> Dana wrote: > you aren't getting the protect your source thing. It's an imperative > for a political reporter, especially at that level.
No, I get it, that's the basis of my question. According to Mr. Woodward: He was having a casual chat with an insider who mentioned the bit about Ms. Plame. He didn't think much of it and casually mentioned the fact to a colleague. Then the investigation heats up and he decided to protect his source. But that's just it - he didn't clam up. He went on TV and bad-mouthed the prosecutor! That's a very bold thing to do if you're trying to protect a source and you know that you let out a fact to a colleague - a fact the prosecutor would very much like to get his hands on. That's like saying that the reason you poked the stick into the beehive was to avoid getting stung. You don't provoke a prosecutor when you're trying to lay low and protect a source; especially when you know you've spilled the beans to a friend. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:183120 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
