Two years ago, this week. Robert Novak revealed the name of a CIA operative, he was given this name in an attempt to discredit the husband of the CIA operative.

It now seems clear that Robert Novak got his information from Karl Rove. In other words, Karl Rove committed a criminal act in order to gain a political advantage for a policy he supported.

Judith Miller, a reporter with the New York Times, also received that information and is currently in jail because she refused to tell a grand Jury who gave her the identity of an undercover CIA operative.

If Judith Miller was a quality reporter, she would have exposed the act of treason and reported the story that there are members of the Bush Administration who are willing to commit treason in order to convince America to go to war. That was the story, but she missed it.

In Judith Miller's mind, the story was whatever the administration said it was, even if they said it 'off the record'. So, she says she needs to protect her source. It apparently doesn't matter to her that they attempted to use her as a vehicle to harm someone else. Or, that the information she was fed was disinformation. It was true, but irrelevant information designed to effect someone else.

If we look at this from a local perspective, can anyone say they would have protected the former mayor, if he was the source for a story about under-age sex, where he blamed someone else? Of course not. No one would protect a source who was engaging in a criminal act, and attempting to use the reporter to harm a third party.

Judith Miller should not be 'protecting a source', she should be exposing a criminal act.

If Judith Miller had reported that the administration was conducting a smear campaign that would hurt CIA operatives, and that "Mr. X" said the man who was in charge of the campaign was Karl Rove, then the source, "Mr. X" should be protected.

But that's not what she did. She protected the man who committed treason, the man who exposed a CIA operative for his own personal and political gain.

Judith Miller's idea is totally ass-backwards. She should have found an 'anonymous source' to expose the smear campaign. That would have been news. But, to take part in the smear, by remaining silent, is not journalism. It is protecting the powerful at the expense of the weak, and at the expense of the truth.

A source should be protected if the source helps to expose the truth, and may be retaliated against for exposing the truth. The 'source' of a political smear is not a source, they are the story.

Judith Miller should be fired for missing the big story, and for actively engaging in the cover-up of a treasonous act for political gain. She didn't expose it, she took part in it, and that's not reporting, that's a crime. It's called conspiracy.