First off, I'm not a "troll", or whatever... [I still can't figure out what the hell that even means, to be honest...] ...
From the outset in the Judith Miller ordeal, I've said that without similar assurances, Mark Felt wouldn't have likely come forward. The typical Kossack reply is that Felt wasn't the focus of a criminal probe, so Watergate was different.
My counter has been that this view is only possible in hindsight; at the time of Watergate, Felt had reason to think he'd fall under criminal leak investigations. And it was possible that the public might turn on him as well, if he became exposed as a leaker who has "jeopardized national security in time of war." So he needed to know that Woodward was willing to go to jail for him, no matter what happened. He needed to know that the nature of his confidentiality with Woodward was close to absolute, not something that would shift depending on circumstance...In other words, he needed the kind of signal Judith Miller is sending to future sources, even if HER platform falls well short of a noble test case...And even if she does personally embody all the evil Kossacks keep pushing about her...
One common reply on KOS to my point has been something like, "come on...Felt wasn't in any kind of trouble...he had no reason to fear anything..."
Well, there is evidence in Woodward's new book that strongly suggests otherwise.... In it, BW writes that Patrick Gray was pushing for an aggressive investigation into Watergate leaks. Felt, undoubtedly fearing that efforts might turn on HIM, then essentially initiated his own investigation to throw the scent off in another direction. The point is that Felt was working to create cover for himself, knowing the Justice Department was looking to press charges against "traitors" in the midst... hardly the kind of actions you'd expect from a guy who "had no reason to fear anything"...
At that time, Felt would have loathed having to wonder about Woodward's internal deliberation between "whistleblower" and "criminal". Felt would have demanded absolute assurance or nothing. More than ever, I think that's the lesson here: Miller's actions aren't about protecting Rove; they're about signaling to future sources that confidentiality isn't conditioned on circumstance...
Things can change in a heartbeat. An honest broker one minute might become a villain (willfully or not) the next...Few will risk it if changing circumstances alter promises of confidentiality...Had Woodward adopted a standard like that pushed by many Kossacks in their replies to me - if you're a "whistleblower", I'll cover for you; but if you're being investigated for a "crime", I won't -- I'm convinced Felt would have stayed quiet...The only test that matters in all this is: how does a potential future source view Miller's brave act of civil disobedience?...
With all due respect, you guys need to separate your personal dislike for Miller from the bigger question about protecting the press as an institution.
Armando was right on this one, my friends...