"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.
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. You make a good point regarding the number of journalists and nations that supported the intelligence that led to war. I remember reading much of it...looking for independent corroboration of the White House's interpretation. And there was much to go around. Still...even with what little respect for the Times I have left, it's surprising to see them resorting to personal attacks on one their own and measuring her value on a political yardstick. Maybe they did expect Miller to rescue and lead them back to the welcome arms of the left but they sure act like they have something more at stake.