If Jason Blair was fired, Judith Miller should go to jail!

[keithyboy]

http://www.freepress.net/news/print.php?id=3665

[otohara]

1. Hell, They Didn't Even Have The Balls To Mention Her Name

in half assed apology. I canceled my NYT's subscription because of her articles and they sent me a letter standing by their coverage of Bush' War.

[Wind Dancer]

2. That's a direct contradiction!

If they were sincere, she would have been fired immediately. Disgusting beyond belief, yet typical.

[chookie]

3. They are dragging their feet on this, no?

Jayson Blair served a political purpose: he became the poster boy of the follies of Affirmative Action. "Look what happens when you promote silly Negroes!" -- Rush and Sean cried! And to think that White Men are an Endangered Species, while people like Blair are promoted JUST because of their race!! Of course, it is a "Hate crime" to suggest that Condi Rice is incompetent, in spite of all the evidence before us.

Obviously, keeping Judith Miller on is serving a political purpose as well. I bet there is tremendous administration pressure on the NY Times to retain her. Tremendous!

[maddezmom]

4. Cheney ,The Pentagon and Judith Miller

~snip~

An internal I.N.C. document reveals how influential the Information Collection Program was. On June 26, 2002, Entifadh Qanbar, an I.N.C. official, sent a memo to the Senate Appropriations Committee, in which he gave the I.N.C. credit for “product” cited in a hundred and eight English-language news stories that appeared between October, 2001, and May, 2002. These articles, the letter said, relayed I.N.C. information collected from “defectors, reports, and raw intelligence” about Iraq. In addition, Qanbar wrote, the I.N.C. provided its raw information directly to “U.S. government recipients,” including William Luti, at the Pentagon, and John Hannah, the special assistant for national security in the Office of the Vice-President.

The news stories in which the I.N.C. claimed to have placed its “product” include some of the most disputed journalism to appear in the prelude to the war. On December 20, 2001, Judith Miller published a front-page story in the Times about an Iraqi engineer who claimed to have direct knowledge of twenty secret chemical-, biological-, and nuclear-weapons sites in Iraq. One site, he said, was hidden under a hospital. He also described tests of these prohibited weapons on live Kurdish and Shiite prisoners. Miller disclosed in her story that the I.N.C. had helped the engineer to leave Iraq, and had arranged the interview, and that the I.N.C.’s agenda was to overthrow Saddam Hussein. She also noted that U.S. officials were “trying to verify” the defector’s claims. Despite these caveats, Miller reported that “experts said the information seemed reliable and significant.” In a subsequent piece, she wrote that the same defector had given U.S. intelligence officials “dozens of highly credible reports on Iraqi weapons-related activity and purchases.”

The defector’s name is Adnan Ihsan Saheed al-Haideri. Since the war, neither U.N. weapons inspectors nor David Kay, a top U.S. weapons inspector, have found evidence to confirm his accounts. According to a recent Knight Ridder report, American officials escorted Haideri back to Iraq after the war, but he failed to locate any prohibited-weapons facilities. The I.N.C. reportedly provided Miller with the exclusive Haideri story three days after he had shown deception in a polygraph test administered by the C.I.A. at the request of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

When asked about Haideri’s credibility problems, a Chalabi aide who declined to be named disputed the polygraph story, saying that D.I.A. officials had told him that Haideri “was a gold mine” of information, and that “even if only three per cent of it was true” it was worthwhile.

~snip~

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040607fa_fact1

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. Single source reporting is always a bad idea.

[Az]

6. You fail to understand the nature of the game

The left stands for objective truth and honesty. The right stands for spinning their ideas and slamming the left any way they can. To this end because the left upholds objective truth the right can slam our face any time they percieve an error or not holding to the rigors of truth.

But when they flub the truth its just a matter of opinions. She was just doing her job promoting the rights agenda. Thus she is in no danger. There are no standards she is held to while we hold our side to high standards. Their objective is demolish our side at any cost. Ours is to build a better society.

The problem here is that it is very difficult to actually build anything contructive with monkies throwing feces all the time. But to switch to their tactics would destroy any attempt at progress thus we can only stay on our path. To use their tactics would be to play into their hands and validate their antics.