Posted on 07/15/2005 9:07:16 AM PDT by RobFromGa
you know the story is hurting Dems when Yahoo doesn't link it on their homepage news!
Nope, he doesn't. Because I've never pinged him. And you DO have to be logged in. I'm really not sure the purpose of this discussion?
morning shows barely touched it today, either, except for ABC whose Diane Sawyer totally LIED, introducing Sam & Cokie with, "new and damaging revelations today that Karl Rove did indeed speak with another reporter" though Sam did mention at one point that it was important to note that said conversation was instigated by Novak who told Rove the news, not the other way around, as the libs & media had concocted.
Rush stated he is seething inside from something not related to the news.
Your #152 ROTFLMAO!!!
Miller, herself, supported the existence of WMDs and often wrote about it. She was also under great pressure to change her story. I have read that she was on the outs with many of her associates for the stance that she had taken.
That's long been my suspicion - she works in Miller's area, the person is obviously not a WH person (who waived confidentiality) and would be important enough for the press & libs to protect that she'd go to jail for them (lest their conspiracy to concoct this thing be revealed)
No, Plame wasn't a writer, just a source.
It is amazing that you can tolerate the irrationality of the left. I sometimes wonder if there isn't a genetic component to being a leftist. Anyone who has a rational mind and can view objective reality cannot accept many of the positions of the left. They would be laughable if there weren't so dangerous to young minds.
Friday, February 18, 2005
Nina Totenberg's remarks on NPR from Wednesday morning.
Totenberg offered the explanation for why New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Time magazine's Matthew Cooper face jail while syndicated columnist Robert Novak - the journalist who actually revealed Valerie Plame's identity as an undercover CIA "operative" - is apparently being left alone.
"I can only speculate here. Since Robert Novak was the prime mover in this story, we have to assume, if we're speculating, that he has, in some measure, cooperated with the prosecutors and said to them, "So-and-so gave me this information, but he had no idea she was an undercover agent. Therefore, he wasn't committing a crime. This wasn't part of any larger strategy to discredit Ambassador Wilson." If there wasn't any strategy, well, then other reporters wouldn't have been called by the same source. So conceivably, what the prosecutor is trying to do here is find out if there was a strategy to discredit Ambassador Wilson and, if there was, if the people who had the strategy knew that Valerie Plame was a covert operative didn't care and disclosed her name anyway."
Novak himself offered before he stopped talking about this in public - a defense that I described in a Phoenix piece in October 2003:
The idea that Plame was covert, but not all that covert, has been at the heart of Novak's defense. In an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press this past Sunday (following Wilson; too bad host Tim Russert couldn't get them on together), Novak stuck to the line he took in his October 1 column, contending that the revelation had been offered to him "off-handedly," and that he didn't attach all that much importance to it. And though he conceded that he was asked not to name her, he contended he wasn't asked with much conviction.
"If they'd said she was in danger, I never would have written the column," he said. Indeed, he added, if his source really didn't want Plame outed, all that person had to do was get [then-CIA director] George Tenet on the phone.
Novak's account was intriguing, raising the question of when a request not to name an undercover CIA employee is sincere, and when it is merely ass-covering. So, too, was Novak's explanation of why he originally called Plame "an agency operative," which suggests something rather serious: he said he tends to call lots of people "operatives," including "political hacks," and that it was more unthinking cliché on his part than considered description. In fact, Novak said, she is an "analyst," and he challenged anyone to look up his use of the word operative on Lexis-Nexis. I took the challenge, and found that he has used the word about 200 times over the past 10 years. So score one for the Prince of Darkness.
BY DAN KENNEDY
http://tinyurl.com/bvfjg
Yeah, that's where I heard it. I can't believe that Rush hasn't heard!
> The Miller capitulation was real news
Oops. I meant the Matthew Cooper capitulation.
Miller is still stonewalling.
Me! Dummy! (not you getmeout) LOL!
I cannot tolerate listening to Corn for one second. The utter arrogance of that guy makes me sick.
That's clever!!
Filthy animals, these lib pigs. I really have zero respect for them. Dean is even more stupid and borderline retarded than I could have imagined. They operate on the Goebbles principle.
Gimme a break. Re-read it. It's not that hard.
Corn is definitely a catcher, and I don't mean baseball either.
He/she is referring to the PETA donation.
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.