John Bolton or someone on his staff. Bolton has visited Miller in the jailhouse.
Of course, she hasn’t testified yet, so who knows what she’s going to say. But her own newspaper, the New York times, is reporting that it was, in fact, Libby.
(Libby’s attorney, Joseph)Tate said Libby signed a waiver of confidentiality more than a year ago, which Tate followed with a phone call to New York Times attorney Floyd Abrams assuring him that Libby’s waiver was voluntary.
Over the Labor Day weekend,(New York Time’s reporter Judith) Miller’s attorney, Robert Bennett, tracked Tate down in Martha’s Vineyard to tell him she had not accepted the waiver as valid because “it came from lawyers.” . . .
“My reaction was, why didn’t someone call us 80 days ago?” he said of his conversation with Bennett.
(Libby’s attorney, Joseph Tate) said he and Libby assumed Miller was jailed for protecting another source or for another unknown reason . . . "
I submit that the telling of bone-headed, transparent lies by high government officials should be made a felony or an impeachable offense because stupidity in high places is just as dangerous as al Qaeda if you ask me. I get the willies everytime I think about the fact that these self-serving crackhouse pimps are all that stand between us and terrorist oblivion.
[quote]Reporters’ Files Subpoenaed -
New Leak Probe Concerns 2001 Raid on Islamic Charity
By Susan Schmidt, Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 10, 2004; Page A16
The federal prosecutor who has served at least four reporters with grand jury subpoenas in his investigation into the disclosure of an undercover CIA officer’s identity is now pursuing a second leak case in which he has obtained a subpoena for New York Times reporters’ telephone records.
Chicago U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald, who is also acting as a special prosecutor in the CIA leak probe, informed the Times by letter last week that his office has subpoenaed telephone company records. The move is part of an effort to determine whether anyone in the government told Times reporters of planned federal asset seizures in December 2001 at the offices of an Islamic charity suspected of providing funding to al Qaeda, according to several sources familiar with the case.
The FBI believes that a call from a reporter to a representative of the charity, the Illinois-based Global Relief Foundation, may have led to the destruction of documents there the night before the government’s raid, according to findings by the Sept. 11 commission.(excert)
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar … 4Sep9.html[/quote]
Fitzgerald is investigating TWO leak cases involving Miller:
- The Plame Case
- NY Times tipoff to an Al Qaeda fundraiser about an upcoming FBI raid
Notice how the NY Times isn’t talking about Fitzgerald’s other investigation.
Maybe this is the reason why?
She’s covering for the government official who tipped her off to an upcoming raid on an
Al Qaeda fundraiser. The fundraiser was able to destroy documents prior to the raid.
More background sourcing on this “fundraiser raid” tip off.
google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2 … gle+Search
Why would a member of the liberal media actually cover for Scooter Libby?
"After obtaining her waiver, Miller said her lawyers secured an agreement with Fitzgerald to narrow the
scope of her testimony to her conversations with that single source."
This stinks so bad I can smell it in Tainan.
“Member of the liberal media”?
That’s a good one.
"Locked in the Alexandria Detention Center for the past 11 weeks, New York Times reporter Judith Miller is cut off from the world. She has no Internet access and precious little opportunity to view CNN. Her phone calls are limited, friends say. Her daily newspaper arrives a day late.
But for 30 minutes nearly every day, the world comes to her: A parade of prominent government and media officials, 99 in all, visited Miller between early July, when she was jailed for refusing to be questioned by a federal prosecutor, and Labor Day, according to a document obtained by The Washington Post.
The who’s who of friends, supporters and Washington and New York luminaries includes John R. Bolton, President Bush’s new ambassador to the United Nations . . . Bolton declined through a spokesman to discuss his visit to Miller or his reasons for going. “This has nothing to do with his job here,” the spokesman said. “He doesn’t want to talk about it.”
Just as an aside, I love the whole “Liberal Media” conspiracy. There’s so totally no proof for it, but that never stops anyone.
So carping on that one phrase is the extent of your comments? :bravo:
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]So carping on that one phrase is the extent of your comments? :bravo:[/quote]At the moment, yes. Is trying to take a potshot the extent of yours?
I suggest you read the New York Times. It tends to disagree with you.
[quote]
THE PUBLIC EDITOR; Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?
By DANIEL OKRENT
July 25, 2004
OF course it is.[/quote]
Daniel Okrent was the public editor for The New York Times from December 2003 through May 2005.
I hear what you’re saying, Tetsuo. And to tell you the truth, I don’t think there’s any kind of “conspiracy” going on either. It’s just that most journalists at major media outlets tend to be Democrats (What was the New York Times survey a while back, something like 80% of journalists self identify as Democrats?) Then again, most lawyers tend to be Democrats too, just as most comfortable, well-educated professional types do. Doesn’t mean there is any kind of “conspiracy” going on. It just happens that certain demographic groups/professions/what-have-you tend to support one side more than the other. No evil machinations at work, IMO. Just the way things are. shrug
At the end of the day, however, I don’t know how much point there is in arguing about media bias. In my experience, people tend to find bias in any media source who’s viewpoint does not agree with their own. Go to the extreme right and extreme left chatrooms and look around – each side is convinced that the “MSM” is out to get them. Once again, just the way things are. 
-H
[quote=“Tetsuo”][quote=“TainanCowboy”]So carping on that one phrase is the extent of your comments? :bravo:[/quote]At the moment, yes. Is trying to take a potshot the extent of yours?[/quote]Still no comment on the posted article?
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]
“Chicago U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald, who is also acting as a special prosecutor in the CIA leak probe, informed the Times by letter last week that his office has subpoenaed telephone company records. The move is part of an effort to determine whether anyone in the government told Times reporters of planned federal asset seizures in December 2001 at the offices of an Islamic charity suspected of providing funding to al Qaeda, according to several sources familiar with the case.”
This stinks so bad I can smell it in Tainan.[/quote]
The source of the stink you smell at the New York Times:
Sept. 29, 2005
"A Pentagon analyst charged with providing classified information to an Israeli official and members of a pro-Israeli lobbying group planned to plead guilty to one or more charges, a court said Thursday.
Lawrence A. Franklin, 58, of Kearneysville, W.Va., was one of the Pentagon’s policy experts on Iran and the Middle East. He was indicted in June on charges of disclosing national defense information to people not entitled to receive it, including two members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The indictment also alleges he leaked top secret information about two unidentified Middle Eastern officials to the media.
Franklin had previously pleaded innocent, but on Thursday a change of plea hearing was added to the court calendar for next Wednesday. A statement issued by the U.S. District Court clerk’s office said Franklin “is scheduled to plead guilty to a charge or charges” but did not specify which. . .
According to the indictment, Franklin met periodically with Rosen and Weissman between 2002 and 2004 and discussed classified information, including information about potential attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. Rosen and Weissman would subsequently share what they learned with reporters and Israeli officials. On at least one occasion, Franklin spoke directly to an Israeli official. . . .
Rosen, a top lobbyist for Washington-based AIPAC for more than 20 years, and Weissman, the organization’s top Iran expert, allegedly disclosed sensitive information as far back as 1999 on a variety of topics, including al-Qaida, terrorist activities in Central Asia, the bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia and U.S. policy in Iran, according to the indictment.
Franklin at one time worked for the Pentagon’s No. 3 official, policy undersecretary Douglas Feith, on issues involving Iran and the Middle East. Weissman and Rosen saw Franklin as a potentially valuable source of information. . . "
Do you not understand the phrase “at the moment”? Jesus, give me some time, I have better things to do right now.
Who said anything about a “conspiracy”? Why are you talking about a “conspiracy”?
[quote][url=http://atmizzou.missouri.edu/feb05/liberalmedia.htm][quote=“Jeff Milyo, MU associate professor of economics and public affairs,”]We found that most of the mainstream media view events through a ‘lens’ that is very similar to that used by Democrats in Congress,
It was just a general comment, so trying to twist it into an argument ain’t gonna work sunshine.
Here’s a clue. On the same day that Larry Franklin changes his plea from innnocent to guilty on the charge of disclosing national defense information to unauthorized persons, Judith Miller, after 85 days in jail, suddenly announces that the waiver Scooter Libby signed a year earlier is okay.
There’s one caveat. She’ll sing about her previously sacrosanct conversations with Libby on the condition that she not be asked about any other conversations with anyone else in which national defense information was allegedly discussed.
Larry Franklin worked for Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith.
“General Judy” and Douglas Feith:
"New York Times reporter Judith Miller played a highly unusual role in an Army unit assigned to search for dangerous Iraqi weapons, according to U.S. military officials, prompting criticism that the unit was turned into what one official called a “rogue operation.” . . .
Said a senior staff officer of the 75th Exploitation Task Force, of which MET Alpha is a part: “It’s impossible to exaggerate the impact she had on the mission of this unit, and not for the better.” Three weapons specialists were reassigned as the unit changed its approach, according to officers with the task force. . .
One military officer, who says that Miller sometimes “intimidated” Army soldiers by invoking Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld or Undersecretary Douglas Feith, was sharply critical of the note. “Essentially, she threatened them,” the officer said, describing the threat as that “she would publish a negative story.”
An Army officer, who regarded Miller’s presence as “detrimental,” said: “Judith was always issuing threats of either going to the New York Times or to the secretary of defense. There was nothing veiled about that threat,” this person said, and MET Alpha “was allowed to bend the rules.”
This story certainly has some long legs.
And I think its just beginning to flesh out.
:bravo:
Is that it? Is that your reply?
Beats me. 
[quote=“NY Times”]Buying of News by Bush’s Aides Is Ruled Illegal
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: October 1, 2005
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 - Federal auditors said on Friday that the Bush administration violated the law by buying favorable news coverage of President Bush’s education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party.
In a blistering report, the investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said the administration had disseminated “covert propaganda” in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban.
The contract with Mr. Williams and the general contours of the public relations campaign had been known for months. The report Friday provided the first definitive ruling on the legality of the activities.
Lawyers from the accountability office, an independent nonpartisan arm of Congress, found that the administration systematically analyzed news articles to see if they carried the message, “The Bush administration/the G.O.P. is committed to education.”
The auditors declared: “We see no use for such information except for partisan political purposes. Engaging in a purely political activity such as this is not a proper use of appropriated funds.”
The report also sharply criticized the Education Department for telling Ketchum Inc., a public relations company, to pay Mr. Williams for newspaper columns and television appearances praising Mr. Bush’s education initiative, the No Child Left Behind Act.
When that arrangement became public, it set off widespread criticism. At a news conference in January, Mr. Bush said: “We will not be paying commentators to advance our agenda. Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet.”[/quote]
I’d think that they wouldn’t have to buy favourable coverage if the media was already in their hip pocket.
Obviously the media was not already in their hip pocket. 