[tobyhill]

This is a good thing in my opinion. If it really was someone in the administration then this will out a person that maybe playing games against the President and the "reporters" will now lose all credibility with their "anonymous" sources. If the "reporters" lied about their source and it turns out not to be in the administration or is already gone, they lose again. If the person is a trusted official then all they have to claim is they heard it from Wilson himself and he just claimed Plame worked for the CIA but never covertly and everything else beyond that is "I don't know". It probably wasn't too hard for the reporters to figure out, 1) CIA employee 2)In Nigeria 3) Seen at the Embassy in Nigeria. Last I checked there are reporters all around the world. If I recall correct, the reporters came back later and tried to claim it wasn't a current administration official?

[rawhide]

What if it was Wilson himself who was the leaker?

[Black Tooth]

If the "reporters" lied about their source and it turns out not to be in the administration or is already gone, they lose again.

Not necessarily. If the source is already gone, this could be a bad thing. Think about it. Hypothetically, if the source was let go because of this, it means someone else had knowledge of it.

[NCLaw441]

I am less than enthusiastic these days about "freedom of the press." The press has repeatedly proven itself unworthy of protection. The press lies constantly, makes up the news often, and slants what purports to be hard news with total disregard to what should be its corresponding duty (corresponding to its oft-claimed freedoms) to present the news responsibly. I remain committed to freedom of the press to present slanted news, but I know of no reason why freedom of the press must include protection of sources who are complicit in crime. The so-called press has, for my money, gotten a little too big for its britches.