jury comes calling. No thanks; I'll talk to the New York Times." And for that matter, a NY Times reporter could find himself in the same fix, since a source could say, "Yeah, okay, you're promising to keep my name out of this, but for all I know, your publisher might cave in the same way that the one over at Time magazine did." Thus is genuine wrongdoing given just a bit more cover as the chilling effect takes hold.

And please, people, for God's sake, pay attention to what I'm saying. I really shouldn't have to explain the same concept three times in two days. Let's not make it four times.

PAD

"Yes, it's called "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater""

"Uh oh, NOW you've gone and done it..."

You know, I am so freaking tired of addressing this muddy-minded misquote of O.W. Holmes, tied to a court decision that had nothing to do with fires, cries of fires, or theaters crowded or empty, and was in fact attached to a decision that remains one of the most egregious trampling of free speech rights in judicial history, that I don't even want to get into it.

If the poster wants to do some actual research so he can see his misquote and the repulsive details of the specific case, he's welcome to. I've explained it maybe ten times in the last two years. So I'm sick of it.

PAD

Peter, YES, what is a "reporter"?

WHO is a "reporter"?

Who is NOT a "reporter"?

That is the question.

-- Ken from Chicago

P.S. How many coded notes will there be now and a lot of "forgetful" reporters testifying "I don't recall" what source initials "GWB" stand for.

By the way, it's Joe Wilson who was the CIA agent's husband. Richard Clarke is a different former administration official who criticized administration malfeasance related to the war on terror.

Matt, you are correct sir, and thank you for the correction. Can't tell the players without a scorecard.

Actually the need to explain for a third time is an example of one of those things I get disappointed with on these threads. I figure its only right to read what has been said before you post so that you don't repeat someone, or to make sure you understand before misquoting or replying in error, but way too often someone says "I haven't read all of the posts so far..." or "I'm not going to read them all but I'm a big fan of...". Doesn't mean you can't second, or third or tenth what someone else said, just that we should try to be sure of what was said previously before posting ourselves.

Richard Clarke also wrote a very fine book that everyone should read entitled Against All Enemies.

Rumor among reporters isn't going to get anyone prosecuted. Nobody minds claiming to be the source of information that's already been leaked, as is my understanding of Novak's leak. It's pinning who sprang the initial leak who counts.

Seems to me you're completely walking past everything posted there. Novak published her freaking name. Novak is guilty of undermining our National Security by giving up the identity of an undercover CIA agent. Novak isn't the leak, but Novak is equally as culpable as the source, as he is the one who actually printed the name. Hell, whatever the Chicago paper is that went ahead with the article is probably liable as well. To quote directly from the article I cited above:

The intentional disclosure of a covert operative's identity is a violation of federal law.

Novak is currently sitting back, drinking pina coladas and getting caught in the rain. Matt Cooper and Judith Miller, on the other hand, are about to get ready to drink prison water and get caught in the shower.

Understand this: the sources name isn't rumor among reporters. This leak actively called at least six different reporters before they found one who was a big enough suckass to print it. And now two other reporters are paying the price for Novak's willingness to be a Bush Administration running dog.

In fact, I explained in detail why offering journalist/source protection was problematic at best, impossible at worst.

Given that most states already have journalist shield laws, I don't see why it's so problematic. In fact there is currently a proposed federal law on the table:

Vienna, Va. – In response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision not to hear the cert petition filed by Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller, the Newspaper Association of America is calling on Congress to act on legislation that would protect against the release of confidential source information and allow important news and information to reach the public.

Representatives Mike Pence (R-IN) and Rick Boucher (D-VA) and Senators Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT) have introduced the “Free Flow of Information Act.” The legislation, H.R. 581 and S. 340, closely follows the U.S. Department of Justice guidelines that have been in place for more than 30 years, and allows testimony to be compelled from a journalist only after non-media sources have been exhausted and such testimony is essential to the investigation, prosecution or defense of a criminal case or essential to a dispositive issue in a civil case. The legislation also expands upon the guidelines by providing additional protection of the identities of confidential sources.

More at:

http://www.naa.org/utilartpage.cfm?TID=NR&AID=7067

Given that most states already have journalist shield laws, I don't see why it's so problematic.

Those laws won't protect them from a federal grand jury, that's the problem.

"Given that most states already have journalist shield laws, I don't see why it's so problematic."

Because I wasn't talking about shield laws. I was talking about absolute privilege, as is the case with doctors, attorneys, and--now that I think about it--priests. There's no legal mechanism in place that I know of that would allow a grand jury to override lawyer/client privilege in order to determine (for instance) if a suspected murderer is guilty. Now...there are legal ethics. For instance, my understanding (purely garnered from TV, I'll admit) is that a lawyer cannot knowingly allow his client to perjure himself. But legal ethics have the force of law backing them up. Journalistic ethics is a code of conduct that does not trump the requirements of the law. All shield laws do is make holding up a reporter for his sources an action of last resort. But they don't take that option off the table the way that privilege does.

PAD

Those laws won't protect them from a federal grand jury, that's the problem.

Er... I was asking why it would be problematic to create a federal protection... and in my very next sentence, I mentioned a federal law in the works.

All shield laws do is make holding up a reporter for his sources an action of last resort. But they don't take that option off the table the way that privilege does.

Still, something is better than nothing, no? And I could be mistaken, but I think there are certain circumstances in which doctors (frequently psychiatrists) can be compelled to give up their confidence.

"Er... I was asking why it would be problematic to create a federal protection..."

No, you were commenting on state shield laws, whereas I was (and am still) talking about the lack of absolute privilege.

"and in my very next sentence, I mentioned a federal law in the works"

And I will be extremely surprised if it gets signed into law...especially with this administration. I just don't see GWB being interested in providing protections for the journalists he so despises. Of course, I could be wrong. We'll see.

And it still won't provide absolute privilege in any event.

"And I could be mistaken, but I think there are certain circumstances in which doctors (frequently psychiatrists) can be compelled to give up their confidence."

I'd be interested to know the specifics of that.

PAD

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that doctors can be compelled to break confidentiality if they believe that their patient poses an imminent threat to another person. Of course, the exact details may differ from state to state.

Oh, and Novak should be charged with treason. Of course he won't, because he's a dedicated mouthpiece of the Bushites.

"Er... I was asking why it would be problematic to create a federal protection..."

No, you were commenting on state shield laws, whereas I was (and am still) talking about the lack of absolute privilege.

Well, I mentioned state shield laws by way of saying that legal protection (albeit not absolute) can be provided... if the federal government has the will. Though I agree with you that it will probably not happen under the current admin.

In any event, I was responding to Craig who seemed to think I was saying I thought the reporters were already protected (should've made that clearer).

I'd be interested to know the specifics of that.

I think it basically comes down to when they have knowledge of something where someone's life could be at immediate risk (whether murder or suicide).

One other thing that occurs to me, is that with the new anti-terrorism laws, even attorney/client privilege is no longer absolute. For example, using their new powers, the government was able to wiretap conversations between Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the blind Egyptian cleric in prison for masterminding the first WTC bombing) and his lawyer, Lynne Stewart. Based on the information they gathered, she was subsequently convicted of passing messages to his followers, and faces up to 30 years in prison, which may well amount to a life sentence since she is 65.

>Neil - There just are very few good investigative reporters anymore.

I wish you were wrong, but ... In Canada, the last few major scandals were all 'outed' not by the useless press, but by the office of the Auditor General. I've practically given up watching televised interviews as they have come to feel more like unpaid political advertisements than real "find out what's going on" exercises.

>Bill - The point is, ownership of a newspaper is not evidence of any bias in and of itself.

Maybe not, but don't tell that to the ex Editor-In-Chief of THE OTTAWA CITIZEN (our major daily) who was fired by the owners for daring to publish an unfavourable editorial aimed at their friend the Prime Minister.

>Luke - I thought that there were some laws restricting this - this is why, for instance, the government can still black out sections of documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.

Yes, there are. But the problem then becomes, who decides? And how are we to know it is really about 'national security' and not just politicos covering their asses? Remember Sir Humphrey's classic comment in YES, MINISTER? "Bernard, the Official Secrets' Act isn't there to protect secrets, it's there to protect the officials."

> Patrick - Yeah, Novak was just the one without the integrety to resist using the information (or with the predisposition to do the administration a favor).

And the fact that someone in the administration was going around handing out the name of that operative should have been kept quiet?

>Peter David - "And I could be mistaken, but I think there are certain circumstances in which doctors (frequently psychiatrists) can be compelled to give up their confidence." I'd be interested to know the specifics of that.

Didn't they try to pass laws stating that doctors have to reveal the names of patients who have received gunshot wounds? And if they have certain diseases such as AIDS? Though I admit I don't know what came of those efforts. Hopefully nought.

"Yes, it's called "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater""

Mr. David, I hope I am not going to make you mad, but I would like to explain this quote and why it was stupid and why it was stupid when it was said. If I make you mad, I apologize in advance.

Ok, the case was Shenk V. US. During WWI, shenk had been distributing, in a peaceful manner, anti-draft pamphlets. He was hauled up on charges of fomenting insurrection under the Espionage act. OW Holmes said that:

"when a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight."

In other words, during wartime, you can only say what the government wants you to say. This was an act that in no way jepordized lives, or state secrets. This was not even encouraging insurrection, but simply urging people to SPEAK (not revolt, not desert, but speak) out against the war and the draft. This case was overturned by Brandenburg V. Ohio, and instead of the idea of "Clear and Present Danger" test, an "Immenent Lawless action" test was put in its place.

Now, for you to apply that to this situation is, I must say, correct. yes, a life was endangered. However, there is no other situation, save that where an actual life or lives is on the line, where the press should be limited. And that is what it sounded like (If I misread you, I apologize.) This is all without mentioning the point that the person who DID endanger lives is NOT on trial.

"Yes, it's called "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater""

Mr. David, I hope I am not going to make you mad, but I would like to explain this quote and why it was stupid and why it was stupid when it was said. If I make you mad, I apologize in advance.

(hope this doesn't double post)
Ok, the case was Shenk V. US. During WWI, shenk had been distributing, in a peaceful manner, anti-draft pamphlets. He was hauled up on charges of fomenting insurrection under the Espionage act. OW Holmes said that:

"when a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight."

In other words, during wartime, you can only say what the government wants you to say. This was an act that in no way jepordized lives, or state secrets. This was not even encouraging insurrection, but simply urging people to SPEAK (not revolt, not desert, but speak) out against the war and the draft. This case was overturned by Brandenburg V. Ohio, and instead of the idea of "Clear and Present Danger" test, an "Immenent Lawless action" test was put in its place.

Now, for you to apply that to this situation is, I must say, correct. yes, a life was endangered. However, there is no other situation, save that where an actual life or lives is on the line, where the press should be limited. And that is what it sounded like (If I misread you, I apologize.) This is all without mentioning the point that the person who DID endanger lives is NOT on trial.

Nobody minds claiming to be the source of information that's already been leaked, as is my understanding of Novak's leak. It's pinning who sprang the initial leak who counts.

Seems to me you're completely walking past everything posted there....

Novak isn't the leak, but...

I'm not the one walking past why Novak hasn't been threatened with prosecution. You're going on and on about how Novak should be prosecuted, grinding your wheels. Don't blame me for not adopting the magical thinking that being vile is a federal offence.

...besides, you never hear of prosecutions going after the big fish first, and then the small fry. They go after the fringe elements first to build the really hideous indictments. Do you want them to fubar by going after Novak before they're ready, or do you want Novak to get away like he was being tried in LA just because you can't defer gratification?

FWIW, Time's reasoning on giving up the info can be found here.

I haven't trusted a word published in Time Magazine since 1996, when they published the following sentence in an article about the then-booming ska music scene:

[i]Skateboards are to ska as flannel is to grunge.[/i]

I figured that if they could get something so simple as a pop culture puff piece so eggregiously wrong, then they obviously weren't doing a very good job on their research and reporting. And if they get something so simple wrong, why should I trust them on actual important stories?

I've never believed anything I've read there since unless it was independently verified by another media outlet.

They lost their credibility with me almost a decade ago. This is just icing on the cake.

Damn, forgot that this board uses real HTML and not UBB code.

"Don't blame me for not adopting the magical thinking that being vile is a federal offence."

And there you go: it's not magical. It IS a federal offense. That's the point. Sure, Novak is a dick, but being a dick isn't a crime. Giving up the name of an undercover agent for the CIA on the other hand, IS a crime. There's the goddam problem, and that is the point you seem to be missing.

What I'm pissed off about is that the grand jury is going after people who committed no crime. It is going after people who won't tell the grand jury who it was that gave Robert Novak the name. Robert Novak, on the other hand, committed a crime. These people are being cited for contempt of court, whereas Robert Novak should have his ass in the slammer for committing a federal offense. These other journalists at least have some journalistic integrity. They should be applauded, not imprisoned.

Hey...journalistic revelations aside...wouldn't it be a hoot if the decision to out the agent as a revenge tactic were traced to Bush?

I'll grant you, it seems as absurd a notion as a third rate burglary being tracked all the way up to the Oval Office, but...

Hunh.

PAD

It won't be traced to Bush, but it *might* be traced to Cheney quite easily.

However, this scandal is a sign of dark times. On one side you have a corrupt and radical administration that will stop to nothing, lawful or not, in order to prevail on their political opponents. On the other side you have a corrupt and politically supine press, full of weaklings like Judith Miller (who is already trying to avoid jail time on the basis of her --perfect-- health, so much for your heroic stance, Peter, that's crap for teenagers at uni) and Ann Coulter; people who made a career out of "whispers from power", the ones that "administration sources say...", the ones who routinely spin government propaganda like they were at Pravda, the ones who tolerate shills like Gannon/Guckert... sick copies of the worst Woodward.

Did you really have to pick one side? Me, I'll pick the prosecutors' side, for once. I don't see any good guy elsewhere.

The e-mails surrendered by Time Inc., which are largely between Cooper and his editors, show that one of Cooper's sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to two lawyers who asked not to be identified because they are representing witnesses sympathetic to the White House.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/

"Hey...journalistic revelations aside...wouldn't it be a hoot if the decision to out the agent as a revenge tactic were traced to Bush?

I'll grant you, it seems as absurd a notion as a third rate burglary being tracked all the way up to the Oval Office, but...

Hunh."

He's about the only person in the administration that I can think of that would be stupid enough to do something like that. That is, if he actually knows how to work a phone...

>Bill - The point is, ownership of a newspaper is not evidence of any bias in and of itself.

Maybe not, but don't tell that to the ex Editor-In-Chief of THE OTTAWA CITIZEN (our major daily) who was fired by the owners for daring to publish an unfavourable editorial aimed at their friend the Prime Minister.

I'll gladly tell him tatht. You see, being fired for expressing such a reasonable political view, now THAT would be evidence of a bias. The fact that the owner was obviously a supporter of a liberal politician was not evidence of liberal bias--it was the fact that he fired people who did not agree with him.

That's a good question, actually. What makes someone a reporter?

In the other areas covered by shield laws or "privilege", there are clear dividing lines between the "haves" and the "have nots". To enjoy attorney/client privilege, for instance, I need to have in my employ someone who has passed his bar exam and is legally permitted to practice law. If I confess to a priest and I want him to keep our correspondence a secret, the person I'm confessing needs to have been ordained as such. These are not terribly difficult distinctions to make.

But when does one become a reporter? When they join a newspaper staff? What if they are unsalaried correspondents? Do they need to be issued a press card for such protections to take place? If yes to that last question, does that mean that uncarded bloggers are not journalists?

I don't think one can easily draw distinctions in this instance. Which is why I'm not a fan of special protection for journalists. Governments should not be deciding who is and who isn't part of the press.

As for Peter's remarks about the media being the government's lapdog post-9/11, if such sycophantic behavior existed, it sure as hell died once the 2004 Presidential election season got underway. Let's do a mainstream media liberal bias roll call, shall we:

---Rathergate (i.e. Bush National Guard Part 3, following unsuccessful attempts in early 2004 and 2000 to make anything stick).

---The glorification of Joe Wilson's "Bush lied about Saddam Hussein trying to obtain yellowcake uranium from Niger" comments and subsequent overriding media silence when the Senate Intelligence Committee determined that Wilson had lied in his testimony and both the SIC and the U.K.'s Lord Butler inquiry agreed that Bush's (and Blair's) claims were consistent with intelligence findings.

---the brouhaha about Richard Clarke's "smoking gun" August 6, 2001 DPB, a document that turned out to be a reiteration of what any third-rate hack journalist could have told us about Osama Bin Laden.

---General media silence on John Kerry's call for booksellers to refuse to carry the Swift Boat Vets book. May not seem like such a biggie, but can you imagine the hysteria if Bush or Ashcroft had made that statement? They would have been raked over the coals for sure.

---USA Today hiring Ann Coulter to cover the Democratic Convention and then dropping her without running her submitted copy.

---The largely uncritical praise for Fahrenheit 9/11, not to mention stories overplaying its popularity in "enemy territory" (covered in greater detail in Byron York's excellent new book)

---Running with the iffy "October surprise" story about the post-invasion looting of Saddam Hussein's weaponry, but effectively ignoring a solid Washington Times story quoting ambassadors who claimed that Kerry lied about meeting with all the members of the U.N. Security Council in October 2002.

---The various chattering among TV pundits that Zell Miller's Republican Convention speech might be "too hot for America". I don't recall these guys wondering if Kerry's debate remarks about how we shouldn't be building weapons when we want others to disarm, how we should have given Iran nuclear fuel to see if they'd use it for "peaceful purposes", and how we should give the countries of the world an effective veto of our foreign policy via a "global test" were going to be "too soft for America".

Beyond that, though, a lot of the bias can be found in the details. Why, as one New York Times reader wondered in a letter to the public editor, does the Times refer to Tucker Carlson as a "conservative", but Bill Moyers as just Bill Moyers? That whole us vs. them trick of labeling conservatives slants readers towards thinking that the unlabeled liberals have no ideological axe to grind and are simply using common sense. (Which is simply not true.)

Another trick is to dateline stories on broad social issues from big cities, where the writer is more likely to encounter liberals, and thus, liberal opinion. After Cardinal Ratzinger was elevated to Pope, the Times ran an article entitled “For America's Divided Roman Catholics, a New Difference of Opinion”. As though one could reasonably examine prevailing Catholic attitudes towards the Pope and the issues surrounding his appointment by talking to people in San Fransisco and Baltimore and giving short shrift to what people are saying in smaller towns and more rural comminities.

Then you have Reuters, who just can't bear to call a terrorist a terrorist. Surely media objectivity doesn't mean one take leave of their common sense?

So it should be no surprise that I support Peter in his one-man boycott of Time. Eventually, maybe we can narrow the number of liberal publications Peter reads to the point where he might be moved, out of sheer boredom, to read some conservative publications like the National Review or the Weekly Standard. From what I remember of the perodical reading list Peter David Posted a while back, there didn't seem to a lot of, if any, conservative rags on it. (Or for that matter, foreign newspapers, which are better written and far more interesting---left or right---than their American counterparts.) So I pose the question: Peter, what papers and magazines are you reading these days?

-Dave O'Connell

So what the heck IS a journalist? Twenty years ago, you could've said Woodward, Bernstein, Cronkite, or any of the others. And been right. You know what the difference is now? Most journalists, print and TV included, seem to be more worried about the images they give out than the actual truth. Somewhere along the way, all the establishments that used to be nearly sacrosanct have been reduced (in some cases by their own actions) to just SLIGHTLY above Jerry Springer. It's a shame that where I used to see "From an anonymous source" and think "OOOOH! Inside information, with all respects to Foriegner" and now I think "Give it a week and it'll be shot full of more holes than swiss cheese at a turkey shoot."

So, do I think that reporters should have to give up their sources? Wholeheartedly. Under certain conditions, one of those being WITHOUT EVERY MICROPHONE IN CREATION in the way to be the first to blab it. There's a reason that judges have chambers and sidebars....

I was talking about absolute privilege, as is the case with doctors, attorneys, and--now that I think about it--priests.

Each one of those has an expectation of privacy that is hard to apply to a journalist, a person whose very existence hinges on spreading information.

And let's not use the "but who is a journalist?" card here, please. If reporters for the New York Times and Time aren't journalists, there's no standard under which anyone can be included.

And let's not use the "but who is a journalist?" card here, please. If reporters for the New York Times and Time aren't journalists, there's no standard under which anyone can be included.

Glenn: Just so long as at least you and I can agree that Ann Coulter is no goddam journalist...

Reporters should NOT get federal confidentiality privileges, nor should they ever give up sources. If you protect them from contempt laws, though, there would be little accountability. They could make up anything they want and claim confidentiality.

I'll admit to not having thought this through, yet, but reporters are a different animal than a doctor or lawyer. When I speak with a doctor or lawyer, I'm not expecting my words to go public; an informant to a reporter does. The reporter is responsible for confirming the truth and getting the word out, but ethics and practicality say he should protect that source. If it's a big enough story, source and reporter share the risks; if there was no risk, any story will do. I wouldn't mind a limit on the kind of time we're talking about, but outright immunity wouldn't be wise.

(I need not say this, but...) correct me if I'm wrong.

"Eventually, maybe we can narrow the number of liberal publications Peter reads to the point where he might be moved, out of sheer boredom, to read some conservative publications like the National Review or the Weekly Standard. From what I remember of the perodical reading list Peter David Posted a while back, there didn't seem to a lot of, if any, conservative rags on it."

You have a fairly selective memory there, Dave (not to mention a somewhat patronizing tone, but nevermind that). Basically, I read Newsday and the NY Daily News, I pick up Time or Newsweek (but now only Newsweek) if the cover feature is of interest to me, and I subscribe to "The Week," which features material from both liberal and conservative organs as well as overseas publications. For my money, "The Week" is the best investment anyone can make if they truly want a fully rounded view of the opinions shaping the world today.

PAD

In order for Ann Coulter to be considered a reporter, she'd actually have to report on something. Writing books on how she wishes all liberals would die is not reporting.

Btw, it's apparently official: Karl Rove needs to be strung up by his balls for treason.

Might as well string up Bush too; Rove is his lackey, and there's only so many times Bush can be allowed to play ignorant (such as he has done with Gitmo and Abu Ghraib) before he needs to take some damn responsibility for what's going on.

Agence France-Presse, The Associated Press
MONDAY, JULY 4, 2005

WASHINGTON
Agent's name leaked by Rove, magazine says

E-mails surrendered by Time magazine to a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA agent's identity show that a top White House aide, Karl Rove, was one of the sources, Newsweek magazine reported Sunday.

Hey, X-Ray and other conservatives. PAD's standing up for Rove! No way.

In a society with freedom of the press, anyone with a voice can publish, and thus anyone can probably qualify as a "journalist." In colonial days, "one sheets" that were passed out, posted or sold were common, and no one publishing them had special journalistic training.

This is especially true today with the rise of the Internet. Anyone with a computer and something to say can "publish" in a blog, so are they "journalists"? Well, since, as PAD pointed out, journalists have no bar exam, etc., anyone who writes and is published somewhere is arguably a journalist. Thus a high school dropout who is a stringer for the Fort Apache Scout (Whiteriver, Ariz.; circ. 3,000) is just as much a journalist as a senior reporter for the New York Times.

I don't know, I read the Newsweek article (you can as well: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek) and it says The e-mails surrendered by Time Inc., which are largely between Cooper and his editors, show that one of Cooper's sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to two lawyers who asked not to be identified because they are representing witnesses sympathetic to the White House. Cooper and a Time spokeswoman declined to comment. But in an interview with NEWSWEEK, Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove had been interviewed by Cooper for the article. It is unclear, however, what passed between Cooper and Rove. it also has this interesting bit: He did say that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him.

That being the case, I don't see it likely that these folks would be going to jail to protect him--he's signed away any confidentiality agreement. (I'd also be amazed to find out that they sat on this story during the election campaign, when revealing Rove as THE source could have had an effect...but maybe I'm not giving them enough credit).

"PAD's standing up for Rove! No way."

I'm standing up for a journalistic principle. If Rove benefits from it, then that's the way that goes. I try not to allow my support of a principle to vary based upon whether or not I like the beneficiary.

PAD

>I'm standing up for a journalistic principle.

Yeah, I know. I'm just pointing out that in this case, the beneficiary of your stand is someone you probably don't like much, or at the very least, strongly disagree with his political opinions.

Okay, now everyone close you eyes and imagine how Hannity, Coulter, and Limbaugh would be reacting if an aid to President Clinton had leaked the name of an active CIA agent to the media for purely political reasons.

HEY! Speaking of revealing your sources, It's Bill Watterson's birthday! YAY!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Watterson

"I know I personally will never be buying another copy of Time magazine."

I stopped buying Time the day in 2001 when they declared "W" Man of the Year. At that point, he'd done absolutly nothing other than be innaugurated after one of the most controversial and disgraceful events in the history of American politics. (ftr, I would have felt the same way if Gore had won and he'd been MOTY). It was just them sucking up rather than awarding someone for achievment or showcasing something important happening in the world (like when the computer was MOTY).

In any event, I don't think that standing up for the principle that journalists shouldn't reveal their sources, means that once the cat is out of the bag, you can't support a wrongdoer (in this case Rove) being punished.

Give the large number of controversial people as Time's Man (nee Person) of the year, Dubbya just doesn't measure up as all that controversial.

The year before WWII, Time selected Hitler ("There he goes again, tying in Bush to Hitler!!") as their Man of the Year.

http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/archive/p
hotohistory/notorious.html

Technically, since the issue was published in January 1939, they selected Hilter as Man of the Year just 6 or so months before the start of WWII (Germany invading Poland.)

"HEY! Speaking of revealing your sources, It's Bill Watterson's birthday! YAY! "

does anyone know what he's up to, lately?

Joe V.

According to Wikipedia:

The last strip of Calvin and Hobbes was published on December 31, 1995. Since retiring, Bill Watterson has taken up painting, often drawing landscapes of the woods with his father. He has also published several anthologies of Calvin and Hobbes strips.

Living in relative seclusion in Chagrin Falls[2], Watterson refuses to sign autographs or give interviews, emerging only occasionally into the public eye. On December 21, 1999, a short piece called "Drawn Into a Dark But Gentle World," written by Watterson to mark the forthcoming end of the comic strip Peanuts, was published in the Los Angeles Times. [3]

Haven't had time to read all replies but I didn't really see anything about folks like Jayson Blair. Using sources for a story is one thing. Being a lying slug who wants to put across a personal view disguised as a news story?

http://shinbone.home.att.net/jethics.htm

And, if the sources have broken the law by giving the reporter information, then those reporters should be arrested.

If I'm understanding the latest news correctly, the prosecuter is still demanding that the reporters testify. Maybe the stuff that TIME gave up didn't really solve the puzzle.

I'm thinking now that we may never know the source and the goal at this point is just to nail Rove or some other big name on a perjury charge. Which would be perfectly valid in my book, I won't go the route of those Clinton supporters who claimed that perjury is ok as long as it's about certain things but it would be nice if, after all this trouble, we at least got a resolution to the central mystery.

I dont see this as being "out to nail Rove", it's just alot of people in D.C. dont care for the guy, and he's the most logical suspect given the information at hand and the Agenda that was being pushed by releasing an field operatives name. His name keeps coming up because the "muddy footprints" stop at his doorstep. Its pretty simple deduction, since he profited the most from this sorry case of Abuse of Power.

Maybe the stuff that TIME gave up didn't really solve the puzzle.

Or maybe the prosecutor is just a dick who is out to prove a point by making the reporters testify.

Or maybe the prosecutor is just a dick who is out to prove a point by making the reporters testify.

I get the feeling he's a dick AND on the Bush payroll directly, actually.

Here's a wonderful quote today from the prosecutor:

"Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality — no one in America is," Fitzgerald wrote.

That sounds pretty chilling to me.

"Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality — no one in America is," Fitzgerald wrote.

"I must break you."

--Ivan Drago

I won't speculate as to the prosecutor's motives, but if he is out to get Rove, for some reason, I don't think Rove is losing any sleep over it.

The fact is, anonymous sources are sometimes the only way to get the full story out. Whether the reporter agrees to keep their source confidential or not, they still have the obligation to check the information out to see if it passes the smell test. In this case, while the information passed was true, the motives of the person who leaked it stink.

You what the weird thing about anonymous sources has been in recent months, though? Watching someone like G. Gordon Liddy blast Mark Felt for behaving unethically and having people take his opinion seriously. Liddy has nasty things to say about the man who leaked information that got him sent to prison for his crimes? Color me shocked.

As for Jayson Blair, he was a fraud and deserved the firing and disgrace that he got. That's as much attention as he deserves at this point.

Anyone ever seen Shattered Glass?

"G. Gordon Liddy blast Mark Felt for behaving unethically and having people take his opinion seriously."

Yeah, 'cause G. Gordon is Captain Ethical....

"but if he is out to get Rove, for some reason, I don't think Rove is losing any sleep over it."

Absolute worst case scenario for Rove: He gets convicted, Bush writes a Pres. pardon, end of story.

I don't really see how you can come up with any other idea at the end of this debate then: Reporters should protect their anonymous sources, if for no other reason then, if you don't, you will never, ever have a story with any kind of inside info. (not to mention, you won't have anymore use for all those cool voice changing things that they use when they interview an Anonymous Souce on 60 Minutes) If you say that reporters have to revel sources to a Grand Jury, then how long before they have to reveal them to anyone who asks?

As for attacking Mark Felt: He revealed the most corrupt administration in American history. Whether he did it for personal or political reasons: this is one of those situations where the ends justify the means. It would be like if someone had killed Hit.....I mean brought down Boss Tweed for personal reasons.It doesn't matter why they did it, they did it, what more do you want?

Yeah, 'cause G. Gordon is Captain Ethical

Exactly. He actually had the gall to say that Mark Felt acted unethically! Excuse me?

As for attacking Mark Felt: He revealed the most corrupt administration in American history. Whether he did it for personal or political reasons: this is one of those situations where the ends justify the means.

I think history will probably always have mixed opinions on Deep Throat. In the end, he did the country a great service in taking down Nixon, but his methods and his motives will always be questionable. Still, he stands as a testament to the fact that anonymous sources are sometimes necessary for reporters to do their job right.
Plus, watching Buchanen sputter on, trying to blame Pol Pot's massacre on Felt was really funny.

Here's hoping we find another Deep Throat soon.

"In order for Ann Coulter to be considered a reporter, she'd actually have to report on something. Writing books on how she wishes all liberals would die is not reporting."

that was the funniest sentence ever!!!!

joe v.

There was an excellent letter over in Poynter MediaNews (a journalists' forum):

The whole purpose of anonymous sourcing is to level the playing field between the powerful and the powerless. Anonymity is supposed to be granted to sources who fear some kind of retribution for speaking the truth -- being fired, being sued, being assaulted, etc.

It was never intended to be used the way it has been utterly abused in recent decades by the Washington press corps: to gain a competitive advantage against other reporters. Their passion is not for the public interest but for career-advancing scoops, and to get them, they are willing to give the powerful a shield that allows these Washington mandarins to engage in political gamesmanship with their peers, to float trial balloons, to spread disinformation without consequences or -- in the case of Valerie Plame -- to commit a felony offense in order to exact political punishment against opponents further down on the political food chain.

What should be a valuable tool for speaking truth to power has been put in serious jeopardy by vain fools who have completely lost sight of the reason why First Amendment protection exists in the first place. It's not there to make it easier for them to strut and preen on Sunday morning televised gabfests.

"And I could be mistaken, but I think there are certain circumstances in which doctors (frequently psychiatrists) can be compelled to give up their confidence."

PAD:
"I'd be interested to know the specifics of that."

Like most evidentiary privileges, this exception to therapist/patient privilege is largely a matter of state law -- on the occasion it arises in federal court, it's federal common law.

California, for example, has an exception to the therapist/patient privilege in its Evidence Code: "There is no privilege . . . if the psychotherapist has reasonable cause to believe that the patient is in such mental or emotional condition as to be dangerous to himself or to the person or property of another and that disclosure of the communication is necessary to prevent the threatened danger."

There are similar exceptions in about half the states, as I understand it. Under this exception, a therapist can't get into trouble for revealing such a communication.

Counselors/psychologists/etc are mandated reporters that are ethically and legally bound to report cases of abuse directed at those under the age of 18, regardless of whether it is reported by the victim or a 3rd party. Easy way to remember boundaries of confidentiality is when minors are involved in abuse or when the clinician has a reasonable belief that a client intends to harm self or others.

Interesting cases come about when a therapist is ordered by a court to compromise that understood confidentiality and it does not meet the previously described criteria. At that point, the professional must look within themselves to decide their course of action. People have been fined and jailed when they refuse to provide information.

The big difference between journalists and therapists is that therapists are required to inform their clients of the limits of confidentiality before they begin work with them.... I wonder what that would look like in the case of reporters. It'd certainly make people more accountable for what they are reporting, though it would also naturally persuade many "informers" not to inform.

I get the feeling he's a dick AND on the Bush payroll directly, actually.

Huh? You also said that ...it's apparently official: Karl Rove needs to be strung up by his balls for treason.

Soooo....The prosecutor who, as far as you are concerned, has proven that Karl Rove is guilty of treason is also a lackey of the Administration??? How does that work?

But the good news is, it's a win/win situation for Bush haters--if Rove goes down it's a case of Corruption From The White House. If he doesn't...IT'S A COVER-UP!

Just to toss out some speculation...the law says you can't reveal the identity of an undercover operative...but what about one whose identity has been blown? I mean, none of us here are in any danger from talking about Ms. Plame's job because it's all a fait accompli at this point. Suppose one or both of the reporters discovered her occupation on their own, using good old investigative techniques, and used Rove and other sources to confirm what they knew. It then becomes a lot harder to convict anyone.

I don't think the prosecutor is working for Bush... I just think he's a careerist who is out to make a name for himself by showing these uppity reporters who's boss.

But the good news is, it's a win/win situation for Bush haters--if Rove goes down it's a case of Corruption From The White House. If he doesn't...IT'S A COVER-UP!

Duh. If you do something wrong, you shouldn't be able to come out of it smelling like a rose.

Suppose one or both of the reporters discovered her occupation on their own, using good old investigative techniques, and used Rove and other sources to confirm

They didn't. Novak has stated the White House sources came to him, and name-dropped the CIA agent, ostensibly as a means of explaining her husband's involvement in the Africa/WMD inquiry.

Ted Rall has an interesting idea: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/karlroveworsethanosamabinladen;_ylt=AnlQ26kBl95As_ukW6C9H1ms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

(I have NO html skills. None. My apologies)

How does that work?

You're not using the Jerome Maida Path of Logic, are you?

The Bush Administration has sat on this leak of information for two years.

Now, you have a federal prosecutor who goes after a couple of journalists, but not the Republican columnist?

The leak comes out of the White House but we're not focusing on that?

Yeah, like I said, Rove should be strung up by his balls, but it probably won't happen because Rove is a Bush lackey.

If the prosecutor doesn't go after the initial leaker (Rove, or if it isn't him, whichever dipshit in the White House left themselves open to be flayed alive), then he deserves to be strung up as well.

"Yeah, like I said, Rove should be strung up by his balls, but it probably won't happen because Rove is a Bush lackey.
If the prosecutor doesn't go after the initial leaker (Rove, or if it isn't him, whichever dipshit in the White House left themselves open to be flayed alive), then he deserves to be strung up as well."

Craig, you are absoulutely delightfully un-liberal in your advocation of violence. pity you weren't around for Nixon. Ahh....you would have lit him up. as it stands, your point is true. Whoever would do something as inane as reveal a CIA agents identity, thus placing them at great risk, AND totally destroying any use they could be as agents, because, hey, the entire frickin' WORLD knows what she looks like! way to doubly screw your country, Dubay!

Serious question, is there a difference between a "columnist" and a "reporter".

Last I saw, Novak is a columnist, while the other two are reporters. Are columnists giving opinion required to be factual or honest?

"Are columnists giving opinion required to be factual or honest?"

Well, Ann Coulter is a columnist, so I'm guessing no.

"Are columnists giving opinion required to be factual or honest?"

not at all, but then, neither are journalists. the only thing they're required to do is sell papers and ad space. if their credibility endangers sales, they'll be fired. the only consistent bias in the media is towards money.

Craig, you are absoulutely delightfully un-liberal in your advocation of violence.

Well, when you spend most of your time being called unpatriotic, cowardly, and many other things by Republicans because you don't like seeing American soldiers getting killed in Iraq, you just want to see them get their own for once.

"Well, when you spend most of your time being called unpatriotic, cowardly, and many other things by Republicans because you don't like seeing American soldiers getting killed in Iraq, you just want to see them get their own for once."

I wasn't complaining. There are more than a few people in the administration I would like to see pistol-whipped myself. Still, what we liberals need to do, like a couple people have already said, is to focus on real issues, and force the matter with the conservatives. See, if we do that, then the right-wingnuts (great phrase whoever said that) will not listen, but the independent/middle of the road/undecided voters will listen. And lets face it, the right wing isn't gonna vote for us no matter what. We need to focus on getting through to those who aren't radicals. On both sides. You know, we spent hours trying to convince X-ray that we were right. Have we spent that much energy or thought trying to convince the undecideds or less radical republicans on here? I mean, when they post, we respond, but there isn't (as far as I have seen) that same, overall push that there was with X.

That is indicative of the main problem with the democratic party today. We will waste hours arguing with Ann Coulter, but no time arguing with William F. Buckley. We need, we MUST for the ver survival of the Democratic party, to focus on those who we can sway. If we don't we will self-destruct, and there will be another "Era of Good Feelings" with only Republicans running the show. And that will be bad.

PAD: There is almost no such thing as an absolute privilege. Penetrating doctor-patient privilege is the easiest thing in the world. I can obtain with trivial effort the hospital records of someone who was in a wreck to prove, for example, that he was drunk when he wrecked. Other privileges are also mutable. Spousal privilege dissolves instantly if the case involves harm to the couple's children. In most jurisdictions, privileges are a matter of case law rather than statutory; this means that the courts that are interpreting the privileges are the same organizations that created them in the first place, and thus have the authority to carve out exceptions where needed.

You're right that attorney-client privilege is much, much harder to penetrate, but that's because, at least in criminal cases, it's constitutional rather than statutory. We could abolish every other privilege in the evidence code, but that one would still have to exist because it's so crucial to the right to counsel. Even that is voidable depending on the case under investigation, however. As much as I try to avoid cause celebre legal cases, the Aruba investigation in the news is a good example. The suspect's father is a lawyer, and thus their discussions would ordinarily be a privileged communication. However, since the discussion is claimed to be a discussion of a future crime (hiding the body), there is no privilege. Once you involve your lawyer in your criminal plans, the lawyer ceases to be your legal counsel and becomes your co-conspirator. Even if your lawyer (unlike the Aruban dad) does not actually become a participant in the crime, under certain circumstances the lawyer may be positively obligated to rat you out-- the general rule being that an attorney is not obligated to warn law enforcement that his client is about to commit a crime, but is obligated to warn law enforcement if his client is about to commit a crime that would phsyically harm someone. (That, if I recall correctly, was the American Bar Association formulation, but every state bar has its own take on that problem. The perjury issue you mentioned is actually really tricky.) And of course, once a case is over, if the client claims he was the victim of ineffective assistance of counsel, everything in the lawyer's file becomes part of the court record.

Sorry to have to report this awful disaster:

Crawford, Texas (not AP) - A tragic fire this morning destroyed the personal library of President George W. Bush. The fire began in the presidential bathroom, where both of the books were kept.

Both books were destroyed in the fire. A presidential spokesman said the president was devastated as he had almost finished coloring the second one.

I suggest we start a collection to replace the losses in this fire. Send your nickels and pennies to Halliburton Corp., which has received the no-bid contract to do the reconstruction.

BB: I'll donate the copy of Hop on Pop if you are willing to take care of The Pokey Little Puppy.

I always thought the system we had for journalistic privilege worked fine....writers understood there was no privilege, yet were willing to go to jail to protect their sources. It used to be called journalistic integrity, and publishers were ready to stand behind, and even maybe join their staff in the pokey, to support it.

Now, we have publishers owned and controlled by CEOs and shareholders, most of whom may never even been published in high school. It makes me wonder how much the fear that they, as owners of the sources of the stories, might be asked to spend time in prison, is behind this current rolling over submission for the government.

So long as journalistic integrity was present, there wasn't any real risk of a government imposed chill on news sources. If those sources now fear exposure because the publisher, not the news writer, is going to release the clues to their identity, or maybe even just outright ID them, the entire concept of a whistle-blower evaporates. And that's a Very Bad Thing for you and I, the little individual person.

K-Nuck. Are you kidding? I wouldn't donate the dollar on my taxes to the guy.

He lost both copies of the Hungry Little Catepillar?

The problem with your reasoning, James, is that who sells more books today: Ann Coulter or William F. Buckley?

"The problem with your reasoning, James, is that who sells more books today: Ann Coulter or William F. Buckley?"

JK Rowling

What the hell, he IS the president. I will send him my copy of Green Eggs and Ham, and (just to give him something to think about.) The Loralax.

"The problem with your reasoning, James, is that who sells more books today: Ann Coulter or William F. Buckley?"

Coulter. Good point Den, but Buckley doesn't do all that bad either.

And the point shouldn't be: "who sells more books." It should be: who is more respected by more people?" Hell, I know a good few fairly radical Republicans who think Ann Coulter is screwier than a French whorehouse, and nuttier than squirrel plaque. To see my whole opinion on this see my post in "Hold your Breath," which is longer and (I think) quite well written. But too sum it up, the reason Bushes numbers are so low is everyone but the radicals have left.

And the point shouldn't be: "who sells more books." It should be: who is more respected by more people?"

And this little liberal can tell you first hand - I respect Buckley.

I try and read his opinion pieces every week through Yahoo. And, while I'll readily admit that sometimes the language he uses is from a bygone era, he never comes across as mean, terse, or outright crazy.

Unlike, Ann Coulter, whom I never read because I cannot even get past the titles of her opinion pieces without wanting to smack her.

From Editor & Publisher:

A man who taught with Rove, and considers him a friend, fears that in the Plame case, Rove is using journalists, and the First Amendment, "to operate without constraint, or to camouflage breaking the law." That's why reporters should not protect Rove (or anyone else) "through an undiscerning, blanket use of the First Amendment that weakens its protections by its gross misuse."

To Scott Bland: These particular reporters don't meet even your standards for treason, because they didn't blow anyone's cover. Bob Novak, arguably, did, and perhaps he should be held accountable. What these reporters did was answer their telephones, receive interesting information, check it out, and decide not to publish it. Ooh...very scary indeed.

Obviously, I don't know whether Rove is the source, but I think it would be nice if someone from the New York Times were to ask him and several of the other likely sources if they would be willing to say, purely as a matter of conjecture, that if they had been the source they would release the reporters from their obligations to honor that confidentiality. The answers would be interesting, and if the correct person agreed, perhaps then the reporters could testify with a clear conscience - or even say, "Well, when my source was asked about the matter on July__, he refused to release me from that obligation." The information might well be conveyed pretty efficiently without exactly betraying a confidence.

And the point shouldn't be: "who sells more books." It should be: who is more respected by more people?"

Maybe that's the way it should be, but the truth is, Coulter is the one rallying the faithful while Buckley is considered a wise but boring old fart who isn't going to get anyone fired up at the polls.

I am heartened that all but the wingnuts are realizing how harmful Bush has been to this country, but as I said before, the Democrats aren't doing much better right now. If they nominate another douchebag like Kerry or Gore and the GOP nominates another neocon extremist (and they will, because whether you want to admit it or not, that's who controls the party), then we'll have four more years of disaster on our hands.

"Hell, I know a good few fairly radical Republicans who think Ann Coulter is screwier than a French whorehouse, and nuttier than squirrel plaque."

I'd bet you that the French whorehouse is a helluva lot cleaner...

The coloring book joke made the rounds about Spiro Agnew in the sixties. It is an article of faith among liberals that Republican presidents are stupid. Eisenhauer was dumb; Reagan was an "amiable dunce"; Ford couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time; the present occupant of the White House is a chimpanzee-like moron. (An exception to the rule was Nixon, widely viewed as bright, but evil). Jokes like these serve two excellent functions: 1., they reassure those who dislike Bush of their superior intellect, and 2. they assure those who voted for Bush that those who voted for Kerry consider them simply too stupid to reach the rarified intellectual standards of Kerry voters.

"Eisenhauer was dumb"

It really doesn't help to spell his name wrong.

"The coloring book joke made the rounds about Spiro Agnew in the sixties."

All joking aside, this is a fact of life. I really don't recall the republicans pulling any punches on Clinton, or Carter, or Johnson, or FDR for that matter. Actually, this site is one of the places where you will find lots of people willing to defend both sides. I saw on some thread a couple weeks back a briliant listing of all the accomplishments of all the Republican presidents. On this site there are people who are radical liberals, moderate liberals.middle of the road, Moderate conservatives, and (unless they are insanely rude to the point of Disemvoweling) Radical Conservatives.

What you are doing is making it sound like the only people who engage in attacks on the intelligence or personality of the president is the liberal side. The Conservatives have a long and storied history of attacking presidents, right back to when John Adams attack good ol' TJ.

Get over it already. If you want, I can dig up old G. Gordon Liddy scripts, Ann Coulter columns, and Rush Limbaugh trascripts saying nasty things about virtually every Democratic president, including Coulter's attacks on Jimmy Carter.

that said, perhaps you would like to contribute to my fund to buy Bush a complete collection of "The Bearenstien Bears?"

The coloring book joke made the rounds about Spiro Agnew in the sixties.

And your point is?

Besides bitching about liberals, that is.

People, it looks like Rove was the leak. Newsweek is reporting that Rove was the creep that did so.

I wonder if Bush authorized the leak.