Posted on 12/03/2005 8:18:32 AM PST by frankjr
I think your take on it is correct. I also think Fitz may agree with you and that is why he made no move against Rove at the same time he did with Libby. We'll have to see if Fitz feels the same way after her testimony.
there's no real difference....
Yet, everybody in Time's Washington bureau seemed to know about it!
To me, this is the most significant item in the story -- yet it is buried at the bottom.
Reporters promise confidentiality to their WH sources, but the newsrooms spring their own internal leaks.
You are absolutely correct. I like the way Time's managing editor tried to weasel around it by saying: "Jim Kelly, Time's managing editor, said Novak's conversation with Luskin took place as part of her normal reporting assignment to keep tabs on the Fitzgerald investigation. He said it is inaccurate to suggest that Novak revealed Cooper's source."
LOL. It's obvious B.S., she DID reveal Cooper's source! Confidentiality, my *ss. Just like Val's job was confidential!
Moreover, Cooper's source was revealed to her! And, evidently, everybody else in the bureau.
The "professionalism" of these jerks is present only in their pretense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.