Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Huh? Is Novak claiming he can't disclose because of security reasons? I thought he was claiming priviledge (or whatever the technical term is). You don't see Bush leaning on Novak to disclose as cohersion?
|
(1) Whoever talked to Novak did so on background.
(2) When the White House wanted to release background briefings by Richard Clarke, it did so, without asking him.
(3) You had no problem with this then.
(4) Likewise, the White House can now tell Novak that it is lifting the background protection of his sources, so he can reveal them.
(5) Bush could also tell Novak that it would be for the good of the country if he were to disclose who his sources are. Seeing as how they committed a criminal act and all.
AG's point is that Bush could do all these things, and Novak could still win the admiration of his future sources by refusing to disclose. The only salient difference between this situation and the one with Clarke is that there the White House had the transcripts of his briefing, but here they don't know who it was.
There's no coercion here. I'm not saying that Bush should threaten Novak with anything. Nor is Atticus. His point about the bully pulpit is that the President's office gives him moral and persuasive authority that he could use here, if he really wanted the culprits to be exposed.
Threaded Mode