[rightinthemiddle]

Are you sure this is from the NYT?

Sounds like they want it to go away, too.

[Doogle]

...hmmm...noticing Miller's name not in the "cleared" column
could it be...???...


Doogle

[Alberta's Child]

In the midst of all the frenzied speculation about this story, one very important issue has been overlooked.

Judith Miller went to prison for two months -- accompanied by plenty of outrage among the media at the prosecutor -- because she refused to divulge her confidential source(s) for a story she was writing. When she eventually testified, it turned out that her testimony actually went a long way toward exonerating Rove and Libby of any wrongdoing in the so-called "leak."

This -- aside from the fact that there is no such thing as "protection of sources" under the First Amendment -- is precisely why the media should never be permitted to hide behind its sources in refusing to divulge information related to a criminal investigation. Anyone who refuses to provide information in a criminal investigation in which his/her testimony would exonerate an innocent person should serve a minimum of 25 years in prison.

[mainer554]

This is NOT the NYT. Check out the Times site for the real article, which comes to a very different conclusion. Newsmax has rewritten it in a wildly optimistic way, and inserted a lot of editorial matter (such as the impropriety of the original charges) that simply doesn't appear. Not sure of the motivation here, but ther's some serious wishful thinking involved.