Posted on 10/25/2005 9:26:05 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
TIMES TRASHFEST
IN the past few days, writers and editors of The New York Times have taken turns trashing the talent, integrity, skills and character of their colleague, Judith Miller — a reporter who had just spent nearly three months in jail defending the paper's journalistic rights against a hard-charging special prosecutor whose appointment the Times had demanded two years before.
It's fair to say that nothing like this has ever happened before in the annals of American journalism. No one contemporaneously employed by a newspaper has ever been assailed by a colleague in its pages the way Maureen Dowd assailed Miller on Saturday.
Dowd had the gall to say she "liked" Miller even as she calmly dumped a bucket of slime over Miller's "tropism toward powerful men, her frantic intensity and her peculiar mixture of hard work and hauteur."
SNIP
THE issue that has ostensibly caused this unprecedented character assas sination is Miller's involvement in the public exposure of CIA operative Valerie Plame. And in this case, no one at the paper is accusing Miller of making anything up — because she never published anything on the subject. Nor can anyone accuse Judith Miller of harming the reputation of an innocent —
SNIP
The outraged prose on this matter from writers outside the Times — like Greg Mitchell of Editor and Publisher and the just-out-of-the-nuthouse cases populating the Huffington Post on the Web — suggests that if only the Times had published nothing articles more skeptical of the WMD claims, it could have kept the war from happening.
Because, you know, the world revolves around the Times. The world spins on its axis around a liberal newspaper of declining influence . . . whose most famous and powerful staffers now think there's great merit in devouring their own.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Maybe Dowd thought Miller's incarceration was a drum roll to the release of something that would bring the Bush administration crashing down, only to find out that Miller was just actually protecting a source!
The only thing I like about Maureen Dowd is that the mention of her name here brings forth pictures of Catherine Zeta Jones.
Catfight!!!
bttt
Mrs. Miller has dared to tell the truth and she is taking a beating for it. If she would only spew some baseless venom in the direction of the White House, all would be forgiven.
She has embarrassed them. they all thought she would be instrumental in hanging Rove and she wasnt.
If you think she is being slimed wait until you see what they do to the prosecutor if he doesnt indict someone. They have already hanged Rove and Libby. If the prosecutor doesnt charge them they will hang him.
Judy Miller refused to accept the Times party line which INSISTS that Bush and Cheney FABRICATED data in order to go to war with Iraq.
It is looking more and more like the CIA actually delivered poor intelligent data that everyone from the executive branch ( both Clinton and Bush administration) and Congress ( witness the speeches made by every single Senator and Congressman from Kerry, to Gore to Waxman ) thought was evidence that Saddam had WMDs.
We need to remind ourselves that NOT ONLY Bush but also, the Senate Intelligence Committee of which John Kerry himself was a mmeber and privy to intel info, ALL believed the information the CIA gave to them.
The CIA overestimated Saddam's WMD capabilities and of course, our leaders both in the White House and in Congress interpreted intel data TAKEN TOGETHER Pessimistically.
The NY TIMES however, wants to make you and I believe that ONLY Bush, acting with malice and mis-interpreting and deliberately lying, interpreted the intel data provided by the CIA, to mean that Saddam had WMDs. The fact is, the CIA provided poor information which was interpreted in the same way by almost everyone who had access to the info.
Since Miller refused to toe the NY TIMES line ( i.e., Bush is SOLELY to blame and acted with Malice ), she is being ostracized for this.
At least thats the way I see it.
Well met, sir knight; this is a fine post you have laid before us this morning.
I recommend that folks read it all. Personally I don't share Podhoretz's sympathy for Miller -- a squamous, legless creature who typifies the Times staff even as her former peers reject her.
But disorder in the house of mine enemy -- I'll take it. For the nation, having the Times eating itself is as good as a falling out between bin Laden and Zarkawi.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Why are they trashing Miller? Is it because they think she's the one in trouble? If she had the goods on Rove and Libby they wouldn't be doing this. I say stay tuned.
It may be suggesting that Fitzgerald's Rove/Libbey gun is all smoke.
11 posted on 10/25/2005 10:42:12 AM MDT by feyler
I think she is going to indited and they want to distance themselves from her!
This is based on a left wing reality disconnect. Saw Howard Fineman this morning saying it's all about the war not being justified and the Bush administration "stopping at nothing" to trash the people who tried to expose it. That just is not reality, but they believe it.
Instead the Old Grey Whore became butt boy for Clinton in 1998 slavishly passing along Clintonista's stories of Iraqi, Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons and programs. In this respect the NYT is culpable for the invasion of Iraq.
IMHO: there probably would not have been an attack on Iraq but not for 9-11 and in this the NYT miscalculated the end game in their attempts to change the subject on Clinton.
As for Miller, she will become the NYT's worst nightmare.
If she had the goods on Rove and Libby they wouldn't be doing this.
This bears repeating. Certainly the NY Times would not be trashing the "star witness for the prosecution" in an upcoming trial of Rove or Libby. Something else is going on here. It will be fun to see all the disappointed Kos kids and DUmmies.
thank you....
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.