Posted on 10/21/2005 5:13:36 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Boy, if this ain't a novel way to drip out bad news.
The headline should be in large fonts on the front page "MILLER CAUGHT HIDING KEY EVIDENCE".
Instead, it's a minor article about a mea culpa from the editor.
New York Times reporter Judith Miller listens to other panellists speak during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on reporters' privilege legislation on Capitol Hill, October 19, 2005. Miller was jailed 85 days for refusing to testify about her conversations with Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff regarding undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)
New York Times reporter Judith Miller (C) listens to Newsday reporter Patricia Hurtado while on a panel discussion during the Society of Professional Journalists national convention at the Aladdin Hotel in Las Vegas Nevada, October 18, 2005. (Steve Marcus/Reuters)
So is thepoint of this that Judith Miller had security clearance and that she leaked classified info?
And yet the Times and Post gleefully declare that Rove and Libby, if indicted, would be charged for NOT BEING FORTHCOMING or not disclosing information, ie. doing what is now said about Miller!
And my question is also this: Why would the editor have been more compromising had he known of her "involvement" with Libby? I thought that protecting sources MEANT protecting sources! Isn't that what they had encouraged her to do? And yet we then find out he had given a waiver a year before!
The NYTimes continues to slide into the pit of fraud.
Miller didn't know why Valerie FLAME was written in her notebook. She said she didn't get it from Libby BUT she couldn't remember who. In short....She got caught hiding knowledge of Plame before Joe's article and Novak's reference to Plame, the operative!! I have no doubt that Novak meant Dem Operative. Novak and/or the Whitehouse had no reason and absolutely nothing to gain by outing her, in fact, just the opposite.
Ms. Miller, dear, your hair is looking a little flat and your makeup needs to be re-done so the shine will go away.
My wife's beauticians can hook you right up! She hired four of the best.
They'll get rid of that frizz, touch up your makeup, and give you a manicure/pedicure.
Oh, they can do white hair as well. So, sit down and shut up. You need to be beautified! At least you look better than Mother Sheehan. *BLECHT!* There ain't enough beautification in the world to help that thing.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
Also, please see The Backside of American History
You'll love this 187 page .pdf (1.99 MB)
Let me see if I can paraphrase here...
How about: "The Times lied ... people died"
Reminds me of Dan Rather....
Jayson Blair deja vu
She needs to lose the bangs. And it should be illegal to wear that much eyeliner under the eye, outside of a halloween party or got concert.
Whoops....that's "goth" concert.
"Journalism" is not pretty.
Fame's fleet has left the harbor.
FWIW, it's in an article by AP's John Solomon, which is about as close to a blockbuster as you're gonna get with a perennial non-starter like this story....
And it's an extremely interesting mea culpa, too. What does Bill Keller know, that he's started backing away from Judith Miller? Clearly there's more afoot here.
And the NYT suffers another black eye.... (sniff. So sad.)
And "Blinky" Matthews and the MSM keep on telling us that its Rove and Libby who are guilty of withholding information from the prosecutor
They say in this article that Libby revealed Plame's identity BEFORE Wilson wrote the op-ed. But they'll still continue to say that he revealed Plame's identity BECAUSE Wilson wrote the op-ed.
Can't have the revisionist history both ways. Either the notes on Plame from June were in there because Libby told her, or Libby outed Plame because of the op-ed in July.
It's okay. My wife's girls will hook her right up.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
Also, please see The Backside of American History
You'll love this 187 page .pdf (1.99 MB)
Does this guy think kicking Judith Miller to the curb will placate the liberals who work for him? Yeah, the Times' problem is that it wrote about weapons of mass destruction. Brilliant.
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.