'NY Times' Publishes Devastating Judith Miller Article, Raising Serious Questions...

Editor and Publisher ^ | October 15, 2005 | Greg Mtichell

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I've read it twice and still don't get it. Get me a snappy re-write man...

[antonico]

Best explanation I've seen yet is Clarice Feldman's interpretation of Judy Miller's testimony at The American Thinker website. If you haven't read it, I suggest doing so. It's VERY interesting.

[airborne]

Miller, in Saturday's article, admits, "WMD--I got it totally wrong," but then goes on to say that "all" of the other journalists, and experts and analysts, also were wrong.

Standard media policy. If you don't have a story, make one up.

If you get caught making it up, blame the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy machine.

[gpapa]

She was outed anonymously as Valarie Plame, wife of Wilson, by Robert Novak. Novak said this without citing a source; "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." [Source: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2003/07/14/160881.html]

[TheForceOfOne]

The only regret the NY Slimes has is that they failed and now someone has to clean up the mess.

[daybreakcoming]

Much appreciate the translation.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

[This was obviously to deflect attention from the Cheney office's effort to hurt Wilson.]

I missed that! You're absolutely right. Complete BS!

[SERKIT]

Could the 'Puzzle Palace' have taken a naive reporter and manipulated her all along with planted info about WMD? Hate to jump to the conspiracy theory, but what the heck....

[fullchroma]

Thank you for your excellent bottom line. Correct, succinct and dead on. The reason the "story" makes no sense is that it makes no sense. The fact that the NYT, et. al. gave this cooked-up, political hack-job scheme a drop of ink is a telling disgrace. One of so many.

[Texas Songwriter]

'NY Times' Publishes Devastating Judith Miller Article, Raising Serious Questions...,

The headlines are deceptive. It seems that the serious questions which are raised are, 'why did the Times spend millions of dollars on defending this woman', and 'why did she not go along with the Times to get the Bush Administration'.

I don't get a lot of other information from this article.

[Perdogg]

Was 'Flame' ever used by Valerie? If not, then clearly no one has violated the law. Another point: Why is Miller talking?? Clearly since she is allowed by a federal judge to do so, Libby is more than likely off the hook, right? Fitzgerald would not want his "star witless", excuse me "star witness" publically talking if Libby was a "target", or intended "target". Since Libby "role" is being defined in this, Fitzgerald has no real options against either Libby or Miller. That leaves Rove.
Obviously, Miller didn't talk to Rove. But we know Cooper did, yet who has been at the GJ lately, Rove or Miller? All bets are either on Cooper or no bill. Or someone who we haven't heard. Have I missed something here?

[kcvl]

Valerie "FLAME" was NOT COVERT no matter how many times these idiots in MSM say it, it still won't make it TRUE!!! She DROVE to work everyday at CIA in plain daylight. If that is what they consider "covert" no wonder they can't find any WMDs!

[cajungirl]

I think you are a genius to understand any of this.

I wonder if I have Altzheimers, none of this makes any sense to me. Maybe the NYT is fogging the entire issue now.

[gpapa]

Sounds like the "Puzzle Palace," aka the NYSlimes were taken by a veteran reporter to the cleaners, costing them millions of dollars in legal fees and loss of credibility, assuming it has any left. All of this to promote the argument that Iraq had no WMD. Well at one time he did, and there is no guarantee he would have not used them again given the chance. Ask the Kurds for proof that WMD did exist. The ones that were not killed by a chemical attacks, that is.

[Laverne]

This whole story -- from start to finish -- is so bizarre. I do look forward to hearing what if anything Fitzgerald comes up with.

[gpapa]

Sorry. My mistake. I should have said a named source.