Posted on 10/07/2004 5:14:08 PM PDT by ConservativeMan55
And I had asserted that They did indeed call for an investigation of the Novak "leak" .
And so they did.
What you've said is that the Times doesn't recognize the contradiction but simply asserts the right in a partisan manner, inconsistantly and hypocritically.
So what does the Times say? Where's the link that will resolve the dispute?
since I have pointed out that evidence to date points to the Plame role was given by way of explanation, not retaliation.
This was my initial interpretation. It does not sit well with the continued silence of the sources...so I've come up with two alternate interpretations
1)The White House IS seriously involved
2)Top CIA people outed one of their own. Maybe not deliberately, maybe only in a moment of anger at the grief caused them by Wilson, but while this could be regarded as a minor slip by others it would be a serious, punishable breach by them.
No link. Just more BS.
LOL! Now we KNOW it was a Demcrat who leaked because NO reporter would go to jail for a Republcan!
It's a little embarrassing, I don't think they know who she is or how she has been condemned by many on the left.
I said the NY Times was for the investigation when they were putting out that the WH "leaked" information to Novak. My point was the same as Kinsley's (in that narrow area).
I said they supported the investigation into the issue of the Novak leak and I have shown that they did indeed do that. They are now complaining that apparently Fitzgerald has "expanded" his investigation and now that he's questioning their reporters they don't like it.
Where am I wrong?
I didn't say anything about they demanded Novak reveal his sources, but it's implicit in their support of the initial investigation.
This just shows how clueless, or spining, she is. She isn't being jailed (assuming she loses the appeal) for talking to government employees, but rather for failing to testify in court. Freedom of the press means freedom to publish, nothing more. Anyone else can be jailed for refusing to testify (except against ones self or a spouse), and so called reporters are in no way special in this regard.
Can we put the "journalist" who called Bush the "worst President in history" in the LATimes in jail too? (Just for our own satisfaction.)
Freedom of the press means freedom to publish, not freedom to withhold information in a criminal case. "The Press" has no more rights in this regard than anyone else. Does requiring them to reveal their sources make their job harder? Probably, but it also serves as a check on certain journalist excesses, like making things up out of whole cloth or publishing only those facts which support their preordained point of view.
Sounds like a good start; pity they can't jail 'em for lack of journalistic merit.
"Is there any way we can have the rest of the media arrested as well?
Do you feel that the media should not protect their sources?
I'm just curious.
Do you feel the media should be able to lie about those sources?
Just curious.
I should have attributed the question in italics to piasa.
Sorry
She has no "source". She is lying al la Jason Blair and made it up.
Same Judith Miller that co-wrote "GERMS: Biological Weapons and America's Secret War?" It was released just days prior to 9/11 and she was one of the 'experts' TV news went to for all things "Germs" just after 9/11 and running up to the war.
I think the "outing" could have just been petty on Novak's part. Also, the "outing" was a bump in the road for this Wilson/Kerry talking point plot, just like Bush mentioning "British" intelligence in the SOTU.
No doubt until after the election.
I think you went wrong in assuming the Times would be so unprofessional and foolish as to ignore their self-interest.
They're biased in their choice of stories, in their choice of bad guys, in their choice of people to believe and not believe, and in other ways as well. But ignore the implications of asking that Novak out his sources?
Unlikely. Not that people don't do terribly stupid things. Of course they do. But in this case it's extremely unlikely.
I don't think I'm wrong. I think I'm right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.