Sunday, October 23, 2005

Douchebag of Liberty

Novakula flipped:

A critical early success for Fitzgerald was winning the cooperation of Robert D. Novak, the Chicago Sun-Times columnist who named Plame in a July 2003 story and attributed key information to "two senior administration officials." Legal sources said Novak avoided a fight and quietly helped the special counsel's inquiry, although neither the columnist nor his attorney have said so publicly.

Given all the bloviating about protecting sources over the past few months I'd really welcome an honest untainted discussion of the subject. If Judith Miller was a hero were all the journalists (including her, eventually) who did testify villains? Does Novakula have an obligation to tell us what he knows? Ditto Russert, Mitchell, etc...

There aren't simple easy answers to all of these questions. But, the club of elite journalists settled on one storyline awhile back and clearly it's no longer operative. That storyline was overly simplistic and largely based on their self-perception of being above reproach. I think, as I have throughout this, that there are important issues here. However, the Miller case and everyone who jumped aboard it obscured those issues and harmed whatever worthy cause they may have thought they were fighting for.

But, back to the original point. If you're praising those journalists who refused to testify why aren't you condemning those who did? Who did do the right thing, and why?