Whatever Bush says is a lie? That MUST be a truth!

Saturday, July 09, 2005


I can understand how journalists like to stick together.

And although there is a strong argument that the jailing of Judy Miller might create a domino effect for jailing other journalists, I cannot stand by a person who will not reveal their sources on an issue that is the root of revenge against Valerie Plame by the right wing.

I see Judy MIller as a sacrificial lamb. It's dirty politics by Rove and the Right Wing, but whenever has the right wing not played dirty politics?

I will stand by journalists when they are on trial for revealing things that benefit the public, but just who is it that Judy Miller is protecting?

Many Americans distrust the American media, because it has become more of a propaganda machine for the right, and Judy Miller's track record does indicate that she is an instrument of the right wing propaganda machine.

This is a criminal investigation. The buzz is that Karl Rove might be one of those sources that the journalists are protecting.
America's laws, especially the Constitution, should be utilized for the public's benefit. Don't you think that revealing these sources proves a greater public benefit than protecting them?

The right wing exacted revenge on Wilson and Plame, when Wilson revealed Bush's lies about uranium in Africa. This issue is at the heart of the betrayal of America's trust and the people of Iraq.

Someone needs to be punished for these lies, and the best way to do that is to punish the Bush officials that revealed Plame's name to the media.
The First Amendment doesn't absolutely protect the press under all circumstances. In fact, if George Bush was subpoenaed by the grand jury regarding any information he might have about the Plame leak, he would have to answer. Why should a journalist be held to a greater privilege than the President?

This whole Judy Miller debacle is a right wing diversion tactic, to get everyone in the media paranoid, and to get all the left wing Americans to cry foul about First Amendment violations. We need to call them on their bluff and demand that Judy Miller answer the grand jury.

Everyone knows that Karl Rove is a very smart man, and he's so smart, that he has everyone crying foul right where he wants them.


At 5:52 AM, Blogger Ol Cranky said...

They're arguing this as a first amendment issue, I have a feeling that in Miller's case it may be a 5th amendment issue (there's buzz Rove got the information from Miller).

My initial reaction, despite having quite a low opinion of Miller, was that it seemed strange for such a focus on someone who didn't publish the story. Then I started thinking.

An editor at the Cleveland Plain Dealer wrote an editorial 30Jun indicating the potentially chilling effects of not having a reporter shield law on investigative journalism and how the public will not be informed of things they need to know due to an outlet's own fear of liability. The argument doesn't hold water - those who support this shield as necessary are probably evenly split between the parties. I delineated my response on my blog yesterday morning.

At 6:33 AM, Blogger Edie said...

This is obviously a question of precedent and not the personal integrity of those involved. Judith Miller was reviled by Democrats, and that is why they are standing aside as she is made scapegoat. Imagine the opposition if this had happened to Robert Fisk or Amy Goodman. And it will now.

At 10:31 AM, Blogger banana said...

I don't think that Amy Goodman would do what Judith Miller did.

Jim Naureckas of FAIR, speaking on Democracy Now on July 7, had this to say about the issue:

JIM NAURECKAS: Anonymous sources can be very important in revealing government wrongdoing, but in this case, the anonymous source is a government wrongdoer. This is someone who is presumably acting on behalf of the administration to silence an administration critic, and to say that the reporters who have witnessed this crime have an absolute right not to testify about it is to say that the government has an absolute right to reveal any confidential information that the government has about individuals in order to punish those individuals for speaking out against the government. And that's just a -- that's a sweeping power that I think it would be very dangerous to give the government.

At 11:13 AM, Blogger kingfelix said...


if you're convinced it's a matter of principle, you should be haranguing Robert Novak for not coming forward and clearing Miller. instead, he has his sweet deal and go hang everyone else.

your comments about the political stripe of Miller impacting on reaction to her "plight" is irrelevant to the argument as set out here.

to use the old saying to answer your hackneyed complaint - "if my auntie had balls, she'd be my uncle"


Post a Comment

<< Home