You Call This a Problem?

Derek: Why can't there be 8, 12, 20 leaked-to reporters in the Plame affair? There's nothing magic about the number "six" -- it's the number of leaked-to reporters the senior administration official, who served as the source for the WAPost article, said he/she knew of. It's a lower-limit -- there could very well be more.

I'm inclined to believe that there are more leaked-to journalists than the SAO knew about, since I doubt the SAO has the phone logs and so knows everyone to whom those two SAOs did the leaking.

To suggest, as you do, that we can't believe a one because Michael Kinsley says there are more than the six the SAO knew about is a specious argument. Unless you mean to imply that the SAO and every journalist is a conspiratorial pack of liars, as evidenced by the fact that they can't get their number straight, in cahoots of a big ole lie about leaking Plame's CIA identity in order to bring down the administration.

Plame's identity was leaked. We already know that Novak received the leak, so we know at least one journalist isn't lying. Contrary to your statement, we can believe a one. And if more journalists come forward with credible claims of being leaked to, that would be important. (By the way, if I were using your "all or nothing" calculus, finding one real leaked-to journalist -- Robert Novak -- would imply they are all telling the truth; but that's an equally specious argument).

Before we go about blanket endorsing or condemning members of the press, let's see who these journalists are, and the chronology in which they received the leaks -- rather than a web-link which leads to nothing. We are, after all, talking about a serious federal offense. And a rumor floated by Michael Kinsley on NPR isn't sufficient evidence to believe that those journalists actually exist. It's time those journalists came forward with their stories, so that we may exam them. The have nothing to lose, and would break no ethical rule in doing so, since the only new information they would be giving would be the fact and the date of their receiving the leak.