Disclosure game works both ways (why withhold Novak's source now?)

[eyeontheprize]

Eager to discredit former national security aide Richard Clarke, the White House has gone to the unusual length of disclosing -- and allowing news media to disclose -- that Clarke was the "senior administration official" who delivered an August 2002 background press briefing in support of President Bush's anti-terrorism strategy.

It's long been standard Beltway protocol for administration officials to brief reporters on the condition that they don't disclose the source's name and attribute the information to merely "a senior administration official."

(skip)

It's useful, then, that the president and his staff are willing to serve the public interest by releasing journalists of their obligation to protect confidential White House sources. There's one more way for the administration to serve that interest. Release Robert Novak and five other capital reporters of any obligation to withhold the names of the "two senior administration officials" who told them that Valerie Plame was a CIA operative, in what appeared to be an attempt to punish Plame's husband, retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, for debunking the president's Nigerian yellow-cake claim.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/166499_clarked.html

IMO this should be today's Democratic talking point. The WH has no issue with hanging a confidential source out to dry when it serves them. All bets should now be off in the other direction.

[sadiesworld]

1. THIS IS GREAT!

This should be a major issue/talking point!
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
Good work.

[BOSSHOG]

3. Clarke did what McClellan does every day

At press conferences McClellan puts the best positive face on administration actions and minimizes the negatives. In other words, McClellan criticized Clarke for doing what McClellan does every day.

Novak, being the scum that he is probably would not identify the source anyway, saying he's a professional journalist; another conservative lie.

[eyeontheprize]

5. But the information about Plame was released to something

like six reporters before the leaker could find a reporter with ethical standards lower than a snake's belly. Perhaps one of the others would see fit to accept a release from the commitment if given permission.

After all the WH has now taken the position that the confidentiality standards are flexible.

[htuttle]

8. Rove already fessed up to telling those other reporters

He testified to the investigation that it was him who talked to those six reporters other than Novak.

The only reason he isn't already in jail is that Rove is claiming that he found out about Plame himself from Novak's column, and told these six reporters after it had been published the newspaper.

There was a story about this a month or two ago over in LBN.

[snippy]

2. Excellent point. I agree, this should be a talking point.

The media itself should be asking the White House this question. I would love to watch Comrade Squealer explain the answer to the White House press corps.

[HFishbine]

4. Isn't there a distinction?

The WH could give all the permission they want, but if the reporters still don't want to release the names of Plame's back-stabbers, what is to compel them? They could simply say, "I know the White House has given me permission, but this is about my credibility as a journalist, and unless my source specifically says it's okay, I'm going to continue to protect Rove and Libby's identity. I, uh, er you know what I mean."

The distinction being that the WH initially asked that Clarke's name be kept secret, so they have the controlling "authority" to give up his anonymity now. If Novak is to be believed, his contact was clandestine -- with the source directly, not through official WH channels.

Now, if the WH KNOWS who spilled the beans on Plame, then they can certainly speak up, but remember, they don't have any idea who it was (cough, cough). They can't come forward now without contradicting their earlier claims of not knowing who squealed.

[eyeontheprize]

6. The Fox argument that the duty for confidentiality was owed to

the NSA and not to Clarke was a distinction without a difference. But we all know that, your point is well taken that in this case the confidentiality is owed to an individual. However, since the Clarke example has been made the WH certainly could offer a blanket release to the reporters who received the Plame information. That they won't do even that screamers that they don't want the information out (cover-up).

[spotbird]

7. This same reasoning applies to the proposed release

of classified information by Frist. Let it all out.