It appears that from the quote above, Libby did not say anything interesting enough at the June 23 meeting with Miller, since her interest was not peaked enough to pursue a story until her July 8 meeting with Libby. Which is, of course, after Russert spoke with Libby.
Link to Miller's response to public editor: http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/thepubliceditor/publiceditorswebjournal/index.html?oref=login
Also note that the NYTs is spinning the news again [did they ever stop?]
Luuuv it when the bad guys try to eat each other.
What's the problem? She's pretty much describing SOP for the MSM, as far as I can tell.
Instead of doing that, they should just throw her out of a window.
/via Powerline
"Who has been the better journalist - Judith Miller or those attacking her in her own paper's pages? Ms. Miller was sounding the alarm about the Iraqi threat and working her sources and fighting not to get beat. Ms. Dowd was parroting unsubstantiated smears, and Mr. Wilson was falsely downplaying Iraq's effort to obtain weapons of mass destruction, without disclosing to Times readers his wife's institutional interests."
http://www.nysun.com/article/21916
I actually believe Miller on this one. Abramson has zero credibility since her shoddy, biased reporting on the Clarence Thomas - Anita Hill matter.
Judy Miller fights back against her own newspaper's effort to defenestrate her.... why, those pigs.
So..does Jill Abramson need to hire lawyers?
Ahh, of my favorite words. Such as in "I am so broke I don't have a pot to pee in or the means to defenestrate".
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.
An observation: Where were all these horrible tales about Judith Miller before she testified to the Grand Jury? Can you say sour grapes?
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.
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.
Funny how the Times turns on Miller! This should cause us to think that they do not feel that Miller has given the goods to the prosecutor to nail the coffin on the pre-judged Rove/Libby.