Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Meanwhile, Judith Miller Sits in Jail; The Wrong Reporter Gets Arrested (thought provoking!)
CHRONWATCH.COM ^ | JULY 14, 2005 | JACK ENGELHARD

Posted on 07/13/2005 10:05:07 PM PDT by CHARLITE

Judith Miller, the finest reporter over there at the New York Times, sits in jail, even as we speak, for reasons that are so obscure that I still can’t figure it out. The essential fact is that a federal grand jury demanded that she reveal the name of a confidential source, and standing on her First Amendment rights, she refused. True grit!

So they handcuffed her, and there she is, behind bars. She's Judy, as I like to call her, since I’ve been reading her for some two decades. Judy discovered “militant Islam” as Columbus discovered America. The rest of us paid scant attention to what was stirring within the veiled continent of the kaffiyeh, but she knew the score.

The scholar Abraham Heschel defined a prophet as someone “who knows what time it is.” Judy is no prophet but she sure knew what time it was.

She covered the Middle East for nearly 30 years as a Times’ correspondent based in Cairo. To anyone who would listen, and hardly anyone did, certainly not our intelligence services, she wrote articles and books warning about a combustible youth-motivated jihad that was coming to visit Israel and the West. She knew Al Qaeda and she knew Hamas before those words got into our encyclopedias and dictionaries.

Her proof? At the coming of this new millennium, the majority of Muslims would be restless kids and young adult males, all subject to incitements coming from the mosques. She prophesied the toxic consequences when indoctrination is seasoned with testosterone. So here we are, yesterday London, today Netanya, just as she imagined it, even 30 years ago. She predicted 9/11 and the Passover Massacre except for the exact date and moment.

Meanwhile, Judith Miller sits in jail; in my view, she is like the sacrificial goat sent into the wilderness to pay for the sins of her peers. She is doing our penance.

Why is she in jail and why not Dan Rather who through manipulation allegedly tried to fix the election against George W. Bush? And Mary Mapes, Dan Rather’s producer over there at CBS, the lady who allegedly fed him all that deceitful info, why isn’t she in the slammer?

Sure, I know, the legalities were fit to tie Judith Miller but not the rest. But beyond the legalities, into plain justice, why isn’t Gideon Levy behind bars for scoffing Ilan Ramon, Israel’s hero astronaut, in the pages of Haaretz, before the space shuttle Columbia took off, and even after it crashed? Why isn’t Amira Hass in jail for her slanted pro-Arab terrorist reporting in the same Haaretz?

But Judith Miller sits in jail, as fabricators like Jayson Blair of the New York Times and Stephen Glass of the New Republic walk free. Fired, but free.

They fed us lies, but among us they walk. They even write books and make movies. No jail.

American reporters who paint our entire brave military with the brush of Abu Ghraib deserve no jail, freedom of the press after all, but there ought to be some price for publishing half-truths that amount to propaganda. Israeli reporters and photographers who falsify and incite against religious Zionists--where is their comeuppance?

What of the sins of omission when newspapers like Britain’s The Sun (among so many others) catalogue victims of Islamic terror but forget to mention Israel?

How about “cycle of violence” when Israel merely retaliates?

The BBC loves its own fairness and objectivity (no “terrorists” here), so why is Barbara Plett still among the employed? This is the BBC reporter who wept for Arafat as he was being lifted from Ramallah to die in Paris. To quote: “When the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound, I started to cry.” These are the people the BBC sends out to cover Israel, and the United States.

But Judith Miller sits in jail, and meanwhile Dave Brown wins awards. How soon we forget. Brown is the cartoonist who, back in November, 2002. showed us a naked and bloodthirsty Ariel Sharon devouring a Palestinian Arab baby. This made it to the editorial pages of London’s Independent newspaper.

Why isn’t Dave Brown in jail for incitement and anti-Semitism? Why isn’t the Independent in jail? This cartoon won first prize in Britain, awarded by the British Political Cartoon Society. Why aren’t all of them in the cooler, all those members of this Society? (For they are all honorable men.)

Why isn’t the Chicago Tribune in the clink? That cartoon in its pages, also back in 2003, gave us a giant hook-nosed Sharon barking orders to a tiny George W. Bush.

Why isn’t PBS in jail? Back in April, our part-federally-funded TV network gave us a “Frontline” report so lopsided that even anti-Semites gasped as they cheered.

Slanderers, scoffers, defamers against Israel, against America, all are within their legal rights.

Meanwhile, Judith Miller sits in jail.

About the Writer: Jack Engelhard is the author of the bestseller "Indecent Proposal," the award-winning "Escape from Mount Moriah," and the novel "The Days of the Bitter End," which is being prepared for movie production. Jack receives e-mail at viewopinion@aol.com.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; Israel; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; United Kingdom; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: cialeak; danrather; juditymiller; liberal; marymapes; media; news; press; reporters
When Englehard argues in this way, I have to agree that if Miller sits in jail, then for absolutely CERTAIN, Dan Rather and Mary Mapes should be occupying adjoining cells. Judith refused to "give up her source," although Cliff Kincaid and John Podhoretz have both surmised that Judith's source might be Judith herself.

Her "crime" pales in comparison with the fraudulent phony TANG story "concocted in Texas" by Rather, Mapes and CBS, to deliberately contaminate an American presidential election. That deserves jail time in my book!......but they're receiving awards and obtaining lucrative book deals while Miller sits in jail.

Something is very wrong with this picture.

1 posted on 07/13/2005 10:05:10 PM PDT by CHARLITE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Eastbound; Marauder; tuffydoodle; Seaplaner; knews_hound; snarks_when_bored; Reactionary; ...
For your interest!

Char :)

2 posted on 07/13/2005 10:07:07 PM PDT by CHARLITE (I propose a co-Clinton team as permanent reps to Pyonyang, w/out possibility of repatriation....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
It is odd, and hope she sues the hell out of someone for false imprisonment.
3 posted on 07/13/2005 10:08:21 PM PDT by Echo Talon (http://echotalon.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
Many more of them should be occupying jail cells.

Judith Miller, the finest reporter over there at the New York Times, sits in jail, even as we speak, for reasons that are so obscure that I still can’t figure it out. The essential fact is that a federal grand jury demanded that she reveal the name of a confidential source, and standing on her First Amendment rights, she refused. True grit!

Maybe some emphasis will answer the writer's first phrase. The First Amendment includes no right to refuse to answer the questions of a grand jury. All you have is the Fifth against self-incrimination (until 5 SCOTUS justices decide differently).

4 posted on 07/13/2005 10:09:30 PM PDT by thoughtomator (For all you love to survive, Islam must be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
She's in stir because her employer wants her there - they REALLY don't want her to say what she knows...
5 posted on 07/13/2005 10:11:32 PM PDT by decal (Where were YOU when AndyScam broke? Sluthering, perhaps?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
Here is a thought... Compare how we are acting towards this Special Prosecutor investigating the Bush White House compared to how the Democrats trashed Kenneth Starr when he was investigating Clinton's numerous unsavory liaisons!! :-)
6 posted on 07/13/2005 10:11:47 PM PDT by MJY1288 (Whenever a Liberal is Speaking on the Senate Floor, Al-Jazeera Breaks in and Covers it LIVE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Bookmarkin'


7 posted on 07/13/2005 10:14:43 PM PDT by BunnySlippers (Be a Good Mullah Now ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

"... a federal grand jury demanded that she reveal the name of a confidential source, and standing on her First Amendment rights, she refused."

In a CRIMINAL investigation - a reporter is required BY LAW to reveal their sources. Judy didn't - she went to jail. This has nothing whatsoever to do with First Amendment rights - it has to do with obeying the law - even if you're a reporter. And .. since the source signed a release .. Judy was not under obligation to keep the information secret.


8 posted on 07/13/2005 10:15:57 PM PDT by CyberAnt (President Bush: "America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
"Judy was not under obligation to keep the information secret."

....unless Cliff Kincaid and also John Podhoretz (in different columns) are right and Judith herself is the source. If they are right, and she's the one who spread Valerie Plame's name around Washington, then she's a fraud, playing the victim (which Killery also attempts to do), and sticking out 4 months in jail, rather than further embarrass herself by testifying that it was she who told Bob Novak that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent "once upon a time."

All we have to do is to be patient. This story will be revealed in its entirety, eventually.

Char

9 posted on 07/13/2005 10:25:20 PM PDT by CHARLITE (I propose a co-Clinton team as permanent reps to Pyonyang, w/out possibility of repatriation....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
That's assuming the source is Rove, in which case, why is she willing to go to jail for a guy who signed a release? This is unexplained. If it's not Rove, then I can see why she would go to jail... it's either she herself, or someone on the Left - Hillary of the FBI files maybe?
10 posted on 07/13/2005 10:26:36 PM PDT by thoughtomator (For all you love to survive, Islam must be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
Judith Miller, the finest reporter over there at the New York Times, sits in jail, even as we speak, for reasons that are so obscure that I still can’t figure it out.

Because she knows damning information about the Niger trip.
Rove gave her permission to speak, buy she's covering for the Democrats and the NYT. She knows what Arkansaside is.
Remember, she was the one that was suspected of tipping off the U.S. charity sending money to the PLO terrorists and screwed up Fitzgerald's investigation ( he's been investigating terrorists since 1993).
Now, he's investigating something else, and she won't talk to him. She says she fears for her life this time. She does have pro-Democrat/pro-terrorist ties.

11 posted on 07/13/2005 10:33:57 PM PDT by concerned about politics ("A people without a heritage are easily persuaded (deceived)" - Karl Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
Meanwhile, Judith Miller sits in jail.

Which is right where she belongs.
Remember, it was Miller who tipped off the Holy Land Foundation (suspected Islamic terrorism front) about an impending federal raid, thereby sending the terrorists on a massive shredding party and destroying all the evidence. Miller is a pig, and she is protecting only herself, her employer, and her party from embarrassment. Her "source" has waived confidentiality. Like Rush said, it's not up to Judith Miller to decide whether such a waiver is "coerced" or not.

12 posted on 07/13/2005 10:34:02 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
Meanwhile, ( I hear the roaring sound of silence from the MSM ) sentencing for former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, who pled guilty in April to stealing and destroying top secret terrorism documents from the National Archives, has been delayed.

Why would he feel it necessary to steal terrorist documents? What would the democrats have to hide when it comes to terrorism?

13 posted on 07/13/2005 10:40:26 PM PDT by concerned about politics ("A people without a heritage are easily persuaded (deceived)" - Karl Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
Maybe some emphasis will answer the writer's first phrase. The First Amendment includes no right to refuse to answer the questions of a grand jury.

I'm not disagreeing with you, exactly, just pointing out that it's not that clear-cut. The law has always accepted the notion of privileged communications -- spousal, priest-penitent, doctor-patient, lawyer-client --on the principle that society benefits from those protections more than it suffers from the impediment to investigating crimes.

The argument in favor of a "reporter's privilege" isn't inventing a new legal theory; it's just arguing that the job of a reporter is similarly situated with those of priests, doctors and lawyers, in that they can't do the job if they can't ensure candor by protecting anonymity. That argument presupposes that the job is worth doing, and that society benefits in some way the law should protect.

Is protecting confidential sources an inherent part of freedom of the press, necessary for it to do its work? SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that it isn't. But 31 (at the low end; the number varies in various sources) state legislatures thought it was, and passed shield laws, so it can't be dismissed as a fringe notion.

14 posted on 07/13/2005 10:41:11 PM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
There is something going on that none of us understands. There is something BIG being looked into and I don't really think Valarie Plame has much to do with it.

I don't think Miller is protecting Rove, after all what would be the point after the Times reporter testified and Times "leaked" the e-mails to whoever.

I have a feeling, a very strong feeling, that this has something to do with the War on Terror.

15 posted on 07/13/2005 10:42:31 PM PDT by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

After the grand jury is dismissed, if she still hasn't revealed her source, Novack will reveal it. She's sitting in jail for nothing.


16 posted on 07/13/2005 10:46:14 PM PDT by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
Drafter of intel statute:
Rove accusers ignorant (WND article)

Lawyer who wrote law to protect agents says Plame charge doesn't meet standard

Democrat leaders and editorialists accusing Karl Rove of treason for referring to CIA agent Valerie Plame in an off-the-record interview are ignorant of the law, according to the Washington attorney who spearheaded the legislation at the center of the controversy.

17 posted on 07/13/2005 10:47:09 PM PDT by concerned about politics ("A people without a heritage are easily persuaded (deceived)" - Karl Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError
SCOTUS ruled that in THIS case it was not. Perhaps because THIS case pertains to national security.

Just remember, SCOTUS knows what this case is about, we do not.

18 posted on 07/13/2005 10:48:16 PM PDT by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError
That argument presupposes that the job is worth doing, and that society benefits in some way the law should protect.

In the context of the MSM press twisting their jobs into open treason against the nation, the New York Times especially so, the idea that the job is worth doing is laughable, and the idea that there are societal benefits is preposterous.

This is a federal case, where there is no shield law that applies. Miller hasn't a leg to stand on, and I'm becoming more and more curious as to who she is protecting.

19 posted on 07/13/2005 10:50:23 PM PDT by thoughtomator (For all you love to survive, Islam must be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999
"After the grand jury is dismissed, if she still hasn't revealed her source, Novack will reveal it. She's sitting in jail for nothing."

.....he'll do a "Woodward & Bernstein" style book, and make a fortune. It will then be made into a movie or TV docudrama series. Novak must be smiling like the Cheshire Cat right around now.

Thanks for your comments, McGavin999!

Char :)

20 posted on 07/13/2005 10:52:04 PM PDT by CHARLITE (I propose a co-Clinton team as permanent reps to Pyonyang, w/out possibility of repatriation....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999
There is something going on that none of us understands. There is something BIG being looked into and I don't really think Valarie Plame has much to do with it.............I have a feeling, a very strong feeling, that this has something to do with the War on Terror.

I think it has to do with the Wilson/Niger trip specifically. All the players in the trip, including the UN/France/German yellow cake controllers and the owner of the NYT, were anti-Bush/anti-war.
If the whole trip was designed to interfere with information that delt with National security, some one is in big trouble. That's espionage.

21 posted on 07/13/2005 10:53:50 PM PDT by concerned about politics ("A people without a heritage are easily persuaded (deceived)" - Karl Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

This is rich. The media telling me to be sorry for New Yopk Times reporter Miller because so many lying liberal propaganda whores get away with their distortions and fabrications. "Freedom of the Press!!!" I shout in somnambulistic rage.


22 posted on 07/13/2005 11:09:22 PM PDT by Once-Ler (Beating a dead horse for NeoCon America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999
SCOTUS ruled that in THIS case it was not. Perhaps because THIS case pertains to national security.

SCOTUS didn't rule on this case. It declined to hear the appeal. From that we can infer, with many disclaimers, that it was basically okay with the lower court's ruling, but that's as far as it goes.

23 posted on 07/13/2005 11:15:06 PM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
If the whole trip was designed to interfere with information that delt with National security, some one is in big trouble. That's espionage.

Nice to see someone put it in words.

24 posted on 07/13/2005 11:15:46 PM PDT by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics

If it is espionage, then Miller isn't getting out in October. I wonder if she realizes this?


25 posted on 07/13/2005 11:17:54 PM PDT by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics

Somebody tell me about Fitzgerald........?


26 posted on 07/13/2005 11:18:10 PM PDT by Shortstop7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
This is a federal case, where there is no shield law that applies. Miller hasn't a leg to stand on,

I'm assuming -- I haven't read any of the filings -- that she's asserting that protecting anonymous sources is an inherent right of a free press, so no explicit shield law is necessary. Of course, it's possible she's willing to take the hit and stew for a few months to stir up support for a federal shield law.

and I'm becoming more and more curious as to who she is protecting.

I was wondering about that, too. It's probably not Rove, because both his lawyer and Cooper's lawyer have commented in public about the arrangements to waive confidentiality. If Miller's source was Rove, and she couldn't swing a similar deal to avoid doing time, she should fire her lawyer(s).

A lot of folks on DU will tell you her source was Cheney. A lot of folks on FR will tell you it was Leahy. A lot of folks base their beliefs on what they prefer to believe rather than on demonstrable fact.

27 posted on 07/13/2005 11:26:10 PM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
And .. since the source signed a release .. Judy was not under obligation to keep the information secret.

Ah, but you seem to be implying that Rove was her source.

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that Miller would go to jail to protect Rove. Maybe she is using her 5th amendment right against self-incrimination... just a thought.

28 posted on 07/13/2005 11:32:45 PM PDT by Aunt Polgara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Aunt Polgara

"... implying that Rove was her source"

I was "implying" no such thing.

I rather suspect it's some high level democrat and the NYT doesn't want to reveal it.


29 posted on 07/13/2005 11:59:08 PM PDT by CyberAnt (President Bush: "America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator

Judith's source IS NOT ROVE!

I rather suspect it's some high level dem and the NYT is covering it up.


30 posted on 07/14/2005 12:14:42 AM PDT by CyberAnt (President Bush: "America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Aunt Polgara
Maybe she is using her 5th amendment right against self-incrimination... just a thought.

But don't you have to plead the 5th in order to plead the 5th? Has she ever said she is protecting herself?

31 posted on 07/14/2005 12:32:23 AM PDT by GLDNGUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
"Judith Miller, the finest reporter over there at the New York Times, sits in jail, even as we speak, for reasons that are so obscure that I still can’t figure it out. The essential fact is that a federal grand jury demanded that she reveal the name of a confidential source, and standing on her First Amendment rights, she refused. True grit!"

No, not true grit at all. Judith Miller is a material witness to a crime. At the very least, the crime of leaking confidential information.

That's not about revealing a "Source." Her Source apparently broke the law in front of her by leaking classified information...and she refuses to testify about that CRIME.

That's the *minimum* reason why Judith Miller deserves to be jailed.

If a reporter witnesses *any* crime, from Murder to rape to wire fraud to leaking classified information, then that reporter, like every other citizen in America, must testify about the crime in Court.

If she won't testify, then keep her jailed.

32 posted on 07/14/2005 12:37:06 AM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

The writer has good points. Let's toss all those others into jail too.


33 posted on 07/14/2005 12:50:17 AM PDT by kingu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
Judith refused to "give up her source," although Cliff Kincaid and John Podhoretz have both surmised that Judith's source might be Judith herself.

No one has yet explained to me how Judith Miller could be her own source when she never even wrote an article about Plame. What, did she fabricate an imaginary friend just for her own personal late-night entertainment?

34 posted on 07/14/2005 12:57:04 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aunt Polgara

If Judith Miller claimed the Fifth then she would not be in jail, because she would not be required to testify.


35 posted on 07/14/2005 1:02:32 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Aunt Polgara

Quite correct.

The fact that she is willing to go to jail to keep something secret demonstrates pretty conclusively that her secret is not anything about Karl Rove.

1. Rove has signed a release.

2. Even if he had not, leftists would never do anything to protect him.


36 posted on 07/14/2005 2:50:28 AM PDT by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
Sources close to the investigation say there is evidence in some instances that some reporters may have told government officials -- not the other way around -- that Wilson was married to Plame, a CIA employee.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/05/AR2005070500788.html
37 posted on 07/14/2005 3:15:27 AM PDT by visualops (www.visualops.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: visualops

< Sources close to the investigation say there is evidence in some instances that some reporters may have told government officials -- not the other way around -- that Wilson was married to Plame, a CIA employee. >

Actually, that's what I heard last night. That Rove, himself learned it from a reporter.


38 posted on 07/14/2005 3:28:37 AM PDT by GOP_Proud (...when the Iraqi soldiers stand up, we will stand down...GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Proud

It doesn't make sense for the lefties to protect anyone in the administration unless they are a Clinton holdover.
I think it's one of 2 things (or perhaps both)- she is protecting herself, or this is way bigger than just who spilled the beans on Plame.


39 posted on 07/14/2005 3:40:54 AM PDT by visualops (www.visualops.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Southack; CHARLITE; Liz; All
If a reporter witnesses *any* crime, from Murder to rape to wire fraud to leaking classified information, then that reporter, like every other citizen in America, must testify about the crime in Court.

OK, y'alls should invest in aluminum foil companies after reading my thoughts; Lord knows I've had to wrap a lot around my head to formulate this and keep those evil "thought modification waves" from influincing me. I've tried to keep up with this because all along I've had a gut feeling that something "isn't quite right" with this whole Plame incident. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to keep up much because of some personal/medical problems I've been having. BUT ...

First of all; those who are saying that Miller could plead the 5th ... Unless I'm mistaken, one can not plead the 5th before a Grand Jury. Like I said, I could be mistaken.

Here's the crux of my aluminum foil mental gymnastics:

1) On July 11 a thread was posted BACKSTORY: BERGER PLEADS GUILTY TO TAKING MATERIALS (this should fuel your outrage) that caught my eye. Reading Charlite's thread today got me to thinking that ...

2) What if the full story about the actual materials that Berger stole has not been told? Perhaps he had source documents which proved the "cake/Niger" connection, and Miller became privy to that information.

3) Berger was working on Kerry's campaign, and one of the favorite topics of Anti-Bushism that the Dems were crowing about, then and now, was that we had absolutely no proof about WMDs, although W had intelligence sources from England and others, which lead him to believe the opposite.

4) Perhaps Plame was acting "under orders" from She Who Holds the FBI Files, to send her husband on his bogus mission to investigate the Niger story; all the while "She Who Holds" would have her one of her sycophants concoct a story or scenario where Plame and hubby would be embroiled in a controversy that would cast a treasonous light on the Bush Admin by "blowing" Plame's "cover" and spinning the findings of incompetent puppet-hubby as "nothing to see here in Niger." -- (Yeah, I know this was years before, but most of the time Socialists/Commies don't work in a knee-jerk fashion -- they establish ground work months/years before to be called up, or not, depending on what they want to accomplish.)

5) Now, that the background was set, all that was needed was to find a means to implicate a top-level member of the Bush Admin and place him/her in a position that smells of treason, tying him/her to the President to make it appear that W MIHOP/LIHOP. They kept the pressure up by flooding top-level White House Staff with innane questions until they found one who gave a quote, or indication, of impropriety, and spin it into scenario spun out of whole cloth of the WH manipulating public opinion to back a phony WOT.

6) Unfortunately, Rove fell into this mess with an innocuous e-mail (or was it verbal reply). Anyway, legal sources say (and the lady who wrote the law sez) that what Rove did is a non-issue. (Also, remember how the far Left operates -- repeat a lie loud enough and often enough and it becomes "Truth".) However, the left-wing minions are dragging out all of their cheerleaders and bandying this Rovian non-issue up the flag pole in an attempt to smear treason on the Bush Admin, when, in fact, it was their Admin that blew the entire Osama deal to begin with.

7) From the BACKSTORY link, above:
"Rather than the "honest mistake" he described last summer, Berger acknowledged to U.S. Magistrate Deborah Robinson that he intentionally took and deliberately destroyed three copies of the same document dealing with terror threats during the 2000 millennium celebration. He then lied about it to Archives staff when they told him documents were missing. "Guilty, your honor," Berger responded Friday when asked how he pleaded.

Magistrate Deborah Robinson did not ask Berger why he cut up the materials and threw them away at the Washington office of his Stonebridge International consulting firm. Berger, accompanied by his wife, Susan, did not offer an explanation when he addressed reporters outside the federal courthouse following the hearing.

"It was a mistake and it was wrong," he said, refusing to answer questions.
Now, I don't know about you, but he destroyed 3 documents and we only have his word as to what those documents were. Granted one of the documents may have had to do with what he states ... but what of the other 2, or 3, or 4 ... how many we will never really know.

8) The last part of my tin-foil theory goes back to the time the Clintons held the White House hostage. Remember who their "good buddies" were all along time time they were on the presidential campaign and up until the time Bubba made his spectacular "Adios to the WH video"?? ... Yeah, the Thomason's ... Hollywood manipulators. Who better suited to formulate, along with one or two "intelligence types" a long-term set-up Wag The Dog scenario? (NB: And I don't think this is the only dirty trick scenario they've been cooking up since they've lost power -- well at least since they've been losing elections -- I'm not sure about the lost power.)

OK, there's more bouncing around underneath this aluminum foil cap I'm wearing, but I think I've taken up enough bandwidth LOL. You folks feel free to rip this scenario apart, as I know it's full of holes ... but I just wonder ... It just doesn't seem like a little set-up -- it really seems that this has the hallmarks of a very sophisticated operation. I don't think there was anything "innocent" about it or the Berger sox-stuffing story.

A lot of this was prompted by Liz' excellent BACKWATER thread linked above -- if you haven't read it yet, give it a look -- plus what you folks have been talking about here. I'm just not expert at devising air-tight scenarios LOL.

40 posted on 07/14/2005 8:25:22 AM PDT by Boomer Geezer (Sgt. Wanda Dabbs, 22, of the 230th, called out, "That's my president, hooah!" and there were cheers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Boomer Geezer
Thanks for the kudos BG. Your deconstruction is interesting since it does corroborate what a lot of us are thinking, and also underlines what I posted on the thread, BACKSTORY: BERGER PLEADS GUILTY TO TAKING MATERIALS (this should fuel your outrage), as follows:

It could be reasonably postulated that the Berger pilfer was not covering for the Clintons as is commonly thought, but that the Archives theft was to reinforce Berger's usefulness as candidate John Kerry's national security advisor---to get something to use against GWB.

That possibility became more apparent when it was discovered that the US Pentagon traitor Lawrence Franklin gave US national security documents to AIPAC, and that candidate Kerry hired Steve Grossman, a past AIPAC president, as his key campaign advisor. Suspicions arose that candidate Kerry was being coached, and that somebody might have been leaking privileged national security information to Kerry in the effort to defeat President Bush.

Berger was serving as Kerry's national security consultant when he pilfered the classified US national security documents from the National Archives. So, the Berger theft may not be as originally suspected (a Clinton cover-up)----but an attempt to compromise the 2004 election to undermine George W Bush's reelection.

Americans ---that is to say the “little people”----need to know the extent of culpability engendered by these activities--- primarily whether our President was harmed ----and whether Sen Kerry and his advisors--- Steve Grossman and Sandy Berger---played any part in undercutting the reelection chances of President Bush through the use of stolen classified documents, and, of course, the degree to which spying impaired President Bush's ability to conduct US foreign policy. One of the most important questions Americans need to know about the connection between the Berger thievery, and the AIPAC-Pentagon treachery, is the degree to which these activities hurt President Bush and the president's 2004 campaign.

We should consider that Berger's thievery served several purposes:

(1) A coordinated attempt to coach Kerry----positioning Berger to get a Cabinet post if Kerry was elected, and if Hillary (gag) is elected.

(2) Covering up for the Clintons' pre-911 negligence.

(3) And finally, even after the Archives burglary, Berger was slithering around Washington involved in profiting from US government business in Iraq.

Berger's Firm to Aid Oil Interests in Iraq
By Judy Sarasohn
Washington Post Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A29

Stonebridge International, the "global strategy firm" founded by Berger, has taken on an interesting client, Gulfsands Petroleum Ltd., a private Houston-based oil and gas company. Gulfsands, along with its larger partner Devon Energy Corp. of Oklahoma City, has oil and gas exploration and development interests in Syria. And now Gulfsands is looking to Iraq. "Stonebridge is assisting Gulfsands in organizing meetings in Washington with administration officials to discuss the company's business interests in Iraq and U.S. policy toward Syria," Stonebridge Vice Chairman H.P. Goldfield said in an e-mail response to written questions.

Remember, his Gulfsands office is the place where Berger cut up the classified Archives documents.

We should ponder this: when caught with the goods in his skivvies, Sandy Berger admitted to taking top secret documents the National Archives did not even know went missing. ....leading one to conclude, Berger took a lot more than he has been wont to reveal, a lot more than even the Archives knew about.

Berger's plea deal is conditioned on Berger's "cooperation." We need to make very certain that we, the people, got something in return for Berger's plea deal. Like for whose benefit the documents were being stolen, when was the order given, who was involved in the conspiracy, and who knew about it.

We demand to know:

(1) Have all the people who conspired with Berger been named and prosecuted?

(2) Did Berger actually destroy stolen docs--as he said---or are they being secreted for Berger's self-serving reasons: (a) for Hillary's campaign in exchange for Berger getting a political appointment, for (b) Berger's financial benefit in his oil consulting business, (c) to cover-up 9/11?

(3) Berger admitted to stealing documents the Archives did not list as missing .

(4) What did he do with them? Is his plea deal conditioned on Berger returning these as well?

(5) Who was in on the cover-up?

In an earlier public statement, Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department’s public integrity section, would not discuss Berger’s motivation, but said the former national security adviser understood the rules governing the handling of classified materials.

So why isn't the public allowed to share the info about Berger's motivation?? Why is Hillman holding this back? These compelling questions should be posed to the proper authorities.

Communicate your concerns about Berger's plea deal to the judge who wwas sent to sentence Berger July 8 (now postponed to September).


U.S. Magistrate Deborah Robinson
c/o US District Court
US Dept of Justice
Judiciary Center
555 4th Street NW
Washington, DC 20530

Phone (202) 514-6933

Caution: phone number listed is a prosecutor - keep messages short and civil.

41 posted on 07/14/2005 8:56:53 AM PDT by Liz (First God made idiots, for practice. Then he made Congress. Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt

HI CA,

I'm confused. In reply #8, you claimed that Judith Miller's source "signed a release".

The only person I am aware of having signed a release is Karl Rove, and yet in reply 29 you denied that you are "implying that Rove was her source."

My question is, then, how do you know that Miller's "source" signed a release, if the "source" is not Karl Rove? Was there a report that her "source" signed such a release that I missed? Thanks.


42 posted on 07/14/2005 2:00:26 PM PDT by Aunt Polgara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Aunt Polgara

"Judith Miller's source "signed a release"


That's what the media was saying HER LAWYER HAD STATED. Also .. it was stated that Judith didn't accept the "release" because she believed it was coersed from her source.

Just think about it for a moment .. would a flaming liberal/democrat reporter who works for the NYT be the slighest bit worried if a Rove "release" was coersed ..?? I don't think so. That's why MILLER'S SOURCE CANNOT BE KARL ROVE!!!


43 posted on 07/14/2005 4:19:58 PM PDT by CyberAnt (President Bush: "America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt

CA, we are in complete agreement. There is no way that Miller is trying to protect Rove. I misunderstood your post.

Whether the release was coerced or not is not Miller's concern. And Rove's lawyer reassured everyone that Rove's release is real.

I wonder who she is protecting? Wilson? Miller herself? hmmm... this is going to get very interesting before it's over.


44 posted on 07/14/2005 4:36:41 PM PDT by Aunt Polgara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson