Wednesday, August 10, 2005
This week's hijinks:
How the very media organization most aggressive in calling for a special prosecutor, the NY Times, is the same organization bewailing the jailing of their reporter. Said reporter, Judith Miller, we can rightly assume, is in jail for refusing to testify in the matter for which the NY Times (previously) felt was so deeply in the public interest to completely investigate.
The Journal editors, while they no doubt regret that Ms. Miller must languish in jail, surely must have enjoyed tweaking the Times with these paragraphs:
Even more risible is the way the Times ducks responsibility for its reporter's current predicament. Miller would be walking the streets today but for John Ashcroft's decision to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Valerie Plame kerfuffle. As we noted in February, in 2003 the Times' editorialists and op-ed columnists led the charge for the appointment of such a prosecutor to investigate the "leak" and subsequent publication of the information that Joe Wilson's wife, who worked for the CIA, had recommended him for his junket to Niger.So let me see if I can understand this: the Times wanted to get to the bottom of the "Plame Scandal," but only if Karl Rove was the evil genius behind it?
That is, for its own partisan purposes, the Times advocated an aggressive government investigation into how a journalist came to publish accurate information about the government. That's not a good message to send.
Emily Litella of the Times calling for US Special Prosecutor: "Never mind."
Links to this post:
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]