most particulary those (Time, The NYT, et al) who granted double-super-secret status -- NOT to the whistleblower -- but to those who wanted to ruin the whistleblower!  He likens this to Erlichman and Haldeman meeting, say, a Matt Cooper in the car park and giving him all the disinformation that made the Nixon crew was so famous. 

...And the same reporter protecting them from scrutiny until it was almost too late.  All in the name of freedom of the press.  His point is that there is yet another layer of culprits, and it is important.

Just when I thought I could put my third little doll away inside her bigger sisters, lo and behold, another kernel comes up which I had not considered.

The LA Times OP Ed page carried another view on all of this.  They made the point that Time Magazine (whose editors had full knowledge of Karl Rove and Scooter Libby's role in the passing on of information) published White House denials as if they had no inkling of that truth. 

Time quoted Scott McClelland's "That is ridiculous!" pearl, as well as others, with no refutation or implication that Time Magazine knew that he was giving out false information --wittingly, or unwittingly, on McClelland's part.  I wonder if this is the end; pardon me, but I don't think so.

Any thoughts on this?  One other point:  any professional writer who uses the term "chilling effect," should be required to go to Thesaurus School.  (If there isn't such a thing there ought to be!)