Last night, graphic on CNN: "White House Tries to Flush Out Mole"

[Brotherjohn]

I think that's how it read. Not just the crawler under the screen, but the big, fancy graphic on the story.

Now, two things are obviously wrong with this characterization of events.

1) The person who leaked Ms. Plame's identity is NOT a "mole". "Traitor" would be more applicable, or at least "criminal". A mole would be someone within the White House spying on the White House, a plant working in some way against them. This person is on the White House team, in an official capacity, and was performing an act that (they at least thought) was for the benefit of the White House.

2) The White House is not the one doing the "flushing", unless you're talking about documents down the toilet.

[ShimokitaJer]

1. Excellent point!

And we need to encourage the news outlets to stop using the term "mole" immediately. That lets them assume from the beginning that the culprit was acting WITHOUT Bush's knowledge and support. I'm sure it's just what the Freepers want to be able to pretend this was an isolated incident, preferably committed by an outsider who took advantage of poor Bush's naivete. Don't let them do it!

[Brotherjohn]

2. I think the term "leak" is even too weak. It implies no harm to anyone.

But I'll take that over looking for a "mole" anyday.

Typically, when someone "leaks" information that can result in deaths and compromise national security, the more proper term is "treason".

This wasn't just a leak of some policy initiative the WH didn't want people to see yet.

[Scaramouche]

3. It looks like they're going after the...

Vermit Cong...