Miller Responds (To NYT's Public Editor. Miller didn't try to pursue story until 7/8/03 mtg)

National Review Online ^ | 10/24/05 | Jonah Goldberg

[pierrem15]

that a bungling and corrupt CIA is trying to overthrow the President.

As time goes on, it's more and more obvious that you are exactly right. It's more and more farcical and frightening at the same time the MSM continues to focus on Rove and Libby instead of screaming about the virtually naked intervention in the political process by the national security apparatus.

[popdonnelly]

Consider the purpose of the editor's original memo. Morale at the Times is low because Miller did not rat out the entire Bush Administration. In talking to Libby, Miller did nothing that Times reporters, and the entire journalistic profession, don't do all the time. They all have their anonymous sources. If they want to slant a story a certain way, they know which "source" to pick. They rely on their friends and cohorts - that is to say, their sources - for the material to write their stories with.

This is very instructive. The Times considered attacking the Clinton Administration as a crime against journalism. And they consider failing to attack the Bush Administration as a crime against journalism. That's called bias. Journalism has nothing to do with it.

[pnut22]

Thank you so much.

[syriacus]

Thanks for posting the link to the Sun article, Fenris6

It mentions Chalabi's current importance in Iraq

[popdonnelly]

An observation: Where were all these horrible tales about Judith Miller before she testified to the Grand Jury? Can you say sour grapes?

[Dolphy]

Thanks for the link to the editorial...it's really well done.

I continue to wonder...what is it that has put the New York Times in attack mode. I understand that they think they had it wrong on the WMD, largely because of Miller, but is the proper response to personally attack their own journalist? It just seems like something more is going on here...in so many words Miller has been declared a hostile witness.

[geezerwheezer]

That is a heck of a great observation you made! It does make me wonder what in the heck they have all been up to, and why the "shark-feeding" frenzy all of the sudden? Is the NYT falling from grace (and not doing a good job of it?) or did they get their hands caught in the cookie jar and don't know how to extract themselves from this self-inflicted catastrophe? I'm beginning to think Carl Rove set the bastards up, and if he did, he's a lot smarter than even I thought, and good for him!! What a wonderful "evil genius" he is.

[cwb]

"I understand that they think they had it wrong on the WMD, largely because of Miller, but is the proper response to personally attack their own journalist? It just seems like something more is going on here...in so many words Miller has been declared a hostile witness."

---

And what's so disingenuous about this is that Miller was just one of several reporters who supported the WMD theory within the pages of the Times. Heck, it was just days after Bush's first Inauguration that Eric Schmitt and Steven Meyers were writing stories for the NY Times...."warning" the Bush administration that Saddam and his WMDs were still a threat to this country.

The NY Times was more than happy to give former Sec. of Defense Cohen, the same space and latitude for one of his stories that essentially claimed Saddam had rebuilt his factories and was reconstituting his WMD program. Again, this story appeared just days after Bush's Inauguration, in what almost appeared to be an attempt to influence the Bush administration to do something about Saddam.

These people are continuing to perpetuate the lie that it was only Bush and those in his administration that believed that WMDs existed, when in fact, they, along with other intelligence organizations around the world...including the UN, also believed the same. Yet, too appeal to their only remaining base (the left-wing nuts), the Times is taking a position of self-righeous indignation, acting as if they never believed the WMD story was true.

If they really believed this, than they would also be going after the Washington Compost and any number of other media outlets that also helped propagate this message throughout the Clinton years. This same media that now wants to discredit this war, had no problem defending Clinton's four attacks on Iraq...based on much of the same intel. I think that what Times' objects to most, is that Miller didn't take this oppurtunity to bury the administration.

[Sam Hill]

I hope everyone remembers what a fair and unbiased reporter Jill Abramson was.

Lest we forget, she wrote the book "Strange Justice" about Clarence Thomas. It was meant to neutralize "The Real Anita Hill" and justify the "electronic lynching" of Thomas.

No agenda there. Uh-huh.

[sam_paine]

Well, you know what I mean. =)

[Chances Are]

Defenestration, definitely!

We'll witness autophagy in this little episode a little later on!

CA....

[andyk]

her own newspaper's effort to defenestrate her

I think I'll defenestrate myself right over to the dictionary.

[frankjr]

" I think I'll defenestrate myself right over to the dictionary."

I hope you live on the first floor. (I just looked it up as well)

[andyk]

LOL, I can't believe there's a word for that!

[ptrey]

de·fen·es·trate Audio pronunciation of "defenestrate" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-fn-strt)
tr.v. de·fen·es·trat·ed, de·fen·es·trat·ing, de·fen·es·trates

To throw out of a window.

[Hildy]

You might not believe this, but about three years ago, there was a whole FR thread dedicated to the word, "DEFENSTRATE." Everything old is new again!

[Elsiejay]

In my personal framework of logic, defenestrate would mean "to render windowless," like unto defoliate. To throw out from (through) a window would be to "exfenestrate," a word not recognized by my Webster's, more's the pity.

[razorback-bert]

It all depends on gravitas.

[Dems_R_Losers]

Has it occurred to anyone that there might be something personal between Scooter Libby and Judy Miller? Cause it sure occurred to me. Would certaily justify her going to jail for him, and explain his weird coded letter to her.

[victoria wilson]

In this battle of credibility I'll take Miller over Jill "Strange Justice" Abramson.

As Miller points out, she swore to her version under oath.

It's sickening to watch the NYT try to adopt some kind of virtuous stance on reporters and their holy sources while embracing a documented liar (Wilson and his gang) as they try to throw a Bush administration official passing on honest information to the best of his ability under the train.

It won't work.