|
Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
30-09-05, 01:06 AM | #1 |
Push "winky" ! Push!!!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: north
Posts: 3,529
|
OK I`ll give ya a lil hint
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/...eak/index.html
given permission ? oh? ok thank you. Heres another story that i found a lil quirky so why the almost yearlong delay in telling us? |
30-09-05, 08:05 AM | #2 | ||
my name is Ranking Fullstop
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
30-09-05, 10:25 AM | #3 |
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,023
|
my guess? it simply wouldn't do for an aide to a stand up guy like big dick cheney to let some poor girl rot in prison to cover his ass, so they're now rewriting history by ludicrously claiming that was never their intent, "hell, she shouldn't have refused the court's order – we wanted her to testify all along." right. they had the last 3 months to out themselves but didn't. smarmy cya. gee boys - what took so long? the truth? they think the prosecutor's about to finger them now w/out miller's help, who i'll call the real "stand up guy" in this particlar political pas de duex, and i don't even like her. but i sure respect her on this one.
- js. |
30-09-05, 10:30 AM | #4 |
BANG BANG BANG (repeat as necessary)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Soon to be elsewhere
Posts: 1,327
|
^
I'd say that's a working theory.
__________________
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction" Dick Cheney - August 26, 2002 "I did not authorise the leaking of the name of David Kelly. Nobody was authorised to name David Kelly. I believe we have acted properly throughout" Tony Blair - July 22, 2003 |
30-09-05, 01:23 PM | #5 | ||
my name is Ranking Fullstop
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
|
Judy Miller's nobility has eluded me throughout this saga - i've never been clear on who she was standing up for...
unless he's completely lying (always a possibility), Libby's lawyer says he notified the NYT's legal counsel over a year ago that Libby was waiving source protection. so, one has to wonder what has prompted the NYT to grant her editorial martyrdom since her imprisonment. in fact, when she was ordered to jail, the judge "told her she was mistaken in her belief that she was defending a free press, stressing that the government source she 'alleges she is protecting' had released her from her promise of confidentiality." at any rate, this is the question of the day around the media world. from the WaPo's political blog: Quote:
edit: or perhaps there's a clue here: Quote:
|
||
30-09-05, 02:59 PM | #6 | ||||
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,023
|
it’s complicated, it’s true, and I’m sure motives are mixed, they usually are in situations like this, but it doesn’t mean miller’s disingenuous. it doesn’t even mean the onus is on her to prove her case, but do i think libby has a lot of explaining to do. it’s his exhortations that don’t add up (or rather his lawyer’s. nobody seems to ever hear from libby).
from today’s press conference: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
then there’s this: Quote:
seriously, miller going to jail over protecting a white house source makes the source look so bad – like a coward in fact, you’d think he’d make a major effort to protect his reputation, even hold a press conference to say, “Yeah. I talked to her. So what? I didn’t spill any state secrets and she knows it. She's free to say so and she knows that too. Beats me why she won’t. As a matter of fact I called her up personally and told her she could talk a year ago.” i’m not hearing anything like that from libby. or his lawyers. - js. |
||||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|