David Sanger in the Aspen Grove

by emptywheel

I've been distracted of late from watching BushCo try to trump up a case for war against Iran, but ArmsControl Wonk has been all over recent reports on Iranian advancements at Natanz, its nuclear centrifuge site. The important takeaway is this:

Anyway, in my opinion, ElBaradei is drawing a line between knowing how to enrich and perfecting that knowledge to create space for a compromise that allows Iran, the United States and Europe a face-saving way to stop short of 54,000 centrifuges spinning at Natanz without going to war.

That is, recent reports of advancements at Iran may be Baradei's attempt to bring about a face-saving compromise that ensures peace.

But what I really wanted to point out what this comment from ACW:

Sometimes, I think the New York Times David Sanger is just Judy Miller without the creepy love notes from Scooter Libby. Then I think, I’ve never read David Sanger’s mail.

Given how much of the evidence released at the Libby trial pertained laundering leaks through Sanger--and not Judy--ACW may well be right (though Sanger usually exhibits more critical thinking skills than Judy). But let's not forget NYT's other A1 Cut-Out, Michael Gordon.

Anyway, just pointing out, again, that the NYT has not reformed its ways, even after all the criticism they got for the last war.

Comments

[Phil Lovering]

Scott Ritter has IRAN running a couple hundred centrifuges.

Huge ballbearing problems.

[Nan]

Since you referenced Libby, I thought I might ask aloud if anyone has seen a rebuttal to Brian Carney's Commentary Online article on the meaning of the Libby trial?

Carney May 07 article on Libby trial

Thanks.

[Steve Elliott]

Dear EW, I,m sorry this is off topic but, have you seen the article on the Daily Kos by Pinche Tejano titled " Bush declares control of 3 gov branches if any crisis? Last Update" ? Or is this old hat I missed along the way?

[Jeff]

I'm not fully thinking through all the implications of this, so it may be obvious, but do you think the only reason Sanger would have gotten by without having to provide testimony - if he indeed did - was because Cathie Martin was in the room with Libby and her testimony supported Libby's version of the July 2 interview?

[MayBee]

Jeff- Maybe I'm not understanding your question, but David Sanger did testify, during the defense case.

[Jeff]

In the context of the investigation - before the grand jury or in a deposition.

[MayBee]

In the context of the investigation - before the grand jury or in a deposition.

Oh, I see. It's hard to know if he was brought in during the investigation or not. Both sides seemed to know what he was going to say during testimony, so he talke to someone at some point. It seems like he should have been asked questions before the Grand Jury or in a deposition, but several journalists whose names came up weren't (Gregory, Dickerson. Although we don't know for certain about Gregory....). On the other hand, Pincus and Woodward talked to Fitzgerald but weren't called by him. It' hard to know....

[Gary]

Don't forget, in terms of NYT propaganda-catapulting, Michael Slackman. A lot of wretched crap has come from that pen.