Posted on 02/19/2005 6:53:54 PM PST by El Oviedo
You might have seen Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper on TV. They are reporters for The New York Times and Time magazine, respectively. They give every impression of being intelligent, professional and decent people, and they might well be going to prison for 18 months.
That's a tragedy for them, but for the rest of us it's an object lesson in media inanity. Miller and Cooper, who are refusing to reveal their sources in a federal investigation, have hit the talk-show circuit as anguished defenders of the First Amendment and of the media's watchdog role. They are quite sincere about that. But they would actually be going to jail partly to provide after-the-fact vindication for an absurd media feeding frenzy about a non-crime that journalists relentlessly hyped to hurt the Bush administration.
Let's back up. In February 2002, Joe Wilson was sent by the CIA to Niger to investigate allegations that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium from the African country. After the invasion of Iraq, he wrote an Op-Ed piece in The New York Times saying that his work in Niger had exploded the administration's bogus WMD claims. Wilson became a liberal and media cause celebre.
But the flap raised questions. Wilson wasn't an expert in nuclear proliferation or in Niger. He had written for left-wing magazine The Nation. In other words, not a natural fit for such a sensitive mission. Journalists wondered why he had been tapped for it. Conservative columnist Robert Novak was told by administration sources that Wilson's wife, Victoria Plame, worked at the CIA. He published her name. Other reporters, also informed about Wilson's CIA connection, did the same.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
In my book, the judge should throw the book on these two, Put them in jail then they can write their experiences.
Leni
Me too. Bad link.
It's a bad link for me too. However, if the whole thing was as bad as it was hyped to be, you would think those expressing anguish about the paperpusher's safety would be anxious to get all the way to the bottom of it.
They don't.
Wilson milked this puppy for all it was worth, then got discredited as a liar by many groups and individuals, the coup de gras of which was the 9/11 COmmission report.
Now somebody else is trying to get their 15 minutes and book deals.
Yawn.
Rich Lowry may feel that way. But I don't.
Does that make me mean-spirited...???
I've never been able to find the part in the law that says, "Barring self-incimination, everyone must testify to knowledge of a crime, except for reporters.
The argument that their ability to perform their job would be hurt is no stronger than a barber's or an auto mechanic's.
"coup de gras" would be a "greasy blow (hit)"
Perhaps you meant "coup de grace"?
Sorry - it appears that some of the numbers were cut. The link should be:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/rl20050218.shtml
Sorry - it appears that some of the numbers were cut. The link should be:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/rl20050218.shtml
Thanks - some of the numbers were cut-off.
Sorry - it appears that some of the numbers were cut. The link should be:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/rl20050218.shtml
these guys wrote very indirect articles after the fact. I wonder why Novak got away with it.....shouldn't he be in the same shoes as these guys?
Yep and divisive and uh...maybe Karl Rove, or at least a Bush administration operative.
FOFLOL! Or cooking fat...I dunno, it still fits, dontcha think?
I wonder whom they (they other two reporters) are trying to protect. Someone who will NOT advance their cause if their identity was known, would be my guess. Someone who would show the "rightwing conspiracy" part of the story to be not true?
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.