Yeah, sure, in that sense where "take any opportunity to throw you to the wolves" means "fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court against releasing documents with your name in them."
Today's story was in Newsweek, not Time. Newsweek was under no confidentiality agreement with Rove or anyone else Time spoke to.
Your screen name is very appropriate. If you actually READ the article and then READ my post you'd see that the POINT is that Rove is NOT the source, but TIME is taking the opportunity to throw him in the mix, as if he actually is the source. What part of that didn't you grasp?
Today's story was in Newsweek, not Time. Newsweek was under no confidentiality agreement with Rove or anyone else Time spoke to.
Uh, yeah. When did I ever mention NEWSWEEK? And since you obviously don't know the most basic ideas about journalism (or, again, this article and my post) keeping sources confidential didn't start with the Plame story, and since we're not even talking about NEWSWEEK, but a TIME story, what the hell are you even bringing NEWSWEEK into it for, anyway?
The answer, of course, is to invent a non-issue to argue against since you're completely uninformed about the facts of this one.