Skip to main content

View Diary: Miller thread (144 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  please explain why the Times had to back Judy (4.00)
    as I read it, the editors of the NY Times have known that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby were lying when they said they were not involved in the Plame leak

    so the editor of the Times decided to protect Judy and the lying bush administration instead of reporting that the presnit's chief advisor and the vice presnit's cheif advisor had just lied to the people of the United States about TREASON

    when you get right down to it, the editors of the New York Times have known all along who the criminals were, and the NEW YORK TIMES NEVER REPORTED A WORD OF IT

    So Judy miller's actions prevented the NY Times from reporting the biggest story of the 2004 election

    no big deal

    •  By... (4.00)
      the term "the editors" do you mean all the editors? Millers editor?  Bill Keller?  Sulzberger? Point me to the tract that shows they knew Rove and Libby were lying.  Maybe they reasonably could have assumed that, like most of the rest of us did, but the NYT claims Miller did not share that information with her editors.

      I knew I was going to get flamed for my comment.  So let me just add that I don't think the Times did the right thing from this Nations point of view, but from thier point of view, it makes sense.  The editors and the publisher were probably loath to let one of their own twist in the wind without some vocal public support, no matter how badly that reporter may have screwed up.  (Not to support Miller would have a chilling effect on any other reporters work, and to some extent, their sources.)

      The really damning thing about the NYT wasn't that they supported Miller after she was thrown in jail, it was that they printed the bunkum in the first place.  For THAT I think the NYT owes us all a more in-depth explaination.

      The most important thing about life is to stay amused by it.

      by Paulie200 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 11:58:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Judy asked to do a story on this (4.00)
        so the Times MUST have had a thought when the shit hit the fan

        if the Editor in cheif DIDN'T ask, then he has placed the NY Times in financial jeporady by participating in a criminal plot

        that notebook that judy "found" last week contains notes that PREDATE the Wilson OpEd (and the Times also printed an article that was annonomously soursed by Wilson)

        so the OpEd guy should have known, the foreign page editor should have known, and the editor in chief SURE AS FUCK should have known (He pays Miller's salary)

        when scottie trotted out Karl and Scooter's false denials, Judy, the OpEd guy, the foreign page editor, and the Editor in Chief should have assigned a reporter to investigate how many people Karl and Scooter lied to

        scottie should have been asked, directly by Judith Miller, about Karl Rove and Scooter Libby

        or judy should have been fired

        watch the NY Times crash and burn in Civil Court when Wilson sues the plotters

        the Times Corp is the "Deep Pockets" in this equation

        •  If Richard Cohen had worked at the Times, (none)
          and they'd assigned that paragon of journalistic truth to do the investigation you're referring to, Cohen would have come back to the editors and said,

          "They lied to no one.  Nothing to see here.  Let's move along.  Besides, it's no big deal."

          In fact, as you know, there are hundreds of Washington journalists that would have written that version of the story, to keep their access to Libby and Rove.

          Sickening but true.  

          -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

          by sunbro on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:02:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  (Oh why... (none)
          did I end up in the position of defending the NYT.)
          I  think they've screwed us horribly, on the other hand it's a huge organisation and I don't think it's shot thru with spooks and liars.  They still do some damn good reporting.

             Were I not so tired I'd play the "what did they know and when did they know it" game, but for the sake of simplicity let's just assume that all of the editors and the publisher knew everything re: Judy Millers sources and notes as soon as she did.

             The fact is Judy never published one word about Valerie Plame.  It was probably very shortly after Bob Novaks article appeared (elsewhere) that someone at the Times figured out that perhaps a crime had been committed.  Nevertheless... if you're the editor what do you do?  Order your reporter, against her will, to burn her source?  Burn the source for the reporter by handing off the information to another reporter?  Either you stand behind your reporters, even if they've screwed you over, or you don't.

             I think it's plausible that the NYT was standing on principle on this one.

          The most important thing about life is to stay amused by it.

          by Paulie200 on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:48:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  not after Scottie lied about Libby and Rove (none)
            after McClellan came out and said that Karl and Libby didn't talk, the NY Times Principles went out the window

            read the NY Times OWN journalistic standards

            once a sourse lies (which is mostly what Libby did) the reporter has a duty to out the sourse of the falsehood

            either that, or you're just printing propaganda

            the NY Times didn't tell us what they know, at a time when American Soldiers are giving the last full measure of devotion

            that is as close to treason as a news organization can get

          •  Good points (4.00)
            but I differ on the extent that the NY Times has a whorish management and ownership that fears upsetting the Bush Administration and their conservative corporate advertisers.

            I believe there are many upper managers at The Times that will encourage the newspaper to soften the truth and even tell some lies here and there to assure the GOP power elite that they are not trying to "take them down".

            Standing on principle?  I believe that the NY Times was feigning a "stand on principle" because its management fears Republican corporate (and underhanded) retaliation more than they fear the Dems and the public at large.  How convenient it was to be shouting support for the First Amendment and shield laws in a situation that type of legislation was not designed to protect.

            "Freedom of the Press" is protected when the press is speaking truth to power, not when the press is protecting the power elite's ability to crush all dissent.  

            The NY Time's stated position in this case, was silly and disingenuous, not principled.  The Times' management were worried only about the profitability of their decisions for the newspaper.  Despite its rhetoric, the Times was not concerned about what was best for the U.S. Constitution nor the American people.

            -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

            by sunbro on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 03:11:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  And while all the hacks and shills... (4.00)
          climb out of their crypts to do the Sunday talk shows, defending Miller and Chimpula's regime, and the venerable papers are printing their obscure and opaque gobbeldy-gook...

          Where are the articles in these paragons of journalistic virtue that investigate Rove's lengthy history of skullduggery and dirty tricks?  Where are the articles examining who Libby is and what his career track has been?  Nowhere to be seen - except here and some other trusted blog-spots.  We talk about the press waking up but I'm still waiting for them to do anything but crack and eye-lid, look wildly across the room and roll-over and start snoring again.

          "We're all working for the Pharoah" - Richard Thompson

          by mayan on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 08:28:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  You're not being flamed, you're being ... (none)
        ... questioned. I agree that newspapers should stand behind their reporters, as a matter of principle.

        However, in this instance the newspaper was used by its source to commit a crime - and the only reason the NYT dragged its feet, was because of the larger "let's go to war against Iraq" scandal that Miller had gotten them into.

        "I don't do quagmires, and my boss doesn't do nuance."

        by SteinL on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 12:48:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No one... (none)
          but Robert Novak, reported Plames identity, not Miller, not the NYT.

          What crime did the NYT commit?  Receiving classified information? Reporters receive classified leaks every day and courts almost never prosecute the reporter, and for good reason.

          The most important thing about life is to stay amused by it.

          by Paulie200 on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:40:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The NYT was used by WHIG to try and ... (4.00)
            ... suppress the fact that their rationale for attacking Iraq was faulty.

            That should have been reported. Judy Miller failed to file a story that was big news, and that the public had a right to know - that the White House was covering up its tracks when it came to the claims in the SOTUS concerning Nigerien uranium.

            That's the point here.

            "I don't do quagmires, and my boss doesn't do nuance."

            by SteinL on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 03:57:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Miller herself said it (none)
        Ms. Miller authorized Mr. Abrams to talk to Mr. Libby's lawyer, Joseph A. Tate. The question was whether Mr. Libby really wanted her to testify. Mr. Abrams passed the details of his conversation with Mr. Tate along to Ms. Miller and to Times executives and lawyers, people involved in the internal discussion said.

        People present at the meetings said that what they heard about the preliminary negotiations was troubling.

        Mr. Abrams told Ms. Miller and the group that Mr. Tate said she was free to testify. Mr. Abrams said Mr. Tate also passed along some information about Mr. Libby's grand jury testimony: that he had not told Ms. Miller the name or undercover status of Mr. Wilson's wife.

        That raised a potential conflict for Ms. Miller. Did the references in her notes to "Valerie Flame" and "Victoria Wilson" suggest that she would have to contradict Mr. Libby's account of their conversations? Ms. Miller said in an interview that she concluded that Mr. Tate was sending her a message that Mr. Libby did not want her to testify.

        •  That's exactly the message (none)
          Tate was sending.  And Tate could not be clear as to that message because he believed it was not in Libby's best interests for Tate to be clear in his communications.  But the intent of Libby and Tate (that Miller should not testify) was crystal clear to everyone involved...until Tate's later misleading communications to Abrams.

          -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

          by sunbro on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:17:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  understatement (4.00)
            because he believed it was not in Libby's best interests for Tate to be clear in his communications.

            Well, THAT'S an understatement. If he was clear in his communication, he and Libby would go to jail. To quote the NYT article:

            "Telling another witness about grand jury testimony is lawful as long as it is not an attempt to influence the other witness's testimony"
        •  on the re-read that bit is FLAMING (4.00)
          This also suggests that Abrams SHOULD BE ABLE TO HELP MILLER RECALL this source she forgot, since he was off to get a waiver from said source and had enough information to know that what said source had testified to was in conflict with what Miller had  TOLD him before this meeting. This is a semi-trailer-sized hole in this NYTimes explanation. They are playing a game here, and I don't understand it. They are already in tatters on this one. Why keep protecting Miller and Libby?  What the hell is in it for them except protecting Libby? and how does that benefit them, really? He's a goner anyway. I've been reluctant to assume sympathy on the part of the editors for Libby et al but this makes no sense.
        •  Tate was also sending another message (4.00)
          That Judy SHOULD testify if she was willing to back up Libby's story about no conversations about Plame.  And on the basis of that message, Libby claimed that he "wanted" Miller to testify, and had given her a voluntary waiver.

          Knowing that Libby wanted Miller to lie or remain silent, exactly what principle was the Times standing on, other than "we're dug in too deep to back down without looking like idiots?" A principle, of course, that only delayed the day that the Times' editors and management look like idiots.

          "Our enemy is innovative and resourceful and so are we. Our enemy never stops thinking of new ways to harm us and our country, and neither do we." G.W. Bush

          by litigatormom on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 06:59:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (130)
  • Community (63)
  • Bernie Sanders (44)
  • Elections (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (28)
  • Culture (28)
  • 2016 (27)
  • Climate Change (27)
  • Civil Rights (23)
  • Science (23)
  • Environment (23)
  • Spam (21)
  • Law (19)
  • Labor (18)
  • Media (18)
  • Republicans (18)
  • Barack Obama (17)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (15)
  • White House (14)
  • International (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site