Duchess SamiraX wrote:
I don't think it was ever averred that she was named by name, but that her husband was outed as receiving special treatment because he was married to an agent.
Wouldn't that qualify as telling a reporter that she worked for the CIA? Whether referred to by name or as his wife is irrelevant. The quote directly states that Rove did neither.
I guess my main source of amazement is how we go from Rove being one source (out of many) for the article, to Rove being "named as the Plame leak" (as stated in the subject). Isn't that a bit of a stretch? Reporters use lots of sources when writing a story. The play we're seeing is with the words. By naming Rove as a "source", some people might assume that meant Rove was the source of the leak. Of course, the actual articles involved never said that, and in fact contain quotes stating the exact opposite, but that apparently didn't stop the above linked nutjob from writing his own take on it, and it didn't stop the OP from creating a thread with that assumption named in the title.
I just wish people would actually *read* the information in front of them instead of just leaping to the first convenient conclusion. Obviously, until the contents of the documents turned over by Time become public, we can't possibly know who said what, whether there's any information about a possible leak, or who that leak was. And if people want to conjecture, that's great. But stating a completely falsehood? Rove was most certainly not named as the Plame Leak. He was named as one source contacted for an article. That's it. Everything else is pure speculation. And silly speculation when you've got direct quotes saying that he was not responsible for the leak in the very article that prompted the thread in the first place...
