I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
first?
fire that bitch and all the whores who eat the preznit's turkee
Can we get Michael Massing to write a kick ass rebuttal in the New York Review to this pathetic covering of asses over at the NYT? Democracy needs it.
I wrote Okrent and got a reply saying that tomorrow's column will be about Miller, so it better be good.
But events have proved her right! She said so!
More Miller Culpas on the way, I hope.
and it sounds like Michael Massing is about to do it yet again
So is Massing going to write another article?
Massing describes the Times' note as "less than forthright" in his forthcoming New York Review piece, a copy of which the journal's editor, Robert Silvers, provided the Los Angeles Times.
Whoops, should have read slower.
Wasn't "Judy Miller" also the name of a character Gilda Radner played on "Saturday Night Live"? If I remember correctly, she was a hyperactive child who made up ridiculous stories.
You can take that to mean whatever you like...
"Keller, for his part, isn't tossing anybody over the side. In his interview with the Journal, he defended Miller as "a smart, relentless and unbelievably well-sourced and fearless reporter."
Unbelievably well-sourced. You keeo saying that wor "unbelievably". I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Has Judith Miller ever had anyone spit in her face?
Margaret Carlson just made the NYT's "Nixonion" non-apology apology over their Iraq reporting the outrage of the week.
She was too much of a wimp to mention Judith Miller by name, tho -- professional coutesy and all (LOL)
The article includes a misprint of Keller's comments:
"Keller, for his part, isn't tossing anybody over the side. In his interview with the Journal, he defended Miller as "a smart, relentless and unbelievably well-sourced and fearless reporter." Her critics, he said, are purveyors of a "misinformed, venomous mythology that had grown up focused on the personality of one reporter.""
It should read, "unbelievable sourced and clueless reporter".
That is all.
"unbelievably well-soused and feckless reporter..."
Brilliant takedown by David E. Sing out, Judy!
It is funny to watch everybody gangup on the Times, while giving all the other outlets a walk, like they do not count.
CNN, FoxNews, MSGOP, all NewsCorp, CBS, NBC,
"But New York Times is special!"
Lots of people read the Times and believe it, including my father who is smart and well-educated. I kept telling him those stories were not true and it was just beyond his comprehension.
But FoxNews and CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC hold the same place as "reliable" news sources for millions of people across the country.
Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings think they are doing a great job, I'm sure.
And NPR and PBS, high-class whores at streetcorner prices.
I can't wait for the day when everybody get the news from where I get it.
Haloscan.
(CBS/AP) Three U.S. Marines were killed in action Saturday in Anbar province west of Baghdad, the U.S. military reported.
I think they were killed by aluminum tubes.
Don't forget the New York Times's Trek coverage
Judy makes Jason Blair look like a journalist.
Judy makes Jason Blair look like a journalist.
Watching karma bite these people on the ass is a joy.
Thanks John G -
To witness people still defending her after she and her sources have been exposed as frauds speaks to the quality of head she must give.
Okay, that was rude.
Does anyone have a more plausible explanation?
Anyone have a login/pw for the LA Times?
This just in: CNN grows a spine!
http://tinyurl.com/2otq2
if only she wasn't such a CHEEP media whore.
judy and jill.
are they jewish, by chance?
part of the zionist, neo-con cabal?
friends and socializers with the wolf, the pearl, eliot podhoretz[nee abrams], feith, billy kristol, et alia?
(CBS/AP) Three U.S. Marines were killed in action Saturday in Anbar province west of Baghdad, the U.S. military reported.
"You know what. I was proved fucking right. That's what happened. People who disagreed with me were saying, 'There she goes again.' But I was proved fucking right." --Judith Miller, SALON
Why do they all persist in calling her "distinguished"? She's like our "popular" president--unaccountable, above it all, somehow untouched by the surrounding filth.
And has anyone taken a look at the Afghanistan reporting that earned her a Pulitzer in 2001? I don't know anything about it, but what are the chances there's something dodgy there?
Anyone have a login/pw for the LA Times?
Mantar
nopass
nopass (pwd)
or try http://www.bugmenot.com
Mantar--I am told this works:
login: gorevidal
password: gorevidal
Never tried it myself; I went through their PitA registration with my own information before I knew any better. 
Libya's Uranium Linked to Pakistan
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 29, 2004; Page A21
Traces of enriched uranium discovered on recently surrendered Libyan nuclear components appear to have come from Pakistan, a critical black-market supply hub that also made deliveries to Iran and North Korea, U.N. inspectors reported yesterday in Vienna.
WHY IS PAKISTAN W's BUDDY?
The head of Pakistans CIA equivalent wired Mohammed Atta 100G right before 9/11
WTF is going on?????
Question. I got into an argument last night at dinner about "what we knew" before the invasion, when Judy was writing this stuff. My position was that I *knew* beyond a reasonable doubt that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction; my opponents' position was that I couldn't have known that, because there wasn't enough evidence, and that the most I could have known was that I opposed the war.
But I stand by my conviction that I *knew* what Miller was writing, and what the administration was claiming, wasn't true. Question is, HOW did I know? I have a poor memory.... anyone remember specific posts or articles, here or elsewhere, that debunked the "weapons of mass destruction" story? And whose names should I be Googling?
No Duck Pit for Judy.
No, she gets the "Mr. Morden" treatment.
If you're registered with the online NY Times, you can access Dan Okrent's latest column on the Miller imbroglio here...
Steve Gilliard has the best miller take down. He points out her sluttish ways like no one else.
And if anybody needs a username + password for the LA Times, use "utesfan" for user and "sierra" for pw. Enjoy.
Gary, I love you. I love your mind and your fantastic recall of Babylon 5. "I'll look up at it and wave, just like this!"
Who is Sheridan in your mind, do you think? Is it Kerry?
A.
The NYT buried the lead in their so-called apology. Headline #1: Judith Miller was taken in by Chalabi and the neocons. Headline #2: The Times was taken in by Judith Miller.
Still the paper refuses to finger her or editor Bill Keller or others who allowed her garbage onto the front page.
And they don't mention Miller's bias. In the early 1990s, she pumped for the first gulf war while co-authoring a book on the dangers posed by Saddam Hussein with Laurie Mylroie, the infamous American Enterprise Institute conservative ideologue nutcase whose Saddam-as-1993-Trade-Center-bomber theory has been thoroughly debunked. As one of the authors of the recent best-selling "Germs," an Iraq-WMD scare tome written with other Times reporters, Miller actively promoted her book's paperback launch while talking up Hussein as an imminent threat and shilling for the second Iraq war.
Also not mentioned: leaked internal Times' emails disclose Miller's self-confessed reliance on Chalabi and his defectors as sources for her front-page "exclusives." Her cozy access to Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle, Card, "Scooter" Libby and Admiral Poindexter testify to her "unbelievably great sources." Her controversial embedding with an American WMD search team, and coordination of that effort with Chalabi and the INC, while armed with a contract for a new book on the search for WMD, is pure conflict of interest.
Miller says she was proved "fucking right." Yeah, sure. She proved she fucked the country is more like it.
I read the NYT account of Lybia getting centrifuges from Pakastani sources and almost fainted with the disclosure that the good ol' US of
A missed an entire shipment of high-end aluminum tube centrifuges. JEEBUS!
wtf fresh hell awaits?
us
And here it is
Weapons of Mass Destruction? Or Mass Distraction?
By DANIEL OKRENT
Day Late and a Dollar Short. Where were the critics when it was all happening? I just have too little sympathy for the media-types.
Reporting the news isn't like playing an on-line, first-person shooter game...people really do depend on the news being reported based on verifiable facts.
I tip my hat to those that "stayed the course" thru the American version of kristallnacht. Too bad there weren't enough to make a difference.
regards
.
Sulzberger resign!
It is funny to watch everybody gangup on the Times, while giving all the other outlets a walk, like they do not count.
CNN, FoxNews, MSGOP, all NewsCorp, CBS, NBC,
very true
when the Democrats take over we will need a truth & reconcilation commission to look into everyone who stampeded us into the catastrophe.
Anonymous writes.....
"WHY IS PAKISTAN W's BUDDY?"
If you read "Against All Enemies", by Richard Clarke, you'd be surprised to find that Pakistan was hired by the USA to set up those camps in the mountains bordering Afganistan to train the Afgan fighters. They did it with money given to them by Reagan and Bush in order to be a proxy to defeat Russian troops without the USA getting their hands dirty.
Furthermore, they really "liked" the Taliban and were especially "fond" of Osama for the money and people he brought in to support the Afganistan cause during and for many years after the conflict.
Since Pakistan "has" a few tactical nuclear devices in their arsenal, Bush can't just cut'em off from all the aid packages we've been giving them since the Reagan era.
It's a Coalition of the Willing and the Damned.
regards
.
I can't wait for the day when everybody get the news from where I get it.
Haloscan.
cheney_usa | Email | Homepage | 05.29.04 - 8:18 pm | #
Yikes!
OK, someone keeps mentioning this "Gilliard" on all the threads.
"Steve Gilliard has the best miller take down."
etc.
OK, OK! Uncle! Post the link to whoever this Gilliard is or shut up already!
very true
when the Democrats take over we will need a truth & reconcilation commission to look into everyone who stampeded us into the catastrophe.
Unlikely, as many of the folks leading the charge were Democrats.
More likely outcome will be more like the equally bipartisan S&L scandal of the '80s: the Democrats will decide it's best to MoveOn and deal with it in a quiet way that lets everyone responsible off the hook.
Mr. Okrent:
Far too little. Far too late. Hope you have nightmares of the horrors your paper helped unleash on innocent people--Americans, Iraqis, and many, many more.
We will not forget. We will never forget.
In the Air Force, we had a saying, "One 'Ah, Shit!' destroys a thousand 'Attaboys!'"
The NYT has destroyed decades of its own Attaboys. It will take a lot more than a faint-hearted mea culpa to undo the damage. Getting rid of Judith Miller would be a good start. And Safire. And Gerth. And Krauthammer. And Brooks. And Friedman. And Dowd. None of these people have done a single thing to elevate the discourse in this nation. They are all mean-spirited, fact-free snipers.
"But I stand by my conviction that I *knew* what Miller was writing, and what the administration was claiming, wasn't true. Question is, HOW did I know? I have a poor memory.... anyone remember specific posts or articles, here or elsewhere, that debunked the "weapons of mass destruction" story? And whose names should I be Googling?
Raya "
You were right because there were messages buried in the conventional news and talking heads that said there were no WMD in Iraq. I knew it, and at I only recently woke up enough to not take tv news seriously, so you're not off base.
OT: Jesus. Did y'all see this story (from Drudge) where an art dealer in San Fran got her ass kicked - literally and figuratively - for displaying a 'U.S. torture' painting? Unreal man. We have to pressure SFPD to find these Nazis!
The failure was not individual, but institutional.
Sulzberger should resign.
As "Modified Limited Hang-Outs" go, Okrent was somewhat better than I expected.
But Judy Miller is no longer the issue. It's much bigger than that.
The issue is the degreeto which the NYT is an arm of the administration.
Although Daniel Okrent's piece might better be entitled "Journalism of Mass Destruction," it nonetheless takes a significant step further than the non-apology apology. And it openly criticizes the non-apology apology. His final remark "now the work begins" is the right approach, even if it strikes us as an understatement. The work is way overdue, and I, for one, would not mind seeing a little more "garment-rending" right along with "aggressive reporting."
The NYTimes could redeem itself by following up on all of the bogus articles it let stand and publishing the corrections in the same places as the originals.
Will they do it? Nah. There's a new election to help steal. (No mention of not covering the truth behind that explosive story, is there?)
Does someone have a link to the Pakistan story? Thanks.
Couple thoughts after quickly reading the Okrent article:
It's a lot tougher than the Times self-criticism from earlier in the week. But it's very much too little, too late. It's too biggest difficiencies (beyond its timing) IMO:
1) Okrent correctly points out that this story involves institutional problems. But he more or less says that, therefore, individual reporters are not at fault (though Howell Raines is once again ritually flogged...apparently individual ex-editors ARE at fault). As a result, though Judy is mentioned by name, she's more or less given a free ride. Okrent even says that one of the problems with the lateness of the NYT's dealing with this mess is that "it allowed critics to form a powerful chorus; it subjected staff members under criticism (including Miller) to unsubstantiated rumor and specious charges." Poor little Judy! Of course, both institutional problems AND individuals are at fault: if it weren't for the institutional problems, Judy's trash would never have been printed. But if it weren't for Judy's incompentent and dishonest reporting, the problem wouldn't have arisen in the first place.
2) While the institutional factors that Okrent cites all seem relevant and important, they are suspiciously content neutral: Hunger for Scoops, Front Page Syndrome, Hit-and-Run Journalism (i.e. not revisiting controversial claims), Coddling Sources, and End-Run Editing (i.e. insufficient oversight by Raines). If these were the only problems, why wasn't the Times printing stories of a conspiracy between the Bush administration and Halliburton to manufacture a war purely for financial gain? Surely this would have been sensational, and would have made the Times coverage even more path breaking and headline worthy. The answer is that more than disinterested-but-unhinged headline seeking was at work here. The Times was playing an active role in promoting the administration's agenda. And that's where Times self-criticism dares not tread.
when the Democrats take over we will need a truth & reconcilation commission to look into everyone who stampeded us into the catastrophe.
Oh surely it was just a few "bad apples".
I also enjoy the appropriate B5 reference.
There just aren't enough pikes to go around.
why wasn't the Times printing stories of a conspiracy between the Bush administration and Halliburton to manufacture a war purely for financial gain?
The NYTimes coverage of the Cheney Energy meetings being planning sessions for the war in Iraq were explosive...oh wait...they didn't write anything on that.
The note of more than 1,000 words, which appeared on the bottom of Page 10, was novel in that it declined to name a single one of the reporters or editors who worked on the stories.
[the bottom of Pate 10, THE BOTTOM of page 10.]
Keller, for his part, isn't tossing anybody over the side. In his interview with the Journal, he defended Miller as " a smart, relentless and unbelievably well-sourced and fearless reporter." Her critics, he said, are purveyors of a "misinformed, venomous mythology that had grown up focused on the personality of one reporter."
A SMART, RELENTLESS AND UNBELIEVEABLY WELL-SOURCED AND FEARLESS REPORTER.
Unvelieveably is obviously supposed to be unbelievable and from the kid-glove treatment she's gotten for being behind the biggest of the year's newspaper scandals, why would she be afraid of anything?
She's only gotten tens of thousands killed, maimed and tortured to benefit the corrupt corporate state.
There you go, we don't care, we don't have to, we're THE TIMES.
Okrent:
" (While I'm on the subject: Readers were never told that Chalabi's niece was hired in January 2003 to work in The Times's Kuwait bureau. She remained there until May of that year.)"
Was Okrent speaking up during the Times rush to war? Is it possible that articles he may have written debunking the myth were killed or buried?
Okrent:
"No one can deny that this was a drama in which The Times played a role. On Friday, May 21, a front-page article by David E. Sanger ("A Seat of Honor Lost to Open Political Warfare") elegantly characterized Chalabi as "a man who, in lunches with politicians, secret sessions with intelligence chiefs and frequent conversations with reporters from Foggy Bottom to London's Mayfair, worked furiously to plot Mr. Hussein's fall." The words "from The Times, among other publications" would have fit nicely after "reporters" in that sentence. The aggressive journalism that I long for, and that the paper owes both its readers and its own self-respect, would reveal not just the tactics of those who promoted the W.M.D. stories, but how The Times itself was used to further their cunning campaign."
The aggressive journalism that I long for, and that the paper owes both its readers and its own self-respect, would reveal not just the tactics of those who promoted the W.M.D. stories, but how The Times itself was used to further their cunning campaign."
james
That is unless The Times was promoting the war intentionally. Maybe the reason they're going so easy on Ms. Liar 2003 is that she was doing what they wanted her to do.
"The aggressive journalism that I long for, and that the paper owes both its readers and its own self-respect, would reveal not just the tactics of those who promoted the W.M.D. stories, but how The Times itself was used to further their cunning campaign."
Poor, poor, dear old Gray Lady! How her innocence was soiled by all that "cunning." Let's hope we get some "aggressive journalism" that reveals how wrongly she was treated! Oh, the shame of it all! Maybe if she forgives herself, we can all forgive her, too.
what is with this 'institutional problem'??
It's a group of people doing a propaganda.
FIND these mofos, fire them, and create a system so that this doesn't happen again.
The NYT lost me a long time ago. These days I only grudgingly check their website if somebody else's link sends me there.
The best they can do is reexamine and report on all the misinformation and outright lies they foisted on the public--with as much fervor and fanfare as they had when printing the originals. There's even a convenient way to do it right now: Chalabi.
But they won't. Because they're whores that think they're virgins.
The LA Times might knock the Grey Lady aside if it keeps printing stuff like that.
Ron Brownstein always makes sense, whether in print or a talking head, and this whippersnapper Mike K should make the Opinion section interesting when he starts out.
Xan, that combo works for the NYT, oddly enough.
I'm registered for the LAT, but I'll see if it works while In in IE^ or Firefox.
Has Judith Miller ever had anyone spit in her face?
Don't know about that, but when me and the boys are working late at PNAC she's usually up for a round or two of extreme bukkake.
Should be IE6, not raised to the power of 0.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that Judith Miller is a white woman. Furthermore, I would like to point out that this whole episode reflects very poorly on all white people everywhere.
It will become painfully obvious to everybody very soon that all of the credibility problems that are affecting the New York Times really boil down to one thing: not enough affirmative action in the newsroom. See what happens when you rely on white people for your news? We went to war on the say-so of a pasty white bitch and we have nobody to blame but ourselves and white people.
There's a lot of people in the world who don't believe that people whose skin color may not be the same as ours can be trusted as journalists. I reject that. I reject that strongly. I believe that people with brown skin can still be journalists. I believe that people whose skins aren't necessarily -- are a different color than white can nevertheless tell the truth.
Please, don't anyone spit in her face. Hollywood will make movies with neo-cons covered with liberal spit. Country western songs will mention it and it will turn into a myth that all the liberals dried up from all that spitting. It won't be pretty.
The Grey Lady would make the last Dowager Empress of China look idealistic.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that Judith Miller is a white woman. Furthermore, I would like to point out that this whole episode reflects very poorly on all white people everywhere.
Ha! It's funny 'cause it's true. As a white person--more or less--I personally feel diminished and discouraged by the low standards of success that Judith Miller has set for the White Community.
I need to heal! I need closure!
Good point about her being a white woman. How come no one asks if she isn't an affirmative action hire? White women have gotten the most out of affirmative action, they brought it up with Jayson and Cooke and Smith. How come no one is asking it about Judith Miller?
LA TIMES
username: iamatrios
pass: iamatrios
One thing that truly disgusts me is how Keller has taken to defending Miller as if she is the innocent target of an ignorant mob -- as if he, Keller, is nobly sticking by a reporter unfairly set upon.
At base, Keller refuses to accept the OBVIOUS facts:
1) What Miller reported, almost in its entirety, was FALSE AND/OR MISLEADING.
2) The false/misleading claims were crucial to a decision about war and national security -- perhaps the gravest sort of decision a nation might make.
3) If those claims had NOT been accepted, we might have avoided the tragedy unfolding in Iraq.
When Keller treats Miller critics as if they don't know what they are talking about, what is he claiming? That, in fact, Miller (as she herself has claimed) was "right" (more precisely "fucking right")? If she was, in fact, WRONG (indeed, FUCKING WRONG), then who is the knuckledragger here, Miller's critics, or Miller and Keller themselves?
Keller wants to pretend that he is standing up for an honorable reporter against the onslaught of an irrational mob that can't stand the unpopular truths she has told. In fact, he is defending a reporter who served essentially as a front for one of the worse serial liars in recent world history.
I'd like to know from Mr. Keller, just what, exactly, is noble about holding steadfast for a reporter like THAT?
ttp://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/
OT but a woman in San Francisco was beaten and knocked unconsious for showing a painting in her gallery depicting the abuse of Iraqi prisoners.
Here's the story.
http://steveilliard.blogspot.com/
an excellent blog
okay once more with feeling :
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/
Third time is a charm.
Keller had such a short run, but boy will it live in infamy.
Okrent replayed the smear of Judy's (unnamed) critics:
It allowed critics to form a powerful chorus; it subjected staff members under criticism (including Miller) to unsubstantiated rumor and specious charges
Well, that's two opportunities to publicize those charges and refute them missed.
But Judy's never worked for ACT UP, and no one's claimed that she's gay. What's your point?
Keller is a shit 4 brains media whore. There is NO defence for the propaganda this admin has pumped through the "liberal" press. Remember Saddam/911/terrorists? OK, what about Medicare? Shall I go on?
Eschaton Up All Night, coming soon to the Reality TV Channel.
A.
OKrent should not of ended his piece with "now the work begins" but with "Now for us all at the New York Times, the looking for real work begins. We're all fired."
By the way...
Gunmen Kill 10 in Saudi Housing Compound
6 minutes ago
By DONNA ABU-NASR, Associated Press Writer
KHOBAR, Saudi Arabia - Suspected Islamic militants wearing military-style uniforms sprayed gunfire inside two office compounds in the heart of the Saudi oil region Saturday, killing at least 10 people — including an American — and then seizing dozens of hostages at a luxury resort.
so how much self-reflection do we expect from our MWs out there because of this? will cnn and newsweek start thinking about how they were used? will we get long soul-searching articles and features admitting that "yes, we didn't do our job."
or will they now be tougher on the next president, john kerry?
yeah, i thought so...
It's good, but he's dead wrong when he says Jack Kelley's fabrications were too wacky to be taken seriously outside the USA Today newsroom. I wrote about that here and was surprised no one followed up on it. This World Journalism Institute grad influenced everything from hate groups to Israeli security policy.
Doghouse Reilly...that's a funny kind of name.
For a good laugh read Friedman's column in the Times today.
His tilt theory, that you can change a country just by tilting it the other way.
You know, like how our country was tilted by the Supreme Court on Dec. 5, 2000.
And he begins saying there are too many mea culpas. Is he crazy?
This is unrelated but anyone check out the unfolding hostage crisis in eastern Saudi Arabia? Perhaps the whole maneuver is a distraction for a suicidal pilot to dive bomb into an oil field. That would really send oil prices through the roof. what the hell would fuehrer bush have to say then?
Honestly, does anyone take Friedman seriously any more? Even among so-called liberal hawks he seems peculiarly lost in his own fantasy world.
Not that the blogosphere is the measure of intelligent opinion, but is there any blog out there which regularly treats him with respect?
Doghouse Reilly...that's a funny kind of name.
Go ahead, try to sit in my lap while I'm standing up.
Mr. Okrent:
Far too little. Far too late. Hope you have nightmares of the horrors your paper helped unleash on innocent people--Americans, Iraqis, and many, many more.
We will not forget. We will never forget.
In the Air Force, we had a saying, "One 'Ah, Shit!' destroys a thousand 'Attaboys!'"
The NYT has destroyed decades of its own Attaboys. It will take a lot more than a faint-hearted mea culpa to undo the damage. Getting rid of Judith Miller would be a good start. And Safire. And Gerth. And Krauthammer. And Brooks. And Friedman. And Dowd. None of these people have done a single thing to elevate the discourse in this nation. They are all mean-spirited, fact-free snipers.
LJ | Email | Homepage | 05.29.04 - 9:59 pm | #
sorry, but this was so good it needed to be said again. bravo, LJ!
It's weird how Democrats/liberals have to be "deconstructed" by the press...everything's looked at almost in terms of theatre, or children playing dress-up. Republicans, however, are almost always presented as having more integrated personalities, with less of a disconnect between their words and beliefs.
Thus, "Bush's speech showed him determined to win the war on terror." But "Kerry strives to portray himself as strong on defense."
With Liberal politicians, the press's focus is usually on their ATTEMPT to communicate a message, with perhaps a discussion of what benefit they hope to gain by "presenting" themselves in this or that way. You almost never see Republicans treated as subjects for amateur psychological inference.
Just sayin'.
Honestly, does anyone take Friedman seriously any more? Even among so-called liberal hawks he seems peculiarly lost in his own fantasy world.
As does David Brooks. I think he's going to have a nervous breakdown and convert to Fundie Xianity. Not necessarily in that order.
OT:
In Memoriam, in the spirit of when men were men and not lap dog poodles of the Rethug crooks in the White House .
2 great Watergate stalwarts pass on after nobly serving their country to the best of their abilities.
Sam Dash also stood up to Ken Starr’s creepy behavior, charging him with abuse of office and Sam Dash stood up for Nelson Mandela.
Archibald Cox, Sam Dash, they will surely be missed .
Friedman seems to have decided that Crazier than You and driving without a steering wheel are really not a good rationale for American foreign policy.
.....
When does he apologize and/or resign? .
.....
Sources: Judy Miller was and or is fucking Punch Sulzberger (Times publisher). Hence they aren't going to fire her.
nyt, cnn and fox are filled with cia operatives, this can be a good thing now that it seems like they want to take the loser neo-cons down.
Does anyone want to take bets on whether Dowd’s maudlin over Vets will extend to acknowledging that our genuine American war hero would be a much better President?
.....
Just asking .
.....
touchpanelhacker1111: were you watching that bruce willis movie on FX tonight, too? The one where they send him and Sam Jackson all over NY to distract the cops from them stealing all the gold from the Fed?
Maybe someone on the late shift in Langley was watching, too, and made the same connection. We can hope...
Bertha, really, I had not heard that, didn’t the scuttlebutt say that was Judy and Chalabi, cheese louise, it is so hard to keepup, Judy and Chalabi look much more compatible than Judy and Punch, is Punch the younger dude or the older dude .
.....
BenA, rhetorical question, I think the bets are the answer is no, nobody takes Tommy seriously .
.....
Cheese Louise.
.....
You almost never see Republicans treated as subjects for amateur psychological inference.
Good point, Philalethes. I think our current state of whoredom dates to the Carter era and resulted from an unfortunate confluence of the Nixon-inspired Librul Media tag (which resulted in the Right's position on Practically Everything being appended to every story with little critical comment), the rise of Barbara Walters as the first Million Dollar Teleprompter Reader, the Big Media firms recognizing the coming cable/telecommunications orgy and maneuvering for their slice, and the Happy Talk ("there's too much bad news on the news") news format. I can't think of a single substantive issue in the interim that's been covered strictly as substance.
It was around that time that Leslie Stahl became CBS WH correspondant and I swear to God she couldn't report a single item coming from the Carter administration without telling us what she perceived as the political motive behind it.
A good point, Philalethes. Now that you made it, I can see how it works, even on the NPR. Heureka!
Athenae, I don't see any Sheridans around here.
If Kerry starts getting Al Gore on the fratboy coward's ass, then he might be in the running.
My NYTimes subscription notice arrived last week. I had such a good time writing across the face of it that I won't renew my subscription until Judith Miller is fired. I asked why I should pay good money to read stinking lies!
At least we now have proof that the "Times" is not liberal...
Ta, Echidne. And yeah, NPR is actually the worst offender, in some ways. Although at the same time, they seem to be getting more and more "liberated" from such rhetorical subtleties, and replacing them with partisan cattiness.
For instance, I heard "Left, Right and Center" the other day, and the supposedly neutral "centrist" was literally trashing Gore's speech BEFORE the show even started. In the intro, he said something smarmy like "A speech by (ahem) Al Gore has raised the question, 'Does anybody actually CARE what Al Gore has to say?'"
Speaking of which...
As does David Brooks. I think he's going to have a nervous breakdown...
He may already have had it. I was driving around a couple days ago and on the radio they were doing one of those inane point/counterpoint discussions with Brooks and E.J. Dionne (center right AND center left...the gamut of political thought from H to S!). Anyway, Dionne has his say about Iraq, and here comes Brooks, and I'm bracing myself for the usual fusillade of lies and trumpery from that simpering waste of skin.
Instead, Brooks pretty much said that Republicans were disgusted with BushCo, and said that it was widely understood that Iraq was the biggest Republican political blunder of all times. Go figure! I'd never have believed that Brooks' head was porous enough to let such uncomfortable facts seep in.
Sources: Judy Miller was and or is fucking Punch Sulzberger (Times publisher).
Yeesh.
Speaking of fucking, I think I'll be going on the wagon 'til I can clean that image out of my noggin...
So Doghouse, what you're saying is the tendency to analyze the news, i.e. motives, influences, possible outcomes, etc..., is the underlying reason we don't have "reporters" anymore. Makes sense, if you notice how many "analysts" are on the "news" shows, and how many of the reporters seem to try hard to not look like they're reading off of cue cards, or listening to their earpiece for what to say. Certainly this has led to the current trend to simply regurgitate what ever any "official" releases state. With the current electronic ability for editing, instantaneous transmittal, and the ever shrinking corporate ownership of the media outlets, "news" reporting has been transformed more often than not a tool for disinformation dispersion. At least for TV, radio (NPR?), and print outlets; thank goodness for the web. I wonder if any reporters-in-training are still instructed in the who, what, where, when, and why ? I think I just answered my own question, the why has taken over as the most important part! Lots of room to explain, bend, twist the event into a statement about who did the action, and how that makes them good/bad, moral/amoral, etc....
Jeepers. If y'all haven't read David E's dissection by now, GO READ IT. Wow.
Mea Partial Culpa is it's name, responsibility avoidance is it's game.
FU NYT. It'll be a while until I come back...
I LOVED this!!!!
Okrent:
A reporter who protects a source not just from exposure but from unfriendly reporting by colleagues is severely compromised. Reporters must be willing to help reveal a source's misdeeds; information does not earn immunity.
Hey Novak! He's talking to YOU!!!!
ggggrrrr . . . tags . . . grrrr
Why does Jeff Gerth still have a job?
.....
Wow, whodathunkit, who knew, Saudi commandoes rescued most of the hostages.
.....
Cheese Louise, I didn’t even know the Saudis had commandos, rock on dudes.
.....
.
.....
Thanks, Katherine Hunter -- A MOST EXCELLENT BLOG...
I pretty much just read AP and Reuters news feeds. Why pay money to read the lies of Time, USA Today, New York Times, etc... Until the media conglomerates are broken into a million bits, noone of this will improve.
David E just made my blogs link list permanently
Keller, for his part, isn't tossing anybody over the side. In his interview with the Journal, he defended Miller as " a smart, relentless and unbelievably well-sourced and fearless reporter."
That's not Keller's opinion, by the way. He checked with two sources to synthesize that portrayal of Judith Miller.
1. Judith Miller
2. Ahmed Chalabi
(From the Try It! Dept.: Say Keller's defense of Miller in a monotone, like Frank Sinatra in "Manchurian Candidate." It's fun AND revealing!)
I just read href=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/30/
weekinreview/30bott.html>Okrent's Column. Very pleasant sort of thing, really. Judith Miller wrote flimsy pieces but the real problem is institutional. No shit.
While Okrent decries the Times' participation in the March To War, he doesn't say that there is any real institutional change afoot that will prevent them from being the Republican mouthpiece again.
Imagine that.
Even without having served, Clinton reminds me more of John Sheridan than Kerry does.
Dean, however, seems like the Garibaldi type to me.
Tell me again about the preview function?
Tis a good column from Okrent. I think he's exactly right, media provides a service to readers above all else. They must expose everyone from the exiles to those in gov't who misled or scammed the Times. And also expose Miller and others who were knowingly or otherwise in on it and fire them all. Otherwise no more cherished NYT credibility
Whew, thought that was me who did that.
Tiny url, please.
Kind of an interesting line-up this morning on "This Week".....Gen. Zinni and Richard Perle. Hmmmmm....from dailykos.com:
THIS WEEK (ABC, WJLA), 10 a.m.: Reps. Christopher Cox (R-Calif.) and Jane Harman (D-Calif.), Iraqi Governing Council member Adnan Pachachi, retired Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, and Richard N. Perle of the American Enterprise Institute.
Not that the blogosphere is the measure of intelligent opinion, but is there any blog out there which regularly treats him with respect?
BenA
Actually, Ben, i think we are.
Look at the facts - we self-correct, we research, we provide links and references, and when somebody wanders in and just makes sh*t up, we tell him to put up or shut up.
If he does it regularly, some one of us (or more) make it our job to match his efforts - as Sully and Insty have learned to their grief.
--Can you *imagine* how different it would be, if that was the way it was at the NYT - if they just let the journalists who were disgusted with Miller, say, have *their* say on the other side of the page, simultaneously? If they were allowed to quote from people opposed to the INC and say, yes, well, Judy thinks Chalabi's wonderful, but according to his old roomie from UChicago, he'll steal your spare change from off your dresser, then smile and apologize for the 'mistake' if you catch him...count your fingers after shaking hands with him, is what his former friends in the CIA are saying, the ones who got burnt back in '96, and oh, did you know his daughter used to work here once upon a time? Not that we're saying the word "cronyism" of course...
That's what it would look like, if they measured up to Eschaton's standards.
Rather pithy article on Riverbend about now re. Chalabi: this bit sums it up for me -
We have a saying in Arabic, "En kint tedri, fe tilk musseeba… in kint la tedri, fa il musseebatu a'adham" which means, "If you knew, then that was a catastrophe… and if you didn't know, then the catastrophe is greater."
I wonder what the Arabic word is for "clusterbungle"?
OT: From today's WaPo:
http://tinyurl.com/2fz79
"It is our patriotic duty to speak out when egregiously flawed policies and strategies needlessly cost American lives. It is time for the president to ask those responsible for the flawed Iraqi policy -- civilian and military -- to resign from public service. Absent such a change in the current administration, many of us will be forced to choose a presidential candidate whose domestic policies we may not like but who understands firsthand the effects of flawed policies and incompetent military strategies and who fully comprehends the price.
William A Witlow is a retired major general in the Marine Corps. He served as director of the expeditionary warfare division in the office of the deputy chief of naval operations."
I wonder how quickly the Rethugs will pronounce Major General Witlow insane...
There are many assholes to blame
For this fuckup that brought us shame.
But W's the creep
Who was fast asleep
When the moth came too close to the flame.
We have been discussing the non-issue of WMDs since summer of '02.
I recall having an argument with a thug where all he could say to me was: WMDs!
It is not the opinions and the lies they believe in that is bad about the thugs and morons and non-thinkers alike....
It is that these morons are soo dumb, they NEVER learn from their mistakes, well they do learn, and what they learn is how not to get caught next time.
from most definitions, that kind of arrogance makes you a hardened criminal and you should be locked up for life since you have no redeeming qualities for society!
so taking my argument to the next point: if you are a non-progressive, and you cannot reason as to why someone is a progressive, then you most likely ought to be locked away from society as you have nothing positive to add to it!
Pelosi on MTP! Go Nancy!!!
There should be some accountabiity at the Times. Where do those people think they're working, in the White House?
Was Okrent speaking up during the Times rush to war? Is it possible that articles he may have written debunking the myth were killed or buried?
Actually, Okrent didn't join the Times until the end of '03. During the run-up to war he was an editor-at-large for the Time-Life magazine group.
I've known Dan Okrent for about 15 years and have worked with him on projects in the past. He's good people, and when he became the public editor I don't think he expected l'affaire Miller to be occupying 99% of his time.
Taking on the public editor job at The Times is having a bullseye placed on your back. Check out the conservative blogs and message boards -- they think Okrent's a left-wing apologist...
Here's what struck me in Okrent's piece:
"The contract between a reporter and an unnamed source - the offer of information in return for anonymity - is properly a binding one. But I believe that a source who turns out to have lied has breached that contract, and can fairly be exposed. The victims of the lie are the paper's readers, and the contract with them supersedes all others."
I have only a spectator's view of journalism, so I'd love to hear thoughts from those with experience in this area. Is this a reasonable expectation on the part of the readers, and what are the chances newspapers would institute such a policy?
Blind quotes when used to advance a dangerous agenda are so harmful, I'd like it to be understood by the commentator that if his or her words turn out to be deliberately misleading or knowingly false, that they will be exposed. Am I missing the obvious downside? I can't imagine it will hamper reporting - information wants to be free. If it's true, someone should be willing to document that to an editor in advance before it shows up in the story. If it's not true, the source won't stand by it, let them start a blog or give it to Drudge.
Thoughts?
VERY STRANGE- Google- Margie Schoedinger
I found it amusing that in Gilliard's take down of Miller, he referred to her as "Mattress Judy." How figuratively and literally apropos for a media whore.
Print Email
Last Update: Sunday, May 30, 2004. 10:34pm (AEST)
Police surround Chalabi's office
Police in the central Iraqi town of Ramadi have surrounded the local office of Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress and ordered it to be evacuated.
No reason has been given for the order, which is said to have come from the Iraqi Interior Ministry.
Mr Chalabi and his party initially had strong backing from sections of the Bush administration, but relations have cooled markedly in recent months.
Earlier this month, US-led troops raided Mr Chalabi's home and seized documents and computers.
-- BBC
It was around that time that Leslie Stahl became CBS WH correspondant and I swear to God she couldn't report a single item coming from the Carter administration without telling us what she perceived as the political motive behind it.
Doghouse Riley
That's how I remember it being from just about every Washington based correspondant during the Carter administration. It's when I first started noticing that NPR had turned into a non-stop Democrat basher.
As soon, and I mean as soon as, Carter took office they started making fun of his heritage, his brother, his sister. They started in on stories of drug use and drunkeness of his staff, etc. etc.
As soon as Reagan took office it was, "the country wants a more positive note in political coverage". Not even the roses in the toilet bowls got much ink.
Does anyone else remember the day after the 1968 election, in the morning when Nixon was declared the winner that the NBC news room errupted into cheers. ON camera. Poor John Chancellor was reduced into making some lame excuse for what was then a major journalistic sin. The "new journalism" hadn't established the rot yet.
The establishment media has been establishment from the start.
IRAQ: Chalabi and the Cheney gang: Thieves fall out
Doug Lorimer
Ahmad Chalabi, who up until a few months ago had been the Bush administration’s favourite to head Washington’s puppet regime in Iraq, now stands accused of duping the US into invading Iraq.
On May 18, US deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz announced that the Pentagon was suspending a program under which it was paying US$340,000 a month to Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress (INC) party for “intelligence”.
Two days later, Chalabi’s Baghdad offices and home were raided and ransacked by Iraqi police — accompanied, according to the May 21 New York Times, by “American soldiers and unidentified men in civilian clothing who Iraqis said were American [intelligence] agents”.
According to the May 21 San Francisco Chronicle, US occupation officials said the raid had been approved by Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) head Paul Bremer and was part of an investigation into the alleged theft of US$22 million from the Iraqi finance ministry by Sabah Nouri.
Chalabi, head of the US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council’s economic and finance committee, had appointed Nouri, a leading INC member, as the finance ministry’s chief anti-corruption official. Nouri was arrested in April on 17 charges including extortion, fraud, embezzlement, theft of government property and abuse of authority.
While Chalabi himself had not been charged, US occupation officials told the Chronicle that charges — including theft of government property, extortion, bribery and kidnapping — had been laid against at least a dozen of his associates, including Aras Karim Habib, the head of the INC’s “intelligence service”.
Time magazine noted that “Chalabi hired an accounting firm to investigate the oil-for-food scandal. In March, Bremer hired a different accounting firm to direct the probe. Chalabi aides charge that Bremer snuffed out Chalabi’s campaign, fearing it would discredit the UN and Brahimi. Chalabi says last week’s raid was aimed at confiscating oil-for-food documents that could embarrass UN officials.”
However, it is not only UN officials who could be embarrassed by the oil-for-food corruption scandal.
In November 2000, the San Francisco Bay Guardian reported that while Dick Cheney was its CEO, the Halliburton oil services company engaged in illegal business dealings with Saddam Hussein’s regime under the UN oil-for-food program, and assisted his regime to earn an extra $1 billion that year through selling oil on the black market.
These deals were being carried out by Halliburton at the same time as Cheney and his associates in the Project for a New American Century — Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and Luti — were lobbying the Clinton administration to invade Iraq and open the way to US oil companies plundering Iraq’s huge oil resources.
“Most American companies were blacklisted [by Iraq]”, a UN diplomat with the oil-for-food program told the February 16 New Yorker magazine. “It’s rather surprising to find Halliburton doing business with Saddam. It would have been very much a senior-level decision, made by the regime at the top.”
It would certainly not be beyond Halliburton executives to have used bribery to gain contracts with Hussein’s regime. In May 2003, Halliburton admitted that one of its subsidiaries had paid millions of dollars to a Nigerian official in 2001 in return for tax breaks. In early February this year, the US Justice Department began a criminal investigation into claims that Halliburton was involved in a $180 million bribery scheme to secure a contract from Nigerian officials for construction of a natural gas plant during the late 1990s, when Cheney was running the company.
(CBS/AP) Three U.S. Marines were killed in action Saturday in Anbar province west of Baghdad, the U.S. military reported.
Anonymous
"The troops' death can be directly attributed to the journalistic irresponsibility of the New York Times' Judith Miller, who wrote false and misleading stories about the danger Iraq posed to the United States."
Thanks, Judy. Sleep well.
MinnieB9 - Please? Pleeeeeeeaaaasssssse?
It's jeeze louise. No cheese. Ever. Sometimes it's Jeez. Cheese louise sounds like something you'd serve over boiled shrimp, and have it not taste very good.
On this week, Richard Perle is literally being surrounded by those who would marginalize him.
How is he still considered a worthy person to listen to on this matters, being so discredited?
The NY Times by issuing a mistakes were made non-apology without actually doing some serious house cleaning will have lost their credibility forever. Sounds just like what is happening on the National level with this misAdministration. Blind, arrogant, partial mea culpa's, without any serious head rolling going on.
Keller, in his defense of Miller, reminds me of Shrub when he said Condi is a "fabulous" NSA (even though she has botched everything from 9-11, Niger claim and fake wmd claims) or when Dubya said Rummy is a "superb" DOD secretary after the complete failure in Iraq and prison scandal. Don't they see just how ridiculous and out of touch with reality they look saying these things once the facts show just how seriously they screwed everything up!
The Times will suffer the same fate this administration will if they don't fire those primarily responsible for this institutional f-up! It's starts at the top and goes down the chain of command all the way to the reporters who are resonsible for it. But I guess the NYTimes doesn't mind losing their reputation and credibility (one more casualty of Shrub's failed war on terra) as long as those responsible save their own arses and keep their jobs. Bidness as usual among the powerful and well connected.
From the Try It! Dept.: Say Keller's defense of Miller in a monotone, like Frank Sinatra in "Manchurian Candidate." It's fun AND revealing!
Damn, cheap shot artist! You've gone and made me spit coffee all over my keyboard and playing cards!
Zucht. En ik heb al zo'n last van frequent lozen van flatus en RSI. http://findgraphics.freewebpage.org/
Aaaaa. I can't access this link and I really want to.
And how about those fairies? http://www.findspot.net/commerce...e-
commerce.html
nice site
http://www.freeastrology.us/
nice site
http://www.skincareinfo.us
christian debt management tulsa christian debt management tulsa christian debt management tulsa. debt free living prosperous debt free living prosperous debt free living prosperous.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
