Judith Miller - American Hero Released From Jail!
- Thread starter ZZ CREAM
- Start date
revengefactor
EOG Member
American hero??? Oh this outta be good.....
dirty
EOG Master
revengefactor said:
ZZ Now i know you have lost your Mind.....
Let's hear some Reason's she is an American hero?????
The Truth is there you just don't want to hear it....The Head Prosecutor has already said Rove is not the target of or never will be the target of any Investigation.
ZZ CREAM
EOG Master
Of course he is not the target- who has lost their mind now? This prosecutor will wait until he can misdirect this whole sham away from your leaders in the White House and elsewhere!dirty said:
She is an American Hero standing up for !st Amendment rights of freedom of the press and protecting her source even when it is not popular to do so. Even when protecting someone she would prefer not to protect. P.S. That is a big assumption I had a mind to start with!
revengefactor
EOG Member
ZZ CREAM said:
Is that a new liberal definition of hero now a days??
dirty
EOG Master
She is going from Hero to Idiot or she is Lying one......She was supposedly protectin Scooter Libby who signed a Confidentiality release a year ago!!! So she is either Lying, Stupid, or trying to get her name in Lights one or the other. Below is one part of the Truth tha will come out of this Outlandish so called Scandal
<!--StartFragment -->An interesting little tidbit made the news yesterday.....New York Times reporter Judith Miller was released from prison. She's been sitting in the can for months for refusing to testify in the Valerie Plame leak case. The official line is that she was released from her obligation by her confidential source, and so now she'll testify. So who was she protecting? According to the New York Times, it's Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
But why did Miller sit in jail for so long? According to Libby's lawyer, Miller had a waiver of the confidentiality agreement with Libby a year ago. Looks like Judith Miller sat in prison for no reason. Must have been fun!
So what's next? Surely it won't be long before Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald announces his indictment...if there's even one. Oh, and by the way, does anybody know if Valerie Plame was even a covert agent at the time she was outed?
Imagine if Fitzgerald announces no charges are being filed.....think how hysterical Democrats will become. This is a story to watch.
<!--StartFragment -->An interesting little tidbit made the news yesterday.....New York Times reporter Judith Miller was released from prison. She's been sitting in the can for months for refusing to testify in the Valerie Plame leak case. The official line is that she was released from her obligation by her confidential source, and so now she'll testify. So who was she protecting? According to the New York Times, it's Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
But why did Miller sit in jail for so long? According to Libby's lawyer, Miller had a waiver of the confidentiality agreement with Libby a year ago. Looks like Judith Miller sat in prison for no reason. Must have been fun!
So what's next? Surely it won't be long before Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald announces his indictment...if there's even one. Oh, and by the way, does anybody know if Valerie Plame was even a covert agent at the time she was outed?
Imagine if Fitzgerald announces no charges are being filed.....think how hysterical Democrats will become. This is a story to watch.
ZZ CREAM
EOG Master
So, let me see here, if everyone in an office is signing an agreement of release in an office would it not look strange if you were the only one not to sign? (Sigh here) Maybe you would sign something just not to look 'guilty' and still want someone to maintain their word or bond with you. Or is this too difficult for a conservative to understand?dirty said:
Sam Odom
EOG Master
[font=helvetica,arial][size=-1]washingtonpost.com[/size][/font] <STYLE>.correction {margin-top:8px;padding-top:10px;margin-bottom:8px;border-bottom:1px solid #CCCCCC;padding-bottom:10px;font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:11px;color:#5A5A5A;}.correction strong {color:#CC0000;text-transform:uppercase;}</STYLE>
Miller's Big Secret
[size=-1]By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, September 30, 2005; 12:03 PM
[/size]
<NITF>Can it be? That after all that, New York Times reporter Judith Miller sat in jail for 12 weeks to protect the confidentiality of a very senior White House aide -- even though the aide repeatedly made it clear he didn't want protecting?
That somehow Miller was more intent on keeping their conversations secret than the aide was?
Miller was released from jail yesterday and showed up this morning at a federal courthouse to testify before the grand jury investigating the leak of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative.
The man she was protecting, it turns out, was I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the chief of staff for Vice President Cheney -- sometimes called "Dick Cheney's Dick Cheney" on account of his considerable influence in the White House.
Over the course of the investigation, Libby had freed several other reporters from any obligation to keep their conversations with him secret -- and his lawyer had apparently told Miller's lawyer more than a year ago that she was free to talk, as well.
So what was Miller doing in jail? Was it all just a misunderstanding? The most charitable explanation for Miller is that she somehow concluded that Libby wanted her to keep quiet, even while he was publicly -- and privately -- saying otherwise. The least charitable explanation is that going to jail was Miller's way of transforming herself from a journalistic outcast (based on her gullible pre-war reporting) into a much-celebrated hero of press freedom.
Note to reporters: There is nothing intrinsically noble about keeping your sources' secrets. Your job, in fact, is to expose them. And if a very senior government official, after telling you something in confidence, then tells you that you don't have to keep it secret anymore, the proper response is "Hooray, now I can tell the world" -- not "Sorry, that's not good enough for me, I need that in triplicate." And if you're going to go to jail invoking important, time-honored journalistic principles, make sure those principles really apply.
Miller's Big Secret
[size=-1]By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, September 30, 2005; 12:03 PM
[/size]
<NITF>Can it be? That after all that, New York Times reporter Judith Miller sat in jail for 12 weeks to protect the confidentiality of a very senior White House aide -- even though the aide repeatedly made it clear he didn't want protecting?
That somehow Miller was more intent on keeping their conversations secret than the aide was?
Miller was released from jail yesterday and showed up this morning at a federal courthouse to testify before the grand jury investigating the leak of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative.
The man she was protecting, it turns out, was I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the chief of staff for Vice President Cheney -- sometimes called "Dick Cheney's Dick Cheney" on account of his considerable influence in the White House.
Over the course of the investigation, Libby had freed several other reporters from any obligation to keep their conversations with him secret -- and his lawyer had apparently told Miller's lawyer more than a year ago that she was free to talk, as well.
So what was Miller doing in jail? Was it all just a misunderstanding? The most charitable explanation for Miller is that she somehow concluded that Libby wanted her to keep quiet, even while he was publicly -- and privately -- saying otherwise. The least charitable explanation is that going to jail was Miller's way of transforming herself from a journalistic outcast (based on her gullible pre-war reporting) into a much-celebrated hero of press freedom.
Note to reporters: There is nothing intrinsically noble about keeping your sources' secrets. Your job, in fact, is to expose them. And if a very senior government official, after telling you something in confidence, then tells you that you don't have to keep it secret anymore, the proper response is "Hooray, now I can tell the world" -- not "Sorry, that's not good enough for me, I need that in triplicate." And if you're going to go to jail invoking important, time-honored journalistic principles, make sure those principles really apply.
dirty
EOG Master
<!--StartFragment --> [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]October 19, 2005
Out of Jail and in Disrepute[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]By Debra Saunders
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"We have everything to be proud of and nothing to apologize for," New York Times reporter Judith Miller told colleagues preparing a story on Miller's testimony before a federal grand jury probing a White House leak that targeted CIA employee Valerie Plame after her husband, former ambassador Joe Wilson, wrote an op-ed piece critical of the Bush administration. [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Sorry, but I wouldn't be proud of everything. For one thing, Miller's explanation -- as to why she agreed to testify, after serving 85 days behind bars for refusing to do so -- is fishy, and late in coming. Her source, Veep Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, had released her and other reporters from their confidentiality agreement earlier. Also, Miller should not have agreed to identify Libby as "a former Hill staffer" when he was a White House staffer. She wouldn't be the first journalist to conspire to mislead, but it was wrong. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Then, there's Miller's testimony that she "could not recall" who told her about "Valerie Flame." File that under: Hard to believe. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Her post-jail remarks especially disturb me because I believe Miller has been the journalism profession's unhappy scapegoat on the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"WMD -- I got it totally wrong," she admitted in the Times Sunday. "The analysts, the experts and the journalists who covered them -- we were all wrong. If your sources are wrong, you are wrong." In this case, Miller was hardly alone in believing Iraq had WMD. In 2002, CIA chief George Tenet had told President Bush that the issue was a "slam dunk." [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Some critics talk as if it was an act of aberrant willfulness for Miller to buy what the CIA chief thought to be true. So they have taken out their knitting needles and are calling for her head. They want her fired. They want her investigated. They supported the feds when they jailed Miller for refusing to testify. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]They've concocted a convenient rationale about why prosecutors should be allowed to force Miller to testify, in violation of her promise of confidentiality. That is: Confidentiality should only protect whistle-blowers and should not apply to high-up officials. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]What they mean is: Promises of confidentiality should not apply to Bushies. Meanwhile, two years into special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation, it is not even remotely clear that a law was broken. The 1982 law requires that the CIA take "affirmative measures" to hide the identity of a covert operative. At this juncture, it is not clear that Plame was covert in 2003 or that Karl Rove or Libby knew she had been. Those distinctions are highly material, even if they are all but ignored by the Bush-haters. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]What of The New York Times? The paper was overly slow to report this story -- and top editors look bad for not getting the whole story from Miller sooner. The Times also looked downright silly this year when it redubbed Plame as "Valerie Wilson" -- as it reported that Karl Rove told a reporter Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, without naming her. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Still, the Times was right to stand by the principle that journalists protect a promise of confidentiality. As New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller put it, "I hope that people will remember that this institution stood behind a reporter, and the principle, when it wasn't easy to do that, or popular to do that." [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Popular" is the key word here. The left, and many journalists, enjoy a conceit that, when journalistic controversies erupt, the right will be armed with pitchforks, while the left thoughtfully hashes out the finer distinctions. In this instance, the Bush-hating left has been ready to discard its principles in order to discredit a journalist who wrote stories it doesn't like. If they could jail her for her reporting, they would. And like Miller, they're proud of actions that calmer minds would not wish to broadcast. [/FONT]
Out of Jail and in Disrepute[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]By Debra Saunders
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"We have everything to be proud of and nothing to apologize for," New York Times reporter Judith Miller told colleagues preparing a story on Miller's testimony before a federal grand jury probing a White House leak that targeted CIA employee Valerie Plame after her husband, former ambassador Joe Wilson, wrote an op-ed piece critical of the Bush administration. [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Sorry, but I wouldn't be proud of everything. For one thing, Miller's explanation -- as to why she agreed to testify, after serving 85 days behind bars for refusing to do so -- is fishy, and late in coming. Her source, Veep Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, had released her and other reporters from their confidentiality agreement earlier. Also, Miller should not have agreed to identify Libby as "a former Hill staffer" when he was a White House staffer. She wouldn't be the first journalist to conspire to mislead, but it was wrong. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Then, there's Miller's testimony that she "could not recall" who told her about "Valerie Flame." File that under: Hard to believe. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Her post-jail remarks especially disturb me because I believe Miller has been the journalism profession's unhappy scapegoat on the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"WMD -- I got it totally wrong," she admitted in the Times Sunday. "The analysts, the experts and the journalists who covered them -- we were all wrong. If your sources are wrong, you are wrong." In this case, Miller was hardly alone in believing Iraq had WMD. In 2002, CIA chief George Tenet had told President Bush that the issue was a "slam dunk." [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Some critics talk as if it was an act of aberrant willfulness for Miller to buy what the CIA chief thought to be true. So they have taken out their knitting needles and are calling for her head. They want her fired. They want her investigated. They supported the feds when they jailed Miller for refusing to testify. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]They've concocted a convenient rationale about why prosecutors should be allowed to force Miller to testify, in violation of her promise of confidentiality. That is: Confidentiality should only protect whistle-blowers and should not apply to high-up officials. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]What they mean is: Promises of confidentiality should not apply to Bushies. Meanwhile, two years into special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation, it is not even remotely clear that a law was broken. The 1982 law requires that the CIA take "affirmative measures" to hide the identity of a covert operative. At this juncture, it is not clear that Plame was covert in 2003 or that Karl Rove or Libby knew she had been. Those distinctions are highly material, even if they are all but ignored by the Bush-haters. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]What of The New York Times? The paper was overly slow to report this story -- and top editors look bad for not getting the whole story from Miller sooner. The Times also looked downright silly this year when it redubbed Plame as "Valerie Wilson" -- as it reported that Karl Rove told a reporter Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, without naming her. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Still, the Times was right to stand by the principle that journalists protect a promise of confidentiality. As New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller put it, "I hope that people will remember that this institution stood behind a reporter, and the principle, when it wasn't easy to do that, or popular to do that." [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Popular" is the key word here. The left, and many journalists, enjoy a conceit that, when journalistic controversies erupt, the right will be armed with pitchforks, while the left thoughtfully hashes out the finer distinctions. In this instance, the Bush-hating left has been ready to discard its principles in order to discredit a journalist who wrote stories it doesn't like. If they could jail her for her reporting, they would. And like Miller, they're proud of actions that calmer minds would not wish to broadcast. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Copyright 2005 Creators Syndicate[/FONT]