Judith Miller on Valerie Plame, Valerie Wilson, Valerie Flame, Victoria Flame, Valencia Plankenfeld, etc.
I suppose you can't say the New York Times is holding much to itself.
The Oct. 16 article about Judith Miller -- at almost 6,000 words, about 15 pages when printed out -- shares some qualities of the infamous Jayson Blair tell-all.
(Side note: Did you know the Times has a "Jayson Blair Archive," where you can read every single one of his articles, free of charge?)
The gist of it seems to be, "Well, Judith Miller is a loose cannon and we want to recant a bit of our support for her." Then it goes into extensive detail, quoting a half-dozen Times sources interviewed by one of the three Times reporters listed on the byline (or a fourth, who contributed as well).
One can help but wonder, when reading this stuff, if the Times is arrogant to assume anyone would want to read these theses. It is respectable that they get all the information out there for the record, but these things are like the Ken Burns documentary version of "sorry" notes.
Only the Times can get away with articles like this. Any other paper would get laughed at - and certainly there will be some who laugh at or ridicule this.
UPDATE: Also online is Miller's first-person account of her grand jury testimony, titled, like a sixth-grader's homework, "My Four Hours Testifying in the Federal Grand Jury Room."
Another example of what is probably TMI, concluded with a final few paragraphs that seem to come out of an abruptly-ended detective novel.
One interesting note was the implication of the last line of "Scooter" Libby's recent letter to Miller:
"Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning," Mr. Libby wrote. "They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them."
Hmm.
The Oct. 16 article about Judith Miller -- at almost 6,000 words, about 15 pages when printed out -- shares some qualities of the infamous Jayson Blair tell-all.
(Side note: Did you know the Times has a "Jayson Blair Archive," where you can read every single one of his articles, free of charge?)
The gist of it seems to be, "Well, Judith Miller is a loose cannon and we want to recant a bit of our support for her." Then it goes into extensive detail, quoting a half-dozen Times sources interviewed by one of the three Times reporters listed on the byline (or a fourth, who contributed as well).
One can help but wonder, when reading this stuff, if the Times is arrogant to assume anyone would want to read these theses. It is respectable that they get all the information out there for the record, but these things are like the Ken Burns documentary version of "sorry" notes.
Only the Times can get away with articles like this. Any other paper would get laughed at - and certainly there will be some who laugh at or ridicule this.
UPDATE: Also online is Miller's first-person account of her grand jury testimony, titled, like a sixth-grader's homework, "My Four Hours Testifying in the Federal Grand Jury Room."
Another example of what is probably TMI, concluded with a final few paragraphs that seem to come out of an abruptly-ended detective novel.
One interesting note was the implication of the last line of "Scooter" Libby's recent letter to Miller:
"Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning," Mr. Libby wrote. "They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them."
Hmm.
posted by bp at
9:26 PM
1 Comments:
Two things are now obvious with respect to Ms. Miller:
1. She knows more than she is saying.
It is totally not credible that she does not remember who told her about 'Valerie Flame'. And it is even more incredible that she wants us to believe that other people told her about Valerie Plame but that she cannot recall who these people were.
This is outrageous and totally disingenuous.
2. Mr. Libby knows that she knows more. It is very clear what the last phrase of his letter to Ms. Miller means:
If you take me down, I will take you down, too.
("Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning," Mr. Libby wrote. "They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them.")
It means: our roots are connected, and if you turn on me, I will turn on you.
Just one more question: Why was it necessary for Mr. Libby to 'insulate' Mr. Cheney from this investigation?
The answer can only be: Mr. Cheney needed to be 'insulated' because he had something to do with it.
It might be helpful to check how Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby usually operate: Does Mr. Libby really do anything without receiving orders from or without the explicit consent of his boss?
By
Anonymous, at 12:15 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home