Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 10/15/2005 4:35:49 PM PDT by Laverne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last
To: 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.


2 posted on 10/15/2005 4:43:12 PM PDT by TWohlford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Laverne

The only "serious issue" that was raised that they are disappointed that Libby wasn't fingered in the article.


3 posted on 10/15/2005 4:43:54 PM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Laverne

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.


4 posted on 10/15/2005 4:44:38 PM PDT by frankjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Laverne

"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.


5 posted on 10/15/2005 4:44:54 PM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Laverne
I can think of no good reason for members of the Administration to talk to New York Times reporters. Even if they wanted to slime Wilson, which they clearly did, this wasn't the way to do it. It would have been easy enough to out Plame, assuming she really was an undercover agent, anonymously. I can't stand amateurish shenanigans of this kind.
7 posted on 10/15/2005 4:46:09 PM PDT by Batrachian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Laverne
It is a BS law. It is a BS investigation. It will be a BS indictment. It will be a BS trial.

Do you sense my contempt of Congress and politicians?

10 posted on 10/15/2005 4:48:02 PM PDT by Rapscallion (It goes far deeper than contempt of Congress and politics by investigation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Laverne

Oh no! Another week of Chris Matthews frothing at the mouth. He'll be asking who ate the strawberries before Friday.


11 posted on 10/15/2005 4:48:59 PM PDT by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Laverne

This story is so confusing it makes my head spin. I also think it's much ado about nothing.


12 posted on 10/15/2005 4:50:23 PM PDT by surrey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Laverne
But her notes from her earlier talk with Libby, on June 23, 2003 -- belatedly turned over to the prosecutor last week --also "leave open the possibility" that Libby told her that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, though perhaps not using the name "Plame."

Grasping at straws here?

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

Wishful thinking?
18 posted on 10/15/2005 4:54:17 PM PDT by Pox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Laverne

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.


19 posted on 10/15/2005 4:54:18 PM PDT by Waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Laverne

NYT=irrelevant.


29 posted on 10/15/2005 5:06:03 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Laverne
I am a little fuzzy on the "devastating" part.

Can someone clear it up for me?

31 posted on 10/15/2005 5:09:47 PM PDT by beebuster2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Laverne
Meanwhile, newsroom leaders expressed frustration about the Times' coverage (or lack of) during the entire ordeal.

The journalists DNC Party hacks in the New York Times newsroom are pissed at Miller. Her involvement - and by extention The Times involvement - in this whole ordeal prevented them from assigning 3/4 of the news staff (including writers from the Sports and Fashion pages, no doubt) to the story.

All those doctrinaire ultra-leftists were itching to be the next Woodward/Bernstein and bring down a Republican Administration they can't even pretend to hide their contempt for.

35 posted on 10/15/2005 5:14:10 PM PDT by Libertarian444
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Laverne
The question of wether the White Sox believes Wilson's wife "sent" Mr. Wilson, and not the CIA at the behest of Mr. Cheney, is answered in this paragraph: Mr. Fitzgerald asked me whether Mr. Libby had mentioned nepotism. I said no. And as I told the grand jury, I did not recall - and my interview notes do not show - that Mr. Libby suggested that Ms. Plame had helped arrange her husband's trip to Niger.
47 posted on 10/15/2005 5:33:20 PM PDT by familyteeth77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Laverne
Most telling paragraph from Miller's piece:

Mr. Fitzgerald asked about a notation I made on the first page of my notes about this July 8 meeting, "Former Hill staffer." My recollection, I told him, was that Mr. Libby wanted to modify our prior understanding that I would attribute information from him to a "senior administration official." When the subject turned to Mr. Wilson, Mr. Libby requested that he be identified only as a "former Hill staffer." I agreed to the new ground rules because I knew that Mr. Libby had once worked on Capitol Hill. Did Mr. Libby explain this request? Mr. Fitzgerald asked. No, I don't recall, I replied. But I said I assumed Mr. Libby did not want the White House to be seen as attacking Mr. Wilson.

49 posted on 10/15/2005 5:38:19 PM PDT by familyteeth77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Laverne
A Saturday evening disclosure, after the Sunday TH shows have all been taped?

[It reveals many devastating new details...]

Hardly "devastating". Who wrote this article, a High School Freshman?

[...when she {Miller} testified for a second time in the case this week, she could not recall who mentioned that name to her...Miller claims that she simply "could not recall" where the "Valerie Flame" notation came from, "when I wrote it or why the name was misspelled."

Ah, another case of "Washheimer's Disease" -- quite common among Washington DC Leftists and corrupt politicians.

[She said she "didn't think" she heard it from Libby, a longtime friend and source.

This is distressing. Hopefully, Libby has been reassigned to removing pigeon droppings from DC monuments for the rest of his tenure.

[But her notes..."leave open the possibility" that Libby told her that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife worked at the CIA...]

The usual wishful thinking from the ignorant and childish Leftist OM.

[The article concludes with this frank and brutal assessment: "The Times...limited its own ability to cover aspects of one of the biggest scandals of the day.

One of the biggest scandals of the day? Please add the term "delusional to my previous comment.

[Even as the paper asked for the publics support, it was unable to answer its questions.]

The MSM siren song: "Please, please help us defeat the evil Conservatives. We can't do it alone. Especially when the facts fail to support our position.

[Thus, the article appears to be less than the "full accounting" with full Miller cooperation that the editors promised.]

Translation: "Since we created this horrible mess in our rabid attempt to discredit Bush prior to the 2004 election, and since he was elected anyway, we're going to cover our asses and ignore this story now, and we really wish it would all just go away."

[Just as surprising, the article reveals that Keller and the Times' publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, did not review her notes.]

Obligatory non-denial denial / CYA memo as regards NYSlimes' editors and publishers (especially old Pinchy -- he has lots of loaves to pinch in the future).

[The article says that Miller is taking some time off but "hopes to return to the newsroom,"...]

Translation: "Miller is taking time off to be with her family -- this before she is about to have a lot more time off to be with her family."

[Meanwhile, newsroom leaders expressed frustration about the Times' coverage (or lack of) during the entire ordeal.]

Coverage? There was coverage?

[Saturday's story says that Miller was a "divisive figure" in the newsroom and a "few colleagues refused to work with her." Doug Frantz, former chief investigations editor at the paper, said that Miller called herself "Miss Run Amok," meaning, she said, "I can do whatever I want."]

The Slimes prepares to throw Miller under the bus. When you become a liability to a Stalinist, better steer clear of Ft. Marcy Park.

[The story also paints a less-than-flattering picture of Keller.] The Slimes prepares to throw Keller under the bus.

[...Libby wanted to modify their prior understanding that she would attribute information from him to an unnamed "senior administration official."

He should now be a "banished and disgraced ex-senior administration official".

BTW, this is a horribly organized and terribly written article. I'm hoping the author isn't more than 21 years of age.

55 posted on 10/15/2005 5:50:07 PM PDT by Mad_Tom_Rackham (De gustibus non est disputandum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Laverne
For the first time this clearly, 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. "I did the best job I could," she said.

This is big. This will pull the rug out from under those who say Bush lied about WMD.

Everyone was saying Iraq had WMD. The reporters had been saying it for years. And the NYT was one of the biggest sources for the "lie".

57 posted on 10/15/2005 5:53:20 PM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Laverne
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.

66 posted on 10/15/2005 6:04:45 PM PDT by airborne (Al-Queda can recruit on college campuses but the US military can't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Laverne

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


68 posted on 10/15/2005 6:09:30 PM PDT by TheForceOfOne (Another day, another Fatwa against the president and his nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Laverne
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!
76 posted on 10/15/2005 6:20:47 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson