On July 7 this DU thread asks THREE times if Miller was protecting Cheney

[Samantha]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4043194#top

Today we read speculation on is Dick Cheney a target of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation. But on July 7, 2005, in a thread discussing whether Judith Miller might possibly be a Mockingbird agent, we logically evolved to the point where the question was asked three times:

Is Judith Miller protecting Dick Cheney?

Perhaps this week we will learn the answer. If you review this thread, you will find fascinating information unearthed in research on this area.

But the point is many in the MSM are asking the question today we were discussing months ago. See posts 76 and 77 for a fascinating link and information thereon.

[kohodog]

1. Awesome. Thanks for bringing this back.

Du has contributed more than anyone will ever know to this investigation. Admittedly, there has been much speculation, but there have also been many facts brought out months and months ago. Huffington Post has a post tonight that Cheney may be implicated.

Many have suspected Miller to be a NOC, and as time goes on it only seems more evident that her bread is buttered by an organization other than the Newe York Times.

Getting ready for a party!!

:party: :party: :party:

[Samantha]

4. I am continually amazed at the stuff I hear on MSM MONTHS after

Ihave learned it here.

Today, even on Keith Oberman, he asked who might have leaked the info regarding the early communication between Miller and Libby not previously mentioned to the FBI or the Grand Jury. We know from this thread the day Wilson's Op-Ed piece was released to the New York Times, a record existed of a communication between the White House and Miller. Some assumed it was someone from The Office of Special Plans, some assumed Libby, and one or two thought it was Cheney!

[NorCalDem]

2. Doesn't it always seem like we're one step ahead of them?

Maybe because we do our homework!

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. Does asking the question 3 times make it happen,

like saying Bloody Mary three times in the mirror?

Let me try it!

Will Bush be impeached?
Will Bush be impeached?
Will Bush be impeached?

(cross fingers and wait)

[Samantha]

5. No

He will be forced to resign.
He will be forced to resign.
He will be forced to resign.

by members of his own party, as was Nixon.

[Catherine Vincent]

7. Yeah, that's what I rather. That he RESIGN.

Clinton put the peach in impeach. :-)

[Catherine Vincent]

6. Hi Samanta

Check this thread out from way back. Another good one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=461221

[Samantha]

8. I am sorry I missed your thread -- it was a great one!

Keep up the good work, cat_girl25. You are going places!

[Catherine Vincent]

10. LOL, well I would love to go places, but it wouldn't be earned. :)

That is a thread by a poster that goes by the name of bye dick. She brought it to our attention a few weeks ago, I remember seeing it but this time I saved it. She is definitely going places.

[Samantha]

9. In case you need to be spoonfed, here it is -- Post 76

I was out doing a little RESEARCH on my own looking for that link you requested when I happened across this article:

http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/media/features/922...

"And, most memorably, she co-wrote a piece in which administration officials suggested that Iraq had attempted to import aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons. Vice-President Dick Cheney trumpeted the story on Meet the Press, closing the circle. Of course, each of the stories contained important caveats. But together they painted a horrifying picture. There was just one problem with them: The vast majority of these blockbusters turned out to be wrong."

This does make the point that Valerie Plame and Judith Miller were not both victims of the Administration's failure to investigate the leak (discussed above), as Wilson so generously pondered this week. But it raises a very big question for me:

IS IT POSSIBLE DICK CHENEY IS HER "SOURCE" or conversely:

PERHAPS SHE ACTED AS A "SOURCE" FOR CHENEY TO CONTRADICT THE ASSERTIONS MADE BY WILSON? That now is an interesting possibility! Your comments?

(to be continued below)

[texpatriot2004]

11. That's because DU Rocks

:yourock:

[Samantha]

13. We do ROCK and we do THINK as we rock

We are political multi-taskers.

[texpatriot2004]

14. Yes we are. n/t

[Samantha]

12. and (more spoonfeeding) Post 77

The article I mentioned in my last post is riveting (see link above):

"There’s an important difference in reportorial style between Miller and her colleagues. Risen and Bergman are diggers, excavating documents and sources hidden deep in the bureaucracy. Miller, on the other hand, relies on her well-placed, carefully tended-to connections to nab her stories. In February, on the public-radio show “The Connection,” she said, “My job was not to collect information and analyze it independently as an intelligence agency; my job was to tell readers of the New York Times, as best as I could figure out, what people inside the governments, who had very high security clearances, who were not supposed to talk to me, were saying to one another about what they thought Iraq had and did not have in the area of weapons of mass destruction.”

This paragraph supports the claim she did not do her own independent research to buttress the assertions made in the stories she wrote. For purposes of obeying the copyright rules, I have to limit what I post here, BUT LOOK AT THIS:

"Her Iraq coverage didn’t just depend on Chalabi. It also relied heavily on his patrons in the Pentagon. Some of these sources, like Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, would occasionally talk to her on the record. She relied especially heavily on the Office of Special Plans, an intelligence unit established beneath Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith. The office was charged with uncovering evidence of Al Qaeda links to Saddam Hussein that the CIA might have missed. In particular, Miller is said to have depended on a controversial neocon in Feith’s office named Michael Maloof. At one point, in December 2001, Maloof’s security clearance was revoked. In April, Risen reported in the Times, “Several intelligence professionals say he came under scrutiny because of suspicions that he had leaked classified information in the past to the news media, a charge that Mr. Maloof denies.” While Miller might not have intended to march in lockstep with these hawks, she was caught up in an almost irresistible cycle. Because she kept printing the neocon party line, the neocons kept coming to her with huge stories and great quotes, constantly expanding her access." (All bolded emphasis added)

Your comments?

END OF POST 77

Many DU'ers many so many excellent points here, if you missed the thread or want to refresh your memory, please check it out.

[kohodog]

15. I think this should be sent to the NYT public editor.

Or in the coming days when there is a story about Miller it should be part of a LTTE. She needs to be exposed to the NYT readers.

[Samantha]

16. From the lips of Judith Miller, as quoted above

"my job was to tell readers of the New York Times, as best as I could figure out, what people inside the governments, who had very high security clearances, who were not supposed to talk to me, were saying to one another about what they thought Iraq had and did not have in the area of weapons of mass destruction.”