Posted on 10/13/2005 11:35:11 PM PDT by STARWISE
Today's focus remains on Judy Miller and whether she will step forward and fully explain what she knows about the unfolding grand jury investigation, and help answer the dozens of questions that surround it, as well as the New York Times' involvement. Independent counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has given Miller the okay to talk and write about the episode. But does she want the facts out?
Time magazine's Matt Cooper did. As soon as he was permitted, Cooper wrote a revealing first-person account of his role in the investigation. And note that in the recent issue of Nieman Reports, a quarterly published by the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard, Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus, another subpoenaed reporter, spelled out the details of his participation.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
PING!
"playing" dumb? some might beg to differ that he is playing. ;-)
(Of course, columnist Robert Novak has also remained silent about his role, but he's an obvious partisan with an agenda.) What, if anything, is Russert hiding and why aren't his bosses at NBC now demanding that Russert, who's clearly part of an important news event, step forward as a journalist and report the facts as he knows them?
But Russert isn't? ROFLMAO
I think it's more a question of, do the New York Times and the Democrats want the facts out?
I thought Victoria Toensing's comments were an interesting take about the reason Novak wrote that piece .. first time I'd heard it that angle.... nepotism. As for Russert .. I bet he's saying a few novenas .. and his wife, Maureen, is probably skulking about for info from the dozens of leakers who are probably sources of hers. DC is mighty incestuous, isn't it?
Yes, wasn't it!
I've got my fingers crossed.
Let's revise that.
I think it's more a question of, is the New York Times too afraid of the Washington Post to risk spinning and fabricating elements of this story to their advantage and to their party's advantage?
Maybe they're waiting for Libby to telepathically deduce that he needs another redundant waiver and personal MillerTime call, too, first.
Holy smokes. Will the Wilson/Plame/Rove/Miller business take down the top brass of the New York Times too? Here's the NYT's "public editor" (ombudsman) Byron Calame in his weblog:
"The lifting of the contempt order against Judith Miller of The New York Times in connection with the Valerie Wilson leak investigation leaves no reason for the paper to avoid providing a full explanation of the situation. Now.
...So, assuming The Times publishes its explanation sometime in the next few days, I will be assessing it in my column on Sunday, Oct. 23. I will need time to do some reporting. A representative of Ms. Miller has indicated that she will talk to me at some point, and I would expect to have access to both Mr. Keller and Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher, if necessary."
It sounds like Calame is already doing more than Okrent ever pretended to do.
The MSM attack dogs are spinning bogus "news stories" against our elected Republican politicians for their Democrat political masters.
Just look at the last election:
1. New York Times rehashes an old hysterical crap head bogus "news story" about weapons that went missing in Iraq and are supposedly being used to kill our troops, in the week before the election.
2. CBS waves forgeries around insisting that even "if" (they have to this day never really acknowledged them as phony) the documents are fake the "news story" is still accurate.
3. AP tries to usurp the free election by hyping bogus exit poll numbers, in a bid to keep Republican voters at home.
That's just 3 horrendous blatant abuses off the top of my head, now add to that the daily negative reporting and spinning of the MSM and you got a serious problem.
The Democrat Party and the Dinosaur Media certainly are! Possible both sides but when you chart the relationships between Democrats and predominate Media types it is really really shocking.
Thanks, Jan
" During the interview, Mr. Russert was asked limited questions by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald about a telephone conversation initiated by Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff, in early July of last year. Mr. Russert told the Special Prosecutor that, at the time of that conversation, he did not know Ms. Plame's name or that she was a CIA operative and that he did not provide that information to Mr. Libby. Mr. Russert said that he first learned Ms. Plame's name and her role at the CIA when he read a column written by Robert Novak later that month.
Emphasis added to the eye-catching phrasing - Russert did not provide Libby with a name or say she was an operative, but did he say "I heard Wilson's wife is at the Agency"?"
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/10/scoring_mike_is.html
SO TRUE...Timmie "Potato(e) Head" Russert wants to keep/stay w/ the Washington, DC "IN" crowd...Timmie doesn't even notice how DUMB STUPID, he is precieved.
Isn't that what they jhave been doing for the past year; and why as well. . .this story still has any legs at all?
Here's a Russert thread for ya'...
From what I recall of the transcript, Victoria was claiming that Novak's interest in the story was because of the nepotism angle (Wislon's wife working for the CIA...and helping him get the job) and not because of some nefarious WH effort to punish Wilson. It is interesting with the media's sudden concern over Harriet Miers and this nepotism, that they just couldn't find this same concern with Wilson and his wife.
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.