Posted on 10/15/2005 4:35:48 PM PDT by Laverne
You mean, Rove or someone in the White House didn't do it?
jeez... imagine that.
NYT won't apologize to the POTUS I bet.
The only "serious issue" that was raised that they are disappointed that Libby wasn't fingered in the article.
Miller's article is not "devastating". It only appears that way to those in the media who want to bring down the Bush administration.
As usual, the media finds the truth to be devastating.
"Among other things, the article discloses that in the same notebook that Miller belatedly turned over to the federal prosecutor last month, chronicling her July 8, 2003, interview with I. Lewis Libby, she wrote the name "Valerie Flame." She surely meant Valerie Plame, but when she testified for a second time in the case this week, she could not recall who mentioned that name to her, the Times said. She said she "didn't think" she heard it from Libby, a longtime friend and source."
Being a long time source for the NY Times is not something I expected to hear about Scooter Libby.
At the risk of sounding dense, could someone explain in a nutshell what this article is saying?
I must be equally dense. I haven't a clue.
Did they describe him as a friend to imply that Miller is covering for him?
Do you sense my contempt of Congress and politicians?
Oh no! Another week of Chris Matthews frothing at the mouth. He'll be asking who ate the strawberries before Friday.
This story is so confusing it makes my head spin. I also think it's much ado about nothing.
I think they were saying the devastation was Judith Miller and the way the NYT handled the story. I do not think the article implied it was devastating to the administration, but to be honest I cannot figure out what the writer of this article is saying.
...I think we'll have a magnificent analysis starting at, oh, about noon ET, Monday...from a certain radio personality....
BTW...Condi and Louis Freeh on "Meet the Press" tomorrow....
"Did they describe him as a friend to imply that Miller is covering for him?"
I don't know their motive. But for Scooter's sake let's hope it's not true.
After reading that I feel as if I've had four stiff drinks. Slightly befuddled.
"It is a BS law."
The actual law is not bad. It should be a crime to deliberately expose an undercover agent for the purpose of doing him or her harm.
How it's being used in this case is a separate issue.
This whole "scandal" was jinned up by the DNC from the start. Ooops! They forgot Ames is at Club Fed for outing the -itch to start with.
That the Slimes knows the jig is up, that the public is about to discover that they and the rest of the MSM have deliberately lied and distorted facts in order to damage the Bush Administration by trying and convicting two senior White House aides with no evidence pointing to a non-wrongdoing. That the Slimes knows that in order to salvage their "credibility" (try not to choke to death laughing over that), they have to find a sacrificial goat, and they've just placed the horns on Judith Miller. That Judith Miller's much-anticipated book about her "ordeal" just got sent straight to the remainder bin.
Among other things.
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.