[OESY]

Is the Times kidding? It says it was not involved?

The Times helped light the fires of this witch hunt as part of its plan to bring down the president and get Pulitzer Prizes. Now it feels the heat, and fears being consumed by the flames -- flames that are also raging at the Tiffany Network for similar reasons.

Some things should be kept in mind. Plame's former covert operative status was well-known in Joe Wilson's bragging circles in Washington. There was no harm from disclosure without dissemination by newspapers. Wilson did such a poor job at investigating the Niger yellowcake claims he was rebuked in the Senate Intelligence Committee report. The forged documents appear to have been planted by French Intelligence to undercut America's reason for enforcing UN resolutions and taking out Saddam.

What has gone seriously awry was not the probe so much as the Times' failure to wound President Bush.

[dirtboy]

The focus of the leak inquiry has lately shifted from the Bush White House, where it properly belongs, to an attempt to compel journalists to testify and reveal their sources.

Memo to the NY Times Editorial Board - when you throw a grenade and forget to pull the pin, don't be surprised when it gets thrown right back at you later.

[Dems_R_Losers]

Note the insidious naming of Scooter Libby in this editorial too. Pretty obvious who the Slimes' target is here.

[Allan]

a federal judge in Washington has ordered a reporter for The New York Times
Judith Miller
to testify before a grand jury investigating the disclosure of the covert operative's identity
and to describe any conversations she had with "a specified executive branch official."

[MNnice]

This chilling rejection of both First Amendment principles and evolving common law notions of a privilege protecting a reporter's confidential sources cries out for rejection on appeal, as does the undue secrecy surrounding the special prosecutor's filings in the case.

In other words, the First Amendment should be whatever the New York Slimes says it is. 

 

[Brilliant]

This is precisely how they should be investigating. Ask the reporters. They have no privilege. They were involved in a crime, even if they were not themselves committing it.

[ClearCase_guy]

an attempt to compel journalists to testify and reveal their sources.

I'm a firm believer that all sources should be on-the-record and fully identified. If you won't put your name to the info, the info is not worth having.

If one accepts anonymous sources as a journalistic tool, you slide right to Katie Couric editorializing and saying, "Some people are saying the death rate in Iraq is the highest America has seen in any previous war ..." I think all such blather should be seen as unethical.

[Alberta's Child]

This chilling rejection of both First Amendment principles and evolving common law notions of a privilege protecting a reporter's confidential sources cries out for rejection on appeal, as does the undue secrecy surrounding the special prosecutor's filings in the case.

This "chilling rejection" of a media privilege that has no basis in law -- either under the First Amendment or under any "evolving common law" principles -- is the best thing that has come out of this case. It was the height of arrogance for the New York Times to call for an independent investigation of this case while at the same time claiming that the newspaper itself should be immune from any and all independent investigations into cases that the paper's staff covers.

[ohiobluesuiter]

Why do they keep calling her a "covert Central Intelligence Agency operative"? She wasn't in the Directorate of Operations...she was in the Directorate of Intelligence. She worked at Langley everyday. Not clandestine. Am I wrong here?

[NordP]

Mike, I thought you'd like to see this info...

[Alberta's Child]

The subpoena was upheld even though neither Ms. Miller nor this newspaper had any involvement in the matter at hand - the public naming of an undercover agent.

If I witness a robbery at a convenience store and an accused perpetrator is arrested, the fact that I had no involvement in the matter at hand does not exempt me from being compelled to testify before a grand jury in the case.

[YaYa123]

Chris Matthews will be ejaculating drool all over this editorial! The New York Times makes mention of Matthews'favorite villain, the dastardly Scooter Livvy.

(Are things so grim for the left, Scooter gotta be dredged up?)

[ArmyBratproud]

Plame's former covert operative status was well-known in Joe Wilson's bragging circles in Washington

---

Yep. IF they really want to know who exposed Wilson's wife........they need look no further than Wilson...and his wife.

They talked about it at every dinner and DC party they went to for the longest time.

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for posting this.

The NY Slimes was the major springboard for the lies, spins and disgusting attempt to embarass GW with the Wilson/Plame fiasco.

This bs had brewing and perking along on the rat blog sites for months, and then the NY Slimes made it front page lies, spins and vile attacks.

The NY Slimes is heading the same way that ABCNNBC BS NOTNEWS programs are heading, into extinction.

Now the arrogance of the editors and publisher of the
Slimes to deny that they had a big part in this attempted coup against GW makes C BS's fiasco look small.

[Just mythoughts]

"Unfortunately, our second, overriding fear has become a reality. The focus of the leak inquiry has lately shifted from the Bush White House, where it properly belongs, to an attempt to compel journalists to testify and reveal their sources. "

This sounds like it came out of that leaked "rockey" memo that planned to "investigate" President Bush.

[Real Cynic No More]

Once again, none of these journalists were involved in the central issue...

You'd think the New York Times' editors would at least be able to use proper grammar in their editorials. This should be "... none of these journalists "was"...

Don't they teach diagramming sentences any more?

[no dems]

The focus of the leak inquiry has lately shifted from the Bush White House, where it properly belongs, to an attempt to compel journalists to testify and reveal their sources. Oh....poor baby. Let me see if I've got this right. Journalist can sit still and be quiet and not reveal their sources while the governement spends millions of our tax dollars trying to figure it out. What's wrong with this picture? I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of the press. So, why is there a governmental investigation. Leave the press and the American public alone. Let them excercise freedom of the press and free speech. BTW, is the NYT following up on the Sandy Berger scandal? Hmmmmmmm?

[liberallarry]

So who gave Novak his info on Plame and why are they hiding their identities?

[AFPhys]

You forgot to mention that the "Iraq - yellowcake" question was decided without depending on the "forged documents" (as per Lord Butler, 9/11 Commission, Senate Intel Report)
.

[Cicero]

A Leak Probe Gone Awry </>

Translation: "We thought this propaganda campaign organized by the DNC and the MSM, complete with discussions between Pinch Sulzberger and Terry McAuliffe, would smear mud on Bush. Instead, it's backfiring on us, the liars who orchestrated it."

[petitfour]

Desperate attempt to ratchet up some other scandal involving the Bush administration. The National Guard story blew up. Again. Now they're gonne regurgitate this one. It's amazing that members of the press would be asked who their source was for a story. You would think if something illegal was done by the WH that the presstitutes would be more than willing to reveal their criminal source. However, they aren't doing that. Makes me wonder if their source is a RAT.

I wonder who wrote this Editorial. Too chicken to put a specific name on a story indicates that someone at the NYTimes does not want the Dan Rather treatment.