« Back To A Failing Iraq | Main | The Benefits Of Divided Government »

September 19, 2006

Comments

So Judy is. as usual. intimately involved in the weapons lies, Isikoff (and Corn) - representing the complicit media - are muddying the waters, the DIA represent uncooperative dissent to be ignored....You've provided more information but I wonder if you still think Judy is representing the media here. I recall you wrote approvingly of her Grand Strategy paper which I found alarming....

I don't think I wrote approvingly of her grand strategy paper--the only time I've written on it was when I considered it in regards to her being quoted as a source by the AIPAC guys indicted for spying.

So no, I don't think she's representing the media. I don't know that I've ever been terribly supportive of that view, either. My very first post on her suggested that, if we don't given the PR flack of Exxon First Amendment protection, allowing her to hide the crimes of the CEO of Exxon in, say Valdez, we shouldn't give judy such protection to hide the crimes of this Administration.

Fair enough. So - at the risk of being a concern troll (!) - did you see anything in her grand strategy reflections on counterproliferation and the field work of spring 2003 of interest? Wasn't it you who asked what she was working on in July 2003 all those months ago? I think it was that assessment.

True Miller and Blair story:

In late summer '03, when it was obvious that they weren't finding WMDs in Iraq, I bought 2 copies of the child's book, "Where's Spot?" (Spot is a puppy and his mom is looking for him in the grandfather clock, under the rug, inside the grand piano, etc., with lift ups for the child to see that the hidden creature is not Spot, until the end when he is found in the laundry basket.) I enclosed no note, but put my address sticker on the envelope so they would know it was not a terrorist missive. Over the word "Spot", I pasted "WMDs". In return, Miller sent me a handwritten note that said something like: Where's the WMDs indeed, we were all fooled, etc. PM Blair's assistant sent me a typed note thanking me for my kind gift. The little project was worth the laughs and the nice cocktail party story I get to tell over & over again.

Amazingly validating. You know, even if this doesn't take us where we want to go, (vindication for the U.S.A regarding a president that misled us into a war)it is at the very least, nice to have somewhat of a handle on why this stuff felt crammed down our throats and phoney. Keep up the great work and I will toast you with my coffee and pray that you find some facts that someday will be used in the treason trial against 43 himself.

i'm betting this is where two years of hard work are finally beginning to feel like fun - when you can hold accountable in specific ways major institutions and leaders and strongly suggest, if not demonstrate outright, that they colluded and/or mislead and/or covered up their colluding and misleading.

at least it is satisfying for me to read, especially after after having to endure two years of the ssci1 cover up.

a time of reckoning, just as with the count of monte cristo - though measured in paragraphs, not chapters.

emptywheel

Does that Times paragraph somehow help shield the SAO if he is indeed Miller's source (and not Broad's)? I don't entirely understand the significance of the added text.

BTW, did you ever see the picture of Judy with the floating Knesset?

EW - I think that disclaimer ("...No changes were made in the review...") was in the original - or at least it was on contemporaneous copies of the article - eg here

Or perhaps the disclaimer was on a different page? MoJo: "By the way, the following italicized and separate paragraph (on an inside page) accompanied the Miller-Broad article somewhat in the manner of an author's bio..."

I don't know, lukery. I've got about 8 copies of that article printed out, from the NYT archives. None of them have the paragraph. Today was the first I've seen it.

Noted accordingly, lukery. I think they've just added it to the archives---

QS

I saw a picture of the floating Knesset. Not Judy with it though.

The significance of the article is that it admits that Judy was still working as a weird embed when she wrote this. I don't know how much of this Broad actually wrote, so it's not so much a matter of protection (they certainly didn't protect Jehl when Judy outed a source earlier that summer). I think it's post-Jayson Blair, post-Raines CYA.

You guys are deep. (I mean that in a good way.)
For the non-expert, but well-meaning (like me), I googled ‘floating Knesset’ and found at http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2005/08/post_1.html, that the ‘floating Knesset’ refers to ‘mock-ups of the Israeli Parliament’ found in ‘four feet of fetid water in the basement of the Mukhabarat’, but which disappeared two days later, according to Judy’s May 03 embedded ‘journalism’.

Your deconstruction of Miller's visit to the Mukhabarat is most interesting. By then there was an air of desperation about Miller's reporting as an embed, what she could say, what she couldn't say. She really was on a kind of Indiana Jones neocon PR mission, wasn't she? That missing 7th century Talmud is a nice touch.

Vereker

Yes, the search for a 7th century Talmud really did Leo Strauss proud.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad