The Tale of Two 'Times'

Criticism abound for Miller and The New York Times.

No single facet of yesterday's Times account drew more condemnation than Miller saying she cannot recall the name of another source who told her about "Valerie Flame," as she recorded the name in her notebook. Miller said the notation was in a different part of the same notebook used for her first interview with Libby in June 2003.

See, what puzzles me here is why all the drama? If Miller was intending to testify all along, why cover up the crime so long? Can the New York Times really claim ignorance here? Wouldn't it be in their best interest, given their "liberal- bias" to have roasted Libby and Plame long ago and not pay lip service to BushCo? Let's face it, those who still think the Times is not mainstream and Rush-induced ultra-liberal have much to learn. This Miller fiasco even shows lip service being paid in spite of a serious crime being committed, or the Times is "FEMA-incompetent.

"It's hard for anyone to imagine that Judy either didn't know who provided that information or, if it was clearly someone else, why she did not make that available."

-Alex Jones, a former Times reporter who heads the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University

It is hard to believe, period. Miller is another perpetrator and victim of the BushCo mentality. First, incompetent journalism just to push the Administration line in Iraq, then using the veil of integrity in "protecting" sources that engaged in a traitorous act.

"This is as believable as Woodward and Bernstein not recalling who Deep Throat was," wrote columnist Arianna Huffington.