Reply
Thu 29 Sep, 2005 06:56 pm
According to the NYT. Judith Miller will name Scooter Libby as her source for the Plame leak. I'm guessing this is a direct connect to the office of the V.P. (wherever he may be)
Hmmmmm....big surprise.
What is their sourcing for the claim?
will be in tomorrow's NYT
Miller released, agrees to testify
The story I am getting is that Scooter did not issue a new release. Speculation is she just finally had enough of prison. Folks, this could get real interesting.
Fitzgerald said he plans to wrap up his operation in October.
Has anyone heard when he plans to release his report?
BBB
I'm not surprised Miller fingered Libby. He was at the top of my list of suspects.
I have no respect for Miller and her cohorts.
BBB
Why?
She went to prison for an ideal and an ethical belief.
???????????
I am interested in your reasons.
Wait. Does this mean that Judith Miller will be freed to write for the NYT again?
Fight on, Judy! Stand by your principles! Don't give up now!
kelticwizard wrote:Fitzgerald said he plans to wrap up his operation in October.
Has anyone heard when he plans to release his report?
Fitzgerald isn't an IC so I don't think he is mandated to do a report.
I'm looking for the indictments and the smear job with claims that Fitzgerald is a partisan hack. :wink:
BUt Ken Mehlman has complete confidence in Mr. Fitzgerald...at least he did. From everything I understand, Fitzgerald will issue a report.
This whole Miller thing seems like a paradox.
I don't think we will have problems with the political forum winding down, although there might be few righties who slither away rather than digest the crow.
Although I am sure they will whine "it's a weak indictment!"
Judith Miller did the right thing in this case, but there are those (myself included) who also despise her for reporting absolute BS in the Times about WMDs in Iraq prior to the war. Her "source" was Chalabi.
The fact that the NY Times was publishing her stories on the front page day after day was a factor in making the war happen. After all, if the Times says there are WMDs, then there must be.
Except there weren't. Judy has lot to answer for, the current case notwithstanding.
Re: BBB
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:I'm not surprised Miller fingered Libby. He was at the top of my list of suspects.
I have no respect for Miller and her cohorts.
BBB
"
fingered" Libby? What are you talking about?
D'artagnan WROTE
Quote:The fact that the NY Times was publishing her stories on the front page day after day was a factor in making the war happen. After all, if the Times says there are WMDs, then there must be.
The stories in the NY Times facilitated the war. Are you kidding. Remember Bush doesn't read the papers.
dlowanL
dlowan, you asked why I have no respect for Judy Miller. I've posted a lot of articles and my personal opinions on A2K over the months so I won't repeat them here. Miller was/is the Bush's administration's mole at the New York Times. She conluded with Chalabi and the neocons to fabricate the lies that made it possible to delude the congress to give Bush carte blanch to invade Iraq. She published opinion under the color of news when, if she wished to espouse admiration for Bush administration policies, she should have done so as an opinion columnist.
Normally I would respect a journalist who is willing to go to prison to protect the confidentially of a source. A source who is a whistle blower acting for the Common Good. But Miller's source was not a whistle blower. She was protecting at least one and probably many more, including herself, who were committing a felony. There is a difference.
Judy Miller is a disgrace to journalism and the First Amendment. I despise her for her role and for her betrayal of the American people.
The following gives you some additional information. ---BBB
Ticomaya wrote:Quote:...
'Why didn't someone call us?'
Tate [Libby's attorney] said Libby signed a waiver of confidentiality more than a year ago, which Tate followed with a phone call to New York Times attorney Floyd Abrams assuring him that Libby's waiver was voluntary.
SOURCE
That headline reminds me of the statement by Brown and others about New Orleans convention center.
It seems the WH doesn't have the time to stay on top of the news.
What's next? "Why didn't someone tell us that Iraq has an insurgency?"
au1929 wrote:D'artagnan WROTE
Quote:The fact that the NY Times was publishing her stories on the front page day after day was a factor in making the war happen. After all, if the Times says there are WMDs, then there must be.
The stories in the NY Times facilitated the war. Are you kidding. Remember Bush doesn't read the papers.

Agreed re Bush's reading habits, but those articles in the Times certainly undercut opposition to the war. Lest we forget, the idea that Saddam had WMD was THE major rationale for this stupid war, until, of course, we found out that there were no WMD.
I can't get too exercised about the Miller thing -- I was reading the front page of the New York Times (and the rest of it) in the run-up to war and I certainly wasn't for it, based on what I was reading.
Chalabi was a bad source, yes, but I don't think it goes too much beyond that.