wow-did not expect this.

Apologists of this administration can stretch themselves all the way to the Clinton administration to find blame, but would not even fathom looking at the current VP's office for any sort of wrong doing. Libby was the VP's man, someone who spoke with the VP often. But there's no blame for the VP? How can that be? Everything that leaves the White House is also the responsibility of Rove to insure that the message is correct. How can Rove not be to blame either?
A CIA operative was outed. It was wrong for anyone to do it. It was done. But there's apparently no one to blame.

But what I am saying here is no surprise. It's the same thing I have been saying all along. What this thread is about is about going in circles. Thus the dead horse. It's totally a dead horse to me, Bush does no wrong, no one in his administration has any sort of accountability... long live the king.

No one to blame? It was Armitage. I'm not sure I follow you.

Pardon me if I'm not so quick to put all of the blame on Armitage. Last I heard, he wasn't one of Matthew Cooper's sources. Rove and Libby were. Perhaps it's all just a big happy misunderstanding but, until I hear otherwise from someone a little less partisan than Christoper Hitchens, a self avowed neocon, I'm going to remain suspicious that perhaps we haven't heard the whole story yet.

I do find the self-righteous indignation very entertaining, considering so many of the neo's found this (originally) not worth discussing. Suddenly, y'all want to talk. I'm with MBC- watchful waiting here.

I still don't think it is a big story - regarding the supposed outing of Plame. The big story is that it certainly seems as if the conspiracy theory developed of revenge for a so-called (but laughable) investigation of Iraq seeking uranium is not true. And so many wanted it to be true.

I still think Novak should be charged with treason.:mad:

It was Professor Plum, in the conservatory, with the candlestick :p

An interesting point.

I have oft pondered what is the appropriate balance between freedom of the press and classified or sensitive information. Is the job of the journalist to report everything they discover (without specific requests from the government to hold a story, as happens on occasion)? Or is there a responsibility to reflect on the ramifications of reporting certain things?

Hold on a minute there. The Armitage leak does not make the Libby leak somehow 'go away.' What were the motives of the vice-president's office? (oh, and the Niger documents were rank forgeries, according to British, Italian, Israeli and American investigators ... so where are you getting any of your facts if not from conservative spin rags?)


As for whether journalists have a responsibility to consider the ramifications of publishing sensitive information ... certainly, they do. They fail at it quite often. But in a free society, I'm much more comfortable with that responsibility being in the hands of journalists rather than in the fists of government. The misjudgments and mistakes have to be accepted as part and parcel of the freedoms that protect us from fascism.