Frank Rich writes an editorial in the New York Times arguing that the outing of Valerie Plame and the prosecution of Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper represent something far worse than Watergate. It represents nothing less than the crumbling of American democracy. While I think Rich has the kernel of a case here--given the decline of transparency, and the decline of investigative reporting--he's definitely off his rocker. And while some bloggers seem to understand, they all neglect a painfully obvious point.
The whistleblower that needed to be protected in this case was Wilson. The best way to protect him was to punish the person/s responsible for outing his wife. The best way to do this was to get the journalists aware of the person/s to reveal that information to the public.
Though it is apparent to me that Robert Novak should be the one behind bars, I cannot think of any other way to get what is now commonplace knowledge.
For some reason, Rich is actually arguing that ROVE is the one needing protection, that protecting Rove protects the third estate.
When nothing could be further from the truth.
Posted by at July 11, 2005 09:47 PM | TrackBack
I didn't see where Rich mentions Rove in his article. Would you clarify this for me? Thanks.
Posted by: Temple3 at July 11, 2005 11:35 PM