Did FOX open a door into Plamegate?

[a_random_joel]

Help me... I'm a cube rat, and so much stuff going down today has my head spinning.

Did Clarke make the 2002 press statements as an "unattributable source?"

If so, and FOX or whoever released his name, especially at the behest of the ADMIN...

Doesn't this trump Novak's protection of the Plame leaker?

Am I grasping at straws here? Please forgive my ignorance if I am on the wrong track here.

[displacedtexan]

1. You're right!

No one will ever trust working for the government again.

[kanrok]

2. Here's the scoop

Clarke provided background material for reporters, Jim "I'm a Freaking Whore for Fox" Angle. It was not to be attributed to any partcular person, only a "high-ranking source" or some other nonsense. The name of the person within the administration who provided the information CANNOT be identified unless the press is given specific authority to do so. Well. lo and behold, the Whitehouse quickly gave Fox "authority" to release the fact that Clarke was the "source."

[pepsi]

3. plamegate

I heard a discussion about this very issue with Brit and Jim Angle.

Angle said he found the "backroom briefing" in his files. He contacted the White house and asked them if it could be used. Since they were the ones who qualified it as "backroom", they could take away that designation...qualifying it as usable. Go figure.

[a_random_joel]

4. So, If Novak, asked...

technically it could qualify as usable as well? Sure the Admin would not grant that, but I am just looking at the technical merits. Everyone has screamed that Novak has the right to protect his source... but, this(the Clarke deal) is clearly a case where the source was not protected if it serves the Admin's purpose.