Plameologists: Did anyone else see this important NYT correction?

[kpete]

Did anyone else see this? (4.00 / 2)

When digging around this morning, I found this correction in the NYT. (As we all knew, the NYT had the wrong date for Rove's Oct 2004 testimony, which they had reported as 10/14 when it was really 10/15. They have now corrected that.)

The important NYT correction:
Correction: Dec. 10, 2005, Saturday:

An article on Dec. 2 about the C.I.A. leak investigation misstated a word in a quotation from an article about the case that appeared on Time magazine's Web site in July 2003. The Time article said "some government officials" - not "some administration officials" - had told Time and the syndicated columnist Robert Novak that "Valerie Plame is a C.I.A. official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction." (Later developments in the leak case revealed that in fact the information had been disclosed by administration officials, I. Lewis Libby Jr. and Karl Rove.)

After watching the entire MSM wonder aloud on TV for months who Robert Novak's second source might be besides Rove, it turns out to be just as logical as I (and I'm sure others here) always thought: Duh, his sources were both Libby and Rove. For some damned reason, even Vandehei at WaPo couldn't figure that out!

(I posted this in nearly the exact form at Armando's Plamegate thread from yesterday.)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/11/94156/302

[Garbo 2004]

1. I think it's more sloppy writing in the NYT. Yes, Libby and Rove disclosed

to Time. But Novak's initial source is not publicly known. I doubt this is a NYT "scoop" that they bury in a correction rather than include in articles covering the story. I don't think the parenthetical refers specifically to both Time and Novak. Just that both Libby and Rove disclosed the info. Libby also disclosed to Miller as we know.

If Libby was Novak's initial source or a source at all for Novak why is that not included in the indictment? It would seem pertinent and important since the indictment is based on the fact that Libby lied when claimed he wasn't a source for reporters, that reporters were giving him info. But if Libby also was Novak's source why was he not indicted for another instance of lying about not being a source?

I think this is less of a "scoop" than just another instance of imprecise writing by NYT staff.