the part about Rove signing a release for Judith Miller is BS, right ?

[steve2470]

<snip>

Rove was not Judith Miller's primary source

We know this because: (a) Rove has signed a release that would not hold her back from revealing him as her primary source, (b) Cooper and Novak are already on record revealing their conversations (if Novak's marginal interaction with him can be called that), and (c) since when has any member of the New York Times shown any proclivity to protect any member of the Bush Administration?

<snip>


http://estes.redstate.org/story/2005/7/16/132715/534

[Garbo 2004]

1. Rove signed a blanket waiver of confidentiality covering all reporters.

Some reporters wanted specific waivers and didn't want to rely on the blanket waivers. (BTW, Fitzgerald already knows the gov't official Miller spoke to, so the identity of the person isn't being shielded from the prosecutor and reportedly that person has already "cooperated" with the investigation.) But according to WaPo, Libby, Cheny's Chief of Staff who has also signed a blanket waiver, is the one Miller spoke to:

... two sources say Miller spoke with Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, during the key period in July 2003 that is the focus of Fitzgerald's investigation.

The two sources, one who is familiar with Libby's version of events and the other with Miller's, said the previously undisclosed conversation occurred a few days before Plame's name appeared in Robert D. Novak's syndicated column on July 14, 2003. Miller and Libby discussed former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, Plame's husband, who had recently alleged that the Bush administration twisted intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war, according to the source familiar with Libby's version.

But, according to the source, the subject of Wilson's wife did not come up.

Miller and the Times have said the reporter has chosen jail to keep promises she made to protect the identity of confidential sources. But Libby's attorney, Joseph A. Tate, has told the New York Times that he provided reporters with assurances that they could rely on the waivers releasing them to talk to Fitzgerald. Tate did not return phone calls placed for this story on Thursday and Friday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/15/AR2005071502080.html

[Alpharetta]

2. bullshit in your third point

since when has any member of the New York Times shown any proclivity to protect any member of the Bush Administration?

The NYTimes owes more than just an apology for printing Judith Miller's WMD lies during the runup to the Iraq War. She was the White House channel for Chalabbi's fabrications about ongoing programs, 45 minutes to launch, millions of tons of chem weapons, etc.

The NYTimes continues to claim in their editorial space that no crime was committed because Miller was not named. This is a stupid defense because anyone can take the leak "Joseph Wilson's wife works for the CIA" and look up public marriage records to get her name.

You are way off base in your claim NYTimes is anti-Bush.

[Garbo 2004]

3. The OP is quoting and questioning the points made on a web site.

(See the link posted.) The OP isn't making the claim about the NYT.

[Alpharetta]

4. Oh. Well OK. I'll pass on any further discussion of the BS site linked