Self-serving rationale

If, as David Shaw writes (“Promises of Confidentiality Aren’t Made to Be Broken,” Oct. 26), “In the Wilson/Plame case, it would certainly appear that the leakers broke the law that prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of the identity of a covert U.S. officer,” is not Robert Novak a co-conspirator or accessory and thus equally culpable?Seymour Hersh’s comments seem entirely self-serving, as do Novak’s. Their concern seems entirely for their own careers, with no consideration of the harm they might cause.

There certainly can be valid reasons for withholding names of whistle-blowers on government corruption, but what greater good is served by Novak in the Plame case? He is protecting the guilty, not exposing them.

James E. Dunlevey

Sun City