Apparently our press has no concept that there could be any greater good than protecting their sources, which are important to them and indirectly to us. Now we see quotes from one of our most famous reporters about how he was shown classified information by the President, Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, and who knows how many others in the administration. While many are reporting the extreme secretiveness of this administration, Bob Woodward expressed surprise that Bush was so frank with him. My favorite line was: "Certainly Richard Nixon would not have allowed reporters to question him like that. Bush’s father wouldn’t allow it. Bill Clinton wouldn’t allow it." Of course the other Presidents wouldn’t allow it, because it’s illegal for reporters and such to be shown or told classified information. We already knew how the seduction was done. But the only difference I can glean between control of the press and manipulation of the press is finesse. The reporter failed to recognize that they only showed him and told him what they wanted him to know and, therefore, to put out on the streets for them.

On the other hand, one reason that the intelligence was so poor going into the war was that we needed to have more actual live bodies doing the undercover type of work that Valerie Plame used to do to produce better intel. The likelihood of recruiting more of this type of "boots on the ground" talent has diminished now that it’s become apparent that our Federal Government from the top down feels that they can or should divulge their identities at will with impunity. When high administration appointees put themselves in violation of an Executive Order (that states that it is their responsibility to find out whether information is classified before confirming or divulging that information) simply to discredit a dissenting voice for the sake of politics, this puts our national security at risk. To destroy a national asset (and make no mistake, we have time and training and money and expertise invested in our covert agents) for such a petty reason is unconscionable. Not to mention the fact that our dissident, Joe Wilson, was himself a career diplomat who was eminently and uniquely qualified on his own. This fact relegates the destruction of his wife’s career as nothing more than an example of an egregious and wasteful abuse of power. Is the new policy in the Federal Government now, "When in doubt, shout it out!" The American public didn’t get the memo; we thought the policy was still, "Loose lips sink ships!" I feel I have a right to hold my government to a higher standard. I certainly expected better from my government.

Here’s my problem: I am seeing my government abuse it’s power all over the place. Yet the one journalist that was once seemingly able to smell abuse of power from miles away, even when he wasn’t sure he could prove it, now can’t smell it even if it bites him on the ass! I doubt that he even admits to himself that at some point he went from investigative reporter to stenographer. It was just too much easier walking through the front door during normal hours and not having to meet at 2:00 AM in an underground parking garage while trying to remain hidden in the shadows so nobody would see. I wonder if he reserves any critical thinking for his books, or whether he ever really had to employ critical thinking in his investigative reporting. Has he questioned whether there may be any ulterior motive for his source to come forward within days of Libby being indicted (maybe to get Libby off the hook)? Or could the source be motivated to provide cover for Libby or any of the other leakers about whether they knew that they were dealing with classified material or that Valerie Plame was an NOC? Let me get this straight, if the leaker that told Bob Woodward about Wilson’s wife mentioned that he didn’t think the information was classified or even sensitive, whether it was or not, he is absolved by so saying? Why would that not make all officials free to tell any reporter any classified information whatsoever, as long as they preface the info with "I don’t think this is classified"? Are questions involving confidentiality and classified information truly only in the eyes of the "reporter"? So the reporter is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, truth or consequences? After the way the press has acted like flies attracted to fire of late, I don’t think I like that arrangement.