Even if they don't want to identify the caller, they would certainly want to identify the fact that they were called.
I agree it's curious. But the opposite argument, at least that I think of, is twofold. First, even though I can't recall the second reporter's name on the original Washington Post article, I do recall thinking it was a recognizable name and a good reporter. Weak, I admit. But, second, there has been some public talk that reporters who acknowledged they were contacted could become FBI targets and attempts made to get them to give up their sources. That's some incentive to keep quiet. At least for now. Also, a weak argument.
I'm not arguing that two weak arguments make a strong argument but they, at least in my mind, keep the notion of the phone calls alive.
Ah, as I type, I think of a third argument which is a bit stronger--Andrea Mitchell. It's not clear how her name got into the public domain on this one but she has, so far as I know, not spoken about it but not denied she was called. Her behavior tends to support my second point above.
But it's still mysterious.
I like c2's point that one of the other big stories here is that the CIA appears to have declared "war" on the White House but I've seen only one article in the Times that worked that angle. Have you seen more?
Finished the Maraniss book tonight. I still recommend it. Highly. |
