Why does anyone believe anything Judy, Arthur & Bill say. If I don't ...

[understandinglife]

... hear it from Fitzgerald or the Grand Jury, I don't believe anything coming out of any of those people's mouths, or anything they write, or anything they have one of their shills write for them. And, Libby, ........ oh please .....

THEY DECEIVED AMERICA INTO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND TOTALLY ILLEGAL WAR OF AGGRESSION, AND THEY CONTINUED TO MIS-REPRESENT THE ISSUES AFTER BUSH LAUNCHED HIS INVASION AND OCCUPATION.

Judy Miller can yap at a microphone all afternoon and into the night and the only thing I will believe is whatever Fitzgerald and the GJ tell us is what she testified or share with us the transcript. And, Arthur and Bill can spin and spin and spin ........

Why does anyone, consider anything they say or write, credible.

Do you think they are going to tell you the truth, now, when the situation in Iraq is deteriorating and they've already been charged by the World Tribunal on Iraq - a forerunner of what is likely to be decades of charges brought against both the New York Times and Judith Miller, specifically (See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4929350&mesg_id=4930187).

Just asking.


Peace.

[BuyingThyme]

1. Well said.

What these people, including evil Judith Miller, are trying to weasel out of is nothing less than mass-murder, war crimes, espionage, etc.

They are putting something together, and there's absolutely nothing they won't do.

[SteppingRazor]

2. Unfortunately, being charged by the World Tribunal on Iraq...

Has about as much seriousness as being charged by the We Hate Bush Club, my little group of friends that meets at a bar on Monday afternoons.

As for Judy Miller, I doubt she'll see the inside of a prison cell again -- unless it's for an interview.

[understandinglife]

3. I think you under-estimate the significance of the WTI and the follow-up.

Time will tell, but the NYTimes and Judith Miller are never going to be forgotten.

And, not just by Iraqi citizens, but, in time, the families of the dead and wounded members of our Armed Forces will become ever more aware of Judy and Arthur and Bill's major contributions to the propaganda machine that caused totally unnecessary death and destruction.

Never forgotten.


Peace.

[SteppingRazor]

5. What follow up?

You think the World Court is going to investigate the NYTimes for war crimes?

Be realistic.

[understandinglife]

7. I am realistic. So are the families of thousands and thousands of ...

.... people who have been killed, wounded, left-homeless, now drinking DU enriched water, ....

Yes, I'm realistic.

Retribution for all these crimes will happen - one way or another.

In time.


Peace.

[SteppingRazor]

8. And were we held accountable when thousands suffered in...

Panama, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Grenada, Lebanon, El Salvador, Honduras, etc., etc., ad infinitum?

We're the U.S. We don't play by the same rules. And no one in the Bush administration will ever, ever be tried for war crimes. Period.

Getting back to the subject at hand, the Plamegate thing and Judy Miller is a different matter. Somebody could face indictments over that.
But actual charges of aggression and other war crimes? No way.

[understandinglife]

11. Yes, we've been a bully and have paid minimally. However, those ...

.... were the good ol' days, before we owed China and others several trillion dollars of debt.

Comeupance is going to be an unpleasant experience, the way it has always been when ruthless imperialistic regimes crumble.

It's not, if; merely, when.


Peace.

[longship]

4. Take off the tin foil hats, people.

Think about this for more than a second. Consider the whole scenerio.

Fitz and the GJ have these guys by the short hairs. The West Wing knows it and Judith Miller knows it.

The only defense they have is denial and the swiftboating of Fitzgerald. That's the only thing they know how to do. In the five years of * we've seen *nothing* more sophisticated than that because that is the extent of their abilities. Hell, they are so incompetent that a major catastrophe happens and they all stay on vacation!!! What makes you think that they are going to competently handle the Rove/Plame affair?

Miller is not stupid. I'll say that again so it can sink in. She's not stupid.

They all know that Fitz isn't going to stop. They know that indictments are coming whether or not Miller testifies. It doesn't matter one bit if she rots in jail, or she talks. Either way, they are going to take a hit. So why not release her to talk? That way, at least she may be able to help.

But Fitz is watching these guys, and Miller, too. I've heard all sorts of ridiculous claims here. Bribery? Quid pro quos of all sorts? Can you imagine the great love that Fitz would shower on these guys if he caught even a whif of a quid pro quo for perjury?

Look, Miller's probably done no crime here. She was the vehicle for the information but she's probably violated no law, at least not one for which she will be prosecuted. At any rate, Fitz is after bigger game, not journalists. She took a hit on refusing to testify, but that's over now.

But Judy Miller knows that federal perjury is a felony with probably 18 months in prison. Conspiracy to suborn and obstruction of justice might extend that prison term. At the end of such a prison term her career and her life would be in ruins. This, in spite of book deals (which are yet nonexistent).

Knowing all of this. Is there any way that Miller perjures herself? Is there any realistic way she can justify compounding a merely awkward situation into career ruining felonious activities?

If after considering all the parameters you still think she's lied to the grand jury, then it's time for me to get out the popcorn.
:popcorn:

[understandinglife]

6. All interesting comments, however you seemed to have missed ...

... the point of the post.

The point of the post is specifically that I do not believe anything that Judy, Arthur, Bill and their various minions write or say.

Nothing.

And, I await documents and statements from Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury before I will believe anything about what Judy said or didn't say to Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury.

Hope that is now clear.


Peace.

[longship]

9. Well, we're both talking across each other.

We have no reason to believe that Miller is the subject of the investigation. In fact, we have every reason to believe that she is merely a witness, just like Cooper, and probably just like Novak. We already know that the Intelligence Identities Act does not apply to reporters because they cannot be the original leaker on which the Act focusses. Unless Miller, Cooper, and Novak do something else nefarious, like perjure themselves, they will walk into the courtroom as mere witnesses and not under charges.

Please answer the following question:

If Judy Miller is not a subject of the investigation why would she perjure herself?

On edit: Thanks, I'd kind of like to know where you're coming from here.

Oh, and one more thing. I realize that they supported the admin in their op-ed pieces. I do not know why they did that given the wealth of evidence to the contrary position. Maybe they were told what to write by bosses. Actually, it does not matter here. Opinion articles are not subject to perjury laws.

I do not support Judith Miller. She's a hack. But I think she has to tell the truth in her testimony.

[understandinglife]

10. Let's begin by my asking if you are familiar with the following:

The Times Scoops That Melted

Cataloging the wretched reporting of Judith Miller.
By Jack Shafer

Posted Friday, July 25, 2003, at 3:49 PM PT

If reporters who live by their sources were obliged to die by their sources, New York Times reporter Judith Miller would be stinking up her family tomb right now. In the 18-month run-up to the war on Iraq, Miller grew incredibly close to numerous Iraqi sources, both named and anonymous, who gave her detailed interviews about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Yet 100 days after the fall of Baghdad, none of the sensational allegations about chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons given to Miller have panned out, despite the furious crisscrossing of Iraq by U.S. weapons hunters.

Much more at the link:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2086110

I ask because the New York Times, over an interval that spans Oct 2001 to well past March 19, 2003, with Judith Miller very much writing on the front-page, not the Op-Ed page, carried a stream of lies and frothy, fear-mongering prose.

Just let me know and we can then work through other aspects of your responses.

Thank you.


Peace.

[longship]

12. Yes, I am aware of these.

They made me sick, of course. It got so that when I saw Miller's by-line, I just ignored it. There's no doubt in my mind that Miller's a hack. She might be an ideologue on top of that, but I'd be willing to believe that she's just a big enough hack to write what she was told to write.

I think if she lies before the grand jury, she will be indicted for perjury. I have little doubt that Fitz will suffer no fools on this. That's why I think she may just tell the truth.

On edit: And yes, I believe anything she says or writes about it outside the courtroom must be taken with a grain of salt.

I guess I'm getting a little sick and tired of all the unsubstantiated conspiracies around here. There's people saying that the White House is paying her off, etc. Right! With a federal prosecutor and a grand jury breathing down their necks, they're going to try buying off a witness to perjure herself when she will undoubtedly be nailed on it. I worry about some people's ability to reason.

[understandinglife]

13. Good. And, ...

... I am not the type of person to offer stuff like 'the White House is paying her off' ...., as perhaps you already realize.

The point of my post was simple - I do not accept anything she, Arthur or Bill states. I will only accept her statements when I read them in the transcript of her testimony.

The reason for the OP is that I was dismayed at how many folk were taking anything she, Arthur or Bill were saying seriously.

Now, to the matter of whether she would perjure herself. I have no idea. I suspect her lawyer, after months of dealing with Fitzgerald's staff and Fitzgerald himself, would likely have told her to either tell the truth or take the 5th.

And, I think it highly likely that whatever she and Bolton discussed was recorded and reviewed by Fitzgerald and the GJ - he's not her attorney and I doubt if anyone visited her without scrutiny by Fitzgerald and his staff.


Peace.

[understandinglife]

14. Thank you Arianna Huffington

Judy Miller Testifies About Scooter Libby....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cia_leak_investigation

…Then Spins the Press...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/09/30/miller-spins-the-press-af_n_8151.html

Arianna Huffington: “Reminder To Judy And The Times: The Spin Always Catches Up With You”...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/reminder-to-judy-and-the-_b_8139.html

Now that Judy Miller has finished testifying -- and spinning for the cameras on the court house steps ("I testified as soon as I could... Once I satisfied my principles... personal, explicit, voluntary waiver... I would have stayed even longer...") -- she needs to do what Matt Cooper did and immediately publish a full and truthful account of her involvement in Plamegate. And the New York Times must publish it on Page One. Without fear or favor. All the news that's fit to print.

No ifs, ands, buts. And no more grandstanding statements from Arthur Sulzberger and Bill Keller.

In fact, here is my suggestion: Keller is so up to his eyeballs in legal strategy and protecting the reputation of his newspaper, he should recuse himself from overseeing the Times' coverage of this story and turn it over to Jill Abramson, the managing editor, or Suzanne Daley, the national editor. Of course, they could continue to screw things up if they kept looking over their shoulder to see if the boss approves. But at least there is a chance that the paper will stop spinning and start telling it straight -- stop protecting itself and start reporting on itself.
<clip>

Miller Walks: The Plot Thickens

by Arianna Huffington

<clip>

And so we don’t forget what this story is really about, and given that the aluminum tubes crap that Miller put on the front page of the New York Times was being heavily promoted by Cheney, how much of that bogus information came to Miller via Libby?

And here are a few questions for the Times:

Had a Plame/Wilson story been assigned to Miller or not?

What, if anything, did she say about the story to anyone at the paper at the time… and what did they say back?

Why did the Times hold back the story about Miller’s release and let multiple other news sources scoop them? Were they trying to miss the evening news cycle and avoid the overnight thrashing their spin has rightly received?

So, as the image of Judy as a principled, conscience-driven defender of the First Amendment gives way to the image of Judy wearing her "new" waiver as a fig leaf allowing her to get out and sing, the big question remains: What is she hiding?

Link:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0930-24.htm

What, indeed.


Peace.

[DemReadingDU]

15. and thank you for putting together Arianna's blogs

She's great, very insightful.


Waiting for Fitzgerald...