Even after you dump them on the side of the road, they have a way of finding their way back home and biting you on the butt.From
Wavering on Waivers on September 30, 2005
I bet Judy Miller and her supporters at the Times wish they’d never discussed waivers in public before. But unfortunately for them they have. And just about everything they’ve said contradicts what they are saying today.
<clip>
They all seem awfully concerned about the coercive nature of waivers.
So what happened to make it less of a concern? If they were so worried that Libby had signed waivers to save his job, what led them to believe that the “personal, explicit, voluntary waiver” he gave over the phone was done for any other reason? After all, according to Safire, Sulzberger, and Miller, the question isn’t whether the waiver is “voluntary”. It’s who is compelling the source to give the “voluntary” waiver?
If the gun was at Libby’s head when he signed the original waiver over a year ago, why were Miller and the Times so willing to accept that the gun was no longer loaded? He still wants to keep his job, doesn’t he? Link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/wavering-on-waivers_b_8155.html Their web of lies is hyper-dense. They couldn't blast their way through it with Rummy's biggest, baddest bunker busters.
And, what's about to get busted is all their lame-ass butts.
p.s. That is why I posted a little item yesterday suggesting the folly of spending even a nanosecond discussing anything Judy, Arthur, Bill and WHIGers say ... you know its all lies, 24/7/365:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4936438&mesg_id=4940183Peace.