Judith Miller IS a split. Leastways that is what women are called by some people down south.
Judith shoudn't worry. She can probably get a job with jayson blair. :)
Anyone have that great chart of Times stock performance handy?
These big syndicated news organizations seem to be much better at allegations of blame toward others than they are at accepting responsibility for themselves. Curious.
This is eerily reminiscent of how CBS threw Mapes overboard in Memogate.
Isn't that obstruction of justice?
Its payback time for them no matter the truth.
I wonder if the Libs of Sag Harbor are now snubbing Judith when they see her shopping at Schiavoni's IGA or going to a show at the Sag Harbor Cinema or drinking wine at the American Hotel. If Miller attends the Oct. 29th Literary Costume Party at Canio's she'd better make sure she keeps her mask on, 'cause chances are she'll be the topic of angry conversation.
Come as your favorite author, poet, character and read a selection of the work. Refreshments, prizes, general merriment! Don´t miss it!
Have you ever heard of a newspaper so unreachable as this one? Apparently Keller's cell phone privileges were jerked and everyone else at the paper now has severe laryngitis. It may be, however, since I had to read the story a few times to get it straight, that even they do not understand clearly what who did and said what to whom when and with what understandings and implications.
She says she did not consider Libby's waiver voluntary until she spoke to him and received a letter urging her to "come back to work -- and life." While Keller and Abramson argued that the Times had a responsibility to level with its readers once Miller was no longer in legal jeopardy, ...
This really confuses me. Do Keller and Abramson actually mean that as long as their reporter is in legal jeopardy because of possible misrepresentation of facts, they can stonewall their readership -- and the special prosecutor -- to protect her when she was the cause of events that placed her in jeopardy? It sure sounds to me like a conspiracy to obstruct justice!
...Bennett contended that the waiver from Libby and agreement with Fitzgerald applied only to Miller's grand jury testimony and not to telling the world about her private conversations with Cheney's top aide. If revealing everything to readers "were the trumping principle," Bennett said, "you shouldn't respect confidential sources." It is not illegal, however, for grand jury witnesses to discuss their testimony.
This is especially confusing to me. Miller's attorney says publishing the complete context of information - revealing confidential sources - is not required of a reporter, which seems reasonable enough. But the article's author then ends the paragraph with a qualification not related to journalistic ethics (*cough*) but legal concerns.
Bennett said it was "absolutely false" to suggest that his client was withholding information, noting that it was a two-year-old conversation that did not seem like "a big deal at the time."
When a NYT-wit is caught with inconvenient inconsistency of facts, it really doesn't matter, eh?
In his memo, Keller said that although he wishes he had pressed much earlier for more information about Miller's encounters with Libby, "in the end, I'm pretty sure I would have concluded that we had to fight this case in court. For one thing, we were facing an insidious new menace in these blanket waivers, ostensibly voluntary, that administration officials had been compelled to sign."
Only at the NYT would the management find waivers that permitted facts to be known, the light of day to illuminate matters, the fresh air of unimpeded press to carry truth inspiringly into the public forum as an "insidious new menace"! If the administration had compelled its employees to sign such waivers, that should not be a journalistic ethical concern (*cough*) affecting decisions about revealing the facts. And if the press revealed felonious proceedings by revealing ostensibly confidential sources, let civil rights attorneys settle all self-incrimination matters. This gets goofier all the time.
Howard Kurtz joins AP's John Solomon in further demonizing Judith Miller. She wrote many articles justifying Bush's war on Iraq, the MSM hates her for that.
Oh, and the gently, self-administered wrist slaps the NYT boss is giving himself? All for show, just like Kurtz, Solomon, and the rest of the MSM are giving The New York Times.. embarassingly harmless! The Times is back on the Bash Bush bandwagon, and among the MSM swells, Judith Miller is an outcast.
But with Bennett as her lawyer, the MSM won't be able to put Judith in her coffin. She will continue to drape herself in the martyr's garb, and play the "I was willing to go to jail to protect my source" card, till she dies.
Judthith Miller and Valerie Plame are/were lovers. You heard it here first.