When "embedded" reporters during the recent unpleasantness in Iraq (the official war, before Bush with sock in flightsuit confirmed that major fighting had ended) revealed details about troop movements, they were scolded and shoved out of the country. Geraldo too, remember? Peter Arnett was lambasted just for his attitude while speaking on Iraqi TV, not even revealing any info helpful to the enemy.

Shouldn't there be equivalent attention, if not much more serious attention, to Robert Novak giving the identity of a CIA "analyst" or operative? Notice how pundits blasted Arnett for giving his opinion that the war was going bad, giving comfort to the enemy, but pundits are fairly quiet about Novak outing a CIA agent. The bigger issue is whether a felon is "roving" through the White House (pun that Amy Goodman used two days in a row, but it's worth it). I'm wondering why that "senior administration official" would be charged with a felony without Novak being charged with the same felony. Novak learned about it and knowingly distributed the info, even after the CIA asked him not to use her name in the first place. "They [CIA] asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else." Did they mention that revealing her name would be a felony?