Judy is worried she's going to be exposed

[Halliburton]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/advance-word-on-the-t_b_8888.html

<snip>
I'm hearing that the Times' big Judy-culpa is definitely coming on Sunday -- and also that Judy's camp is worried that it's going to be very hard on her.

"The team of reporters working on the story is absolutely top notch," a Times source told me. "Don Van Atta is one of the best investigative reporters in the country.
If there is something gettable, they'll get it. And I'd be stunned if Sulzberger and Keller tried to suppress anything these reporters come up with." The team has been interviewing what a source calls "some of Judy's most ardent critics, people inside the paper who have worked with her in the past."

The question remains: how cooperative will Miller be? Jay Rosen and Raw Story have their doubts.

In any case, I've been told that Miller has been "ordered" to write a first-person, what-I-told-the-grand-jury account.
<snip>

Miller's been "ordered?" Doubt she'll cooperate. She doesn't want anyone to know about the deal she made with Fitzgerald about her perjury.

[Mojambo]

1. This whole thing is just so juicy!

I feel so politically horny.

I really dig scandals.

[Stephanie]

13. It's Hot Hot Hot!

Very exciting, very intriguing, I can't get enough!

[applegrove]

22. Really sad - her reporting and drinking of kool-aid messed up

Iraq. Many died.

[Kahuna]

2. You're brilliant!!!!

<<Miller's been "ordered?" Doubt she'll cooperate. She doesn't want anyone to know about the deal she made with Fitzgerald about her perjury.>>

I agree. She's in too deep to tell the truth about it.

[Jackpine Radical]

17. They can't get her for perjury

for lying in a newspaper story. But it will be entertaining. I think the Times will have to cut her loose. I have fantasies of her as a bag lady huddling in a doorway somewhere and mumbling curses at the pigeons.

[bumblebee1]

3. Judy, honey,

You'll have more exposure than a Playboy Playmate or Penthouse Pet of the Month.

[Lex]

4. Why should I expect it to be truthful?

She's just going to offer excuses and covers for the Bush Administration, herself, and the NYT is what I think.

It's going to largely BS, shilling for the Repukes like she's done most of her career.

[BurtWorm]

19. Her loyalty hierarchy starts with herself,

followed by the WMD lies and those who made them possible.

The New York Times is not even on the list.

[CantGetFooledAgain]

5. I cannot wait for this Times story

They are going to distance themselves from Judy, big time. And that means coming clean about some very uncomfortable facts.

[Halliburton]

6. not if Bill Keller blocks the article from publishing

he'd do anything for Judy.

[CantGetFooledAgain]

11. They cannot block this article

The resulting loss of credibility would be the last nail in their coffin.

[lonestarnot]

7. OMG, your OP headline is almost enough to frighten a person....

Judy Miller exposed. If only I could draw the pic in my head...sigh.. .:puke:

[Pithy Cherub]

8. The NYT is going to be so ashamed and doubly so since they

were done in by Mata Tokyo Judy! Oh my, the NYT has to say OOPS, we did it again...

:crazy:

[Marr]

9. Can the Washington Post or some other reputable paper do it, please?

:)

[chat_noir]

10. NY Times needs to be reminded of the time

When it's editor and reporters had some balls

THE PENTAGON PAPERS CASE

No recent Supreme Court case better illustrates the potential conflict between the imperatives of press freedom and national security than that of the Pentagon Papers.

In 1971, the Pentagon Papers -- the Defense Department's top-secret study of the growth of United States military involvement in Vietnam -- were leaked by a government official to The New York Times. On June 13 of that year, the newspaper began publishing articles based on the documents. When the government learned of this, the Department of Justice asked for a temporary restraining order, which was granted.

In its petition to the court, the executive branch of the government asserted that it should be the sole judge of national security needs and should be granted a court order to enforce that viewpoint. The newspaper countered that this would violate First Amendment press freedoms provided for under the U.S. Constitution. It also argued that the real government motive was political censorship rather than protection of national security.

On June 30, the Supreme Court -- in New York Times v. the United States -- ruled in favor of the newspaper, and the documents were subsequently published. The Constitution, the justices asserted, has a "heavy presumption," in favor of press freedom. The Court left open the possibility that dire consequences could result from publication of classified documents by newspapers, but said that the government had failed to prove that result in this instance.

The publication of the Pentagon Papers helped fuel the debate over the wisdom of U.S. involvement in Vietnam; however, most observers agree that the publication of the papers did not do injury to the national security of the United States.

The Pentagon Papers case proves the value of the First Amendment, says Jim Goodale, general counsel to The New York Times during the time of this landmark decision. "It serves as a shield against an overzealous government." (emphasis mine)

Goodale points out that the government has sought to stop publication of classified documents in other cases. Although it has won temporary restraining orders in some instances, he says he knows of no case where a court order to prevent publication has been "permanently granted."

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0297/ijde/goodsb1.htm

[Neil Lisst]

12. If her book deal means anything, she won't spill the whole story

I hope she does tell all this week, but I'll believe she's telling the story to NYT in detail when I read.



http://www.webcomicsnation.com/neillisst

[Jawja]

14. MMMMMMMM!

:popcorn:

[WritingIsMyReligion]

15. "Exposed"?

:evilgrin:

As in, "Scoot-Scoot" is going to pull down her pants?

Hey, maybe they'll get together with Miers and Bush and make it an official orgy.

;)

[librechik]

16. I'll be surprised if it isn't more CYA BS

with a little bit of "read my book in September" Judy dust sprinkled on it.

[gulfcoastliberal]

18. I'm a cynic and I agree with your post.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it! The NYT went down the shitter during the Clinton years and the Miller "story" will be nothing but foul swamp gas.

[Lex]

21. Exactly what I think too. Not worth the paper it's written on. nt

[Mandate My Ass]

20. The Times has less credibility than the Ahmad Chalabi

They let her cheerlead til the eve of war, covered her bullshit bombshells and "silver bullets" while she was embedded with MET Alpha while everybody else knew there weren't any WMDs in Iraq. Then in the aftermath, they had the nerve blame everybody but her when their asses got hung out to dry too many times to count.

Screw the effing spineless NYTimes. Judy doesn't take orders from anybody but Skeletor Rummy. And cry me a river for this being hard on Judy. Maybe she should switch places with David Kelly or Valerie Plame and then the amoral skank would know what hard really is.