Sunday, October 16, 2005

Pen-for-hire and the real conspirators

Judith Miller:

"I was not permitted to take notes of what I told the grand jury, and my interview notes on Mr. Libby are sketchy in places. It is also difficult, more than two years later, to parse the meaning and context of phrases, of underlining and of parentheses. On one page of my interview notes, for example, I wrote the name 'Valerie Flame.' Yet, as I told Mr. Fitzgerald, I simply could not recall where that came from, when I wrote it or why the name was misspelled."


and:

"Mr. Fitzgerald asked me about another entry in my notebook, where I had written the words 'Valerie Flame,' clearly a reference to Ms. Plame. Mr. Fitzgerald wanted to know whether the entry was based on my conversations with Mr. Libby. I said I didn't think so. I said I believed the information came from another source, whom I could not recall."


Arianna Huffington:

"This is as believable as Woodward and Bernstein not recalling who Deep Throat was. It also means that Judy went to jail to protect a source she can't recall."


If Libby wasn't the source, the inescapable logic is that the entire Libby waiver story was a red herring, completely irrelevant. Since she can't remember her source, her jail time couldn't possibly have been to protect the concept of confidential sources or the Constitution.


I've noticed that the spin on this story is already to protect the New York Times at the expense of Miller. She was a 'rogue' 'run amok' who 'lied' to her editors, etc., etc. This completely ignores the fact that the editors for months and months had continued to send her out to produce obvious lies about the WMD, inexplicably continued to support her even after the deception was revealed (to the extent of making a laughingstock of the whole paper), and are still apparently unable to explain themselves. From the publisher and the editors on down, there was a concerted conspiracy in the New York Times to lie to the American people to force an illegal attack on Iraq. It's that simple. Miller was simply a pen-for-hire (and her feigned inability to remember the source just means she's still on the payroll). If it wasn't her, it would have been somebody else. Miller is guilty as hell, but more guilty is the Times, all the way up through all the writers who kept their heads down to protect their careers while the obvious lies flew (and continue to keep their heads down), all the editors who were knowing parts of the conspiracy, and the publisher, who, for reasons unknown, led the conspiracy.

0 comments: