corrente

I'm literally astonished at Murray Waas's post in which he contends that we should have some sympathy for Judith Miller because she's protecting a source. I'm even more astonished that no one in the lefty blogosphere has commented on this post that I can tell. Where are you guys?

Okay, so here are some questions that Waas's post raises: Am I the only one who thinks that your loyalty to a source ends when that source has committed a crime? Am I the only one who believes that protecting a source is something you do when that source is likely to receive absolutely undeserved consequences?

Okay, so how could you make such a claim in this case? Furthermore, if you haven't committed a crime, why would you continue to protect the source? Waas gets offended that lefty bloggers are "jumping to conclusions" in arguing that Miller must be covering up her own role in a crime.

What other conclusion -- that Judith Miller is keeping silent in order to hide her own criminality -- could one draw in this case, honestly?

I'm just not a "thou must always protect a source" Kool-Aid drinker I guess.

Waas is willfully missing the forest for the trees here. You protect a source that deserves to be protected. Otherwise, you burn the source -- especially if they've committed a crime in giving you the information.