How does the right explain Judith Miller?

[chomerics]

If the media is liberal, and the NY Times is the poster child of the "liberal media" how does somebody like Judith Miller get to push a Right Wing radical ideology based entirely on lies?

How do the righties explain Judith Millers association with the white house, and the fact that she was pimping their stories in a so-called "liberal" newspaper?

[Thiebear]

I will if you will:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121796

Judith Miller was removed from the IRAQI war coverage because she made things up?

Then she went to jail to not name a source that she can no longer remember?

Jayson Blaire in drag?

[Joe Sick]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051021/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_investigation;_ylt=Av9_IvgynjtvEK92vNzLEj2s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

Editor Says He Missed Miller 'Alarm Bells'

WASHINGTON - The New York Times' Judith Miller belatedly gave prosecutors her notes of a key meeting in the CIA leak probe only after being shown White House records of it, and her boss declared Friday she appeared to have misled the newspaper about her role.

In a dramatic e-mail, Executive Editor Bill Keller wrote Times' employees he wished he'd more carefully interviewed Miller and had "missed what should have been significant alarm bells" that she had been the recipient of leaked information about the CIA officer at the heart of the case.

"Judy seems to have misled (Times Washington bureau chief) Phil Taubman about the extent of her involvement," Keller wrote in what he described as a lessons-learned e-mail. "This alone should have been enough to make me probe deeper."

Keller said he might have been more willing to compromise with Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald "if I had known the details of Judy's entanglement" with Vice President

Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Miller's attorney, Bob Bennett, did not immediately return calls seeking her response to Keller.

Fitzgerald is investigating the disclosure of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

In a sign the prosecutor may be preparing indictments, Fitzgerald's office erected a Web site Friday containing the record of the broad investigative mandate handed to him by the Justice Department at the outset of his investigation. Unlike some of his predecessors who operated under a law that has since expired, Fitzgerald is not required to write a final report, so he would not need a Web site for that purpose.

Meanwhile, two lawyers familiar with Fitzgerald's investigation told The Associated Press that Fitzgerald first learned from White House records that Miller had met as early as June 23, 2003, with Libby and discussed the CIA operative.

In her first grand jury appearance Sept. 30 after being freed from prison for refusing to testify, Miller did not mention the meeting and retrieved her notes about it only when prosecutors showed her visitor logs showing she had met with Libby in the Old Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House.

The lawyers spoke only on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing secrecy of the grand jury probe and the prosecutor's desire to keep his communications with lawyers and witnesses confidential.

One lawyer familiar with Miller's testimony said the reporter told prosecutors at first that she did not believe the June meeting would have involved Plame. Miller said that, because she had just returned from covering the Iraq war, she was probably giving Libby an update about her experiences there, the lawyer said.

However, Miller retrieved her notes and discovered they indicated that Libby had given her information about Plame at that meeting. Fitzgerald then arranged for her to return to the grand jury to testify about it, the lawyers said.

The evidence of that meeting has become important to the investigation because it indicates that Libby was passing information to reporters about Plame well before her husband, Joseph Wilson, went public with accusations that the Bush administration had twisted prewar intelligence on Iraq to exaggerate the threat it posed.

Libby and top presidential political adviser Karl Rove have emerged as central figures in the probe because they had contacts with reporters who learned Plame's identity or disclosed it in news stories.

Fitzgerald began his probe to determine whether presidential aides violated a law prohibiting the intentional disclosure of covert CIA officers, and had tried to out Plame to punish Wilson for his criticism, undercut the credibility of his allegations or silence similar critics.

But the investigation has also examined evidence of a possible coverup. Fitzgerald has made clear to defense lawyers that he could pursue charges such as false testimony, obstruction of justice, or mishandling of classified information. As those discussions have gotten more intense in recent days, the White House is increasingly wary of indictments.

AP reported earlier this week Rove testified Libby may have been his initial source of information inside the White House about Plame before he talked to reporters. Prosecutors have linked the vice president's top aide to contacts with at least three reporters in the affair. Libby met three times with Miller before Plame was outed, though she never wrote a story herself.

Conflicts between presidential aides' testimony and other evidence could result in criminal charges. The grand jury investigating the matter for the last two years is set to expire next Friday.

Keller's e-mail was designed to quell tensions inside a newsroom roiled by Miller's close connections to Libby, a key figure in the leak probe. Miller's reporting on possible weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the invasion bolstered the Bush administration's arguments for action.

Later, after no such WMD weapons were found, she and the paper admitted some information she reported was flawed. The Bush administration likewise acknowledged some of it prewar intelligence was erroneous.

Keller said in his e-mail he believed the paper was too slow to correct the original reporting and to get to the bottom of the facts about Miller's involvement with Libby.

"If we had lanced the WMD boil earlier, we might have damped any suspicion that THIS time the paper was putting the defense of a reporter above the duty of its readers," he said.

[nelms]

Homo says what?

[Larry]

The evidence of that meeting has become important to the investigation because it indicates that Libby was passing information to reporters about Plame well before her husband, Joseph Wilson, went public with accusations that the Bush administration had twisted prewar intelligence on Iraq to exaggerate the threat it posed.

First time I've seen that, and it would be a significant piece of news.

[Thiebear]

Larry,

Not only that but why does every major scandal that could end a Republican have to have a Libby in it .

[Larry]

I'm remembering a line I'd heard many years ago.

• Republican scandals are always about money.
  
• Democrat scandals are always about sex.
  

I've noticed some exceptions, since I heard that. (Although, I can't think of one right now.)

[chomerics]

Here is my problem with Miller, and nobody is even attempting to tackle the real crux of the issue.

Judith Miller was talking for Dick Cheney, and the WHIGs (White House Iraq Group) and printing their talking points in a major national paper. The articles were all lies, and based on evidence the administration knew was flimsy at best (the Chalibi stooges). She was an integral part of the WHIGs plan for building up charges against Iraq, hence her close ties to the Administration.

So here you have a White House, using a national paper to promote their propaganda, and the USING the propaganda as a justification for an illegal pre-emptive war. The Plame incident is just the tip of the iceberg, and it exposes a vast network of internal connections between the managing editor of the NY Times, to Judith Miller, to Dick Cheney, to Chalibi and every other stooge they used to fear America into this war.

[DeanCollins]

Hey Chom, since this thread started , there are now rumors that Miller with withdraw herself. I think she will, as this is proving to being troublesome for Bush, he alienated both sides of the isle.

[Joe Sick]

Here is my problem with Miller, and nobody is even attempting to tackle the real crux of the issue.

Judith Miller was talking for Dick Cheney, and the WHIGs (White House Iraq Group) and printing their talking points in a major national paper. The articles were all lies, and based on evidence the administration knew was flimsy at best (the Chalibi stooges). She was an integral part of the WHIGs plan for building up charges against Iraq, hence her close ties to the Administration.

So here you have a White House, using a national paper to promote their propaganda, and the USING the propaganda as a justification for an illegal pre-emptive war. The Plame incident is just the tip of the iceberg, and it exposes a vast network of internal connections between the managing editor of the NY Times, to Judith Miller, to Dick Cheney, to Chalibi and every other stooge they used to fear America into this war.

She got her quotes from Scooter in Cheney's office, then the WHIG and others would use these quotes as "evidence" that they needed. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy and a dangerous precedent.

This is why I could've cared less if she went to jail. Protecting legitimate sources is one thing. Protecting sources who are using you to further their agenda and ending up being wrong, is quite another thing.

---------

Also, some good quotes from Maureen Dowd's op-ed in the NY Times.

Sorely in need of a tight editorial leash, Judy Miller was kept on no leash at all, and that has hurt this paper and its trust with readers.

Judy told The Times that she plans to write a book and intends to return to the newsroom, hoping to cover "the same thing I've always covered - threats to our country." If that were to happen, the institution most in danger would be the newspaper in your hands.

It appears that they have turned loose their own writers, to say how this is just as embarassing as the Jayson Blair incident.

[Cdowwe]

The right cant explain her...thats why they are so divided on the issue

[chomerics]

She got her quotes from Scooter in Cheney's office, then the WHIG and others would use these quotes as "evidence" that they needed. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy and a dangerous precedent.

This is why I could've cared less if she went to jail. Protecting legitimate sources is one thing. Protecting sources who are using you to further their agenda and ending up being wrong, is quite another thing.

So true. That's my main problem with this entire thing too, it basically the blueprint on how to attack a country, but Plame got caught up in the midddle of it. Miller was "protecting" America from the truth, not for ligitimate sorce/client reasons. . . she was a flack, and she duped the entire country. She gave Cheney the ability to quote himself, and that is how we got involved into a war where there was no threat to us.

Instead, we have now taken a NON-threat, and turned it into a THREAT. :doh:

Also, some good quotes from Maureen Dowd's op-ed in the NY Times.

Sorely in need of a tight editorial leash, Judy Miller was kept on no leash at all, and that has hurt this paper and its trust with readers.

Judy told The Times that she plans to write a book and intends to return to the newsroom, hoping to cover "the same thing I've always covered - threats to our country." If that were to happen, the institution most in danger would be the newspaper in your hands.

It appears that they have turned loose their own writers, to say how this is just as embarassing as the Jayson Blair incident.

Yea, the NY Times readers are quite pissed, as well they should be. They had a flack front and center for the paper, and they KNEW it!!! The press got it's backbone after Katrina, and they're all trying to be the one who breaks the story now though.

[chomerics]

Homo says what?

what?

[nelms]

Originally Posted by nelms

Homo says what?

Originally Posted by chomerics

what?

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Epistopheles]

Miller's reporting on possible weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the invasion bolstered the Bush administration's arguments for action.

Later, after no such WMD weapons were found, she and the paper admitted some information she reported was flawed. The Bush administration likewise acknowledged some of it prewar intelligence was erroneous.

Ooh. Sounds like the NYT got played by the Bush Administration like a fiddle. I don't suppose they're too happy about that. Sounds like Miller is more a swilling participant in the nasty War of Wartime Public Relations than a victim.

What ARE they teaching these kids in the Ethics classes at Journalism school these days?

[chomerics]

What ARE they teaching these kids in the Ethics classes at Journalism school these days?

The Right Wing Noise Machine has NO ethics, they never have had any. That is the problem, they complain the other side isn't objective, while being as subjective as possible. . . Unfortuantely, for our country, it has desecrated our democracy.

[wskin44]

Just observing her, Miller appears to be a little immature. She is enjoying the notoriety too much. Some smart folks in the White House saw her weakness and used her. Now everyone is trying to distance themselves from her. Politicians have always used idiots in the media for their own ends.

[Predicto]

Apparently, Miller had the ear of the NYT publisher (Sulzburger sp?) and he overrode the concerns of the NYT editorial staff about her. She got to freelance without oversight because the big boss said she could.

[Soliloquy]

From Slate :

It's Getting Webby! Petrelis notes that Judith Miller's latest response to NYT Public Editor Byron Calame has been posted on Calame's Web site. ... The ledes: a) Yes, there's a fact dispute between Miller and NYT Managing Editor Jill Abramson, not some other mystery editor. ... Miller seems mystified by exactly what new development has caused her own paper turn on her. She has a point. ... c) If she keeps on not going quietly like this the paper's not going to be big enough for her and #1 editor Bill Keller. And it's not clear that Miller's protector, Times publisher Pinch Sulzberger, can afford to favor her in that fight. ...

P.S.--Note to Miller: The left hates you. The right isn't going to come to your rescue. You have no base of support except the man at the top. Just like Harriet Miers! It's not enough for her and it's not enough for you. ... 2:09 A.M.