Washington Post defends Judith Miller

What is more nauseating?

The fact that Judith Miller was freed from prison after announcing that her source gave her permission to talk, and then claimed under oath that she couldn't remember who her source is?

Or that the official Washington Post's official position is to defend her?

From wonkette:

The Washington Post's editorial page today proves that there's still someone out there who feels sorry for little Judy Miller, her two years of speaking engagements, her supposed six-figure book deal and her aching back. Decrying those who have "turned" on Miller, the paper frets that while some in the administration may have "deliberately blown wife's undercover status to punish him for his truth-telling," that isn't what they see: "What has been depicted is an administration effort to refute the allegations of a critic (some of which did in fact prove to be untrue) and to undermine his credibility, including by suggesting that nepotism rather than qualifications led to his selection." The difference between these two sets of actions is pretty much definition of academic, but what really amused us was their huffy finale: "If such conversations are deemed a crime, journalism and the public will be the losers."

An administration using classified information to smear its critics. Gee, wouldn't want that to end.



Also posted at www.speakspeak.org

water with her. Long line fishing - you never know who you're gonna haul in. Guess they didn't think Sultzberger should be taking all the heat.

was using documents that were blatantly forged as the backbone for their rush to war. :eyes:

Sometimes I wonder about the bi-polar attitudes of the WaPo. One day they're spot on with their assessments, the next.......drivel like this.

Anyone who can honestly believe that poor Judy is a victim here is no journalist, they're a shill as well.

Common organized crime tactic.

Don