The New York times finally came out with a piece detailing their and Judith Miller's involvement in the Plame affair. But what struck me is the tone of their article. There's only one way I can make sense of the attitude towards Judy:
Imagine a newsroom and editorial staff that is basically anti-war and anti-administration. This traitor, Judy, had swallowed the WMD stuff hook, line, and sinker.
Well, isn't she just the uppity one? I mean, she lied along with the administration and she has the nerve, NERVE, I say, to try to protect an administration source!
Nobody likes her anyway. Nyah. Nyah.
This article just spits all over Judy, with even an implication ::wink::wink:: that she lied in her testimony. Well, see, it's in the same notebook. ::nudge::nudge::
Can you imagine the frustration in the Times newsroom where they believe one of their reporters is protecting Bush and they can't say a word!
And towards the end, this is really rich:
"The Times incurred millions of dollars in legal fees in Ms. Miller's case. It limited its own ability to cover aspects of one of the biggest scandals of the day. "Oh, boo-hoo. You were the ones that MADE it into a scandal!
You all were so upset that Judy believed there were WMD in Iraq that you turned around and believed Wilson. You thought he was your savior!
When Novak came out with his article you were all over it. Wilson is a whistleblower! How dare the administration try to destroy him! They must be punished! It's got to be Rove! We need an investigation! This is a scandal of momentous importance!
It's your own damn fault, New York Times. You had not one shred of evidence that Wilson was telling the truth. You didn't even have confirmation!
But you got your investigation, didn't you?
Oh, NO! Not Judy! We have to protect Judy?!?!?!? Oh, NO!