A regular lurker, I had to tell you all how much I appreciate this fantastic coverage. […]
Rock on…
[…]
BTW we aliens are confused – in a trial on a charge of perjury what difference does it make whether or not a potential juror approves of the conduct of the present administration?

Thanks for de-lurking.

My opinion of the jury bias is a little different. Of course the defense would want to prevent any anti-administration (Libby/Cheney/others) to limit the chance of disbelief based on prior claims. I think they also want to set up the ability to persuade the jurors in matters of ambiguous decisions based on personal judgment. These are the tough decisions we hear so much about – the ones that are hard work (/snark). These decisions are judgment calls that the defense would have us believe could go either way. The witness and defendant credibility is in tatters for most of the public but somehow there may be 30% that would see an action as acceptable under the right circumstances.

Rock on…

BTW we aliens are confused – in a trial on a charge of perjury what difference does it make whether or not a potential juror approves of the conduct of the present administration? Just asking. Makes one think that everyone inside the beltway long ago lost sight of the forest and is just counting the rings on the trees (which of course they are busy cutting down).

Wha? We’re all “ethnic of some sort”. I’ve grown to hate the word, and it definitely has racist baggage associated with it. You might want to give some thought to what this expression means, and possibly find a better way of putting it that doesn’t imply “not white like us”.

Just a helpful reminder that words count.

Richmond @ 166.

Your assumption that Miller’s motivations were parallel to Libby’s – ideologically driven – is unsubstantiated.

If you want to cultivate a person to plant stories about WMD in Iraq on the front page of the NYT, you don’t need to find an ideologically driven person. In fact, that might complicate the issue if the source was placed under scrutiny by the editors or the public. You just need to find someone who’s interests parallel yours. Miller was motivated by her career.

What do you mean ‘More cool aid?’

Do you mean for me? for someone else?

It’s Kool-aid.

Sorry my bad on the Kool-aid. Haven’t consumed it recently. And yes, I do mean that Miller’s motives were ideologically driven to some larger degree. Were they exactly the same motives as Scooter? probably not exactly, but I do think the whole drive to refashion the Middle East is in large part ideologically driven (plus, of course, oil, armament profits, rapture ideology and a few other things thrown in). But why Iraq (and Iran now) and not the horn of Africa (where there is oil), or North Korea? Perceived (and some real) threats to Israel were key to the early and ongoing war support effort of this administration and those journalists, newspapers, and both TV and radio outlets that have continued to press this cause, regardless of the death in human life and financial cost.

On sources and careers: Miller purportedly slept with some of her sources – so the issue of morals and professionalism is moot. How much better for her stature and long term career if she had chosen instead to go after those sources (and there were many) who were arguing that there were no WMD in Iraq. Then, she would have truly stood out for her integrity and the highest journalism offers.

One of (female) roommates in grad school is an economist and worked for CIA during the summers.

outing an agent?

Your assumption that Miller’s motivations were parallel to Libby’s – ideologically driven – is unsubstantiated.

If you want to cultivate a person to plant stories about WMD in Iraq on the front page of the NYT, you don’t need to find an ideologically driven person. In fact, that might complicate the issue if the source was placed under scrutiny by the editors or the public. You just need to find someone who’s interests parallel yours. Miller was motivated by her career.

What do you mean ‘More cool aid?’

Do you mean for me? for someone else?

It’s Kool-aid.

Meanwhile,back at the Administration…

This from Army Times via Truthout:

Sources Say Caseworkers for Wounded Laid Off

I wish the article would have explained how it is that the program being cut is redundant to the Defense Dept’s program. It does not explain what the Defense Dept’s program even does, much less whether or not it has caseworkers to perform the same functions.

Thanks for sharing this.

Your assumption that Miller’s motivations were parallel to Libby’s – ideologically driven – is unsubstantiated.

If you want to cultivate a person to plant stories about WMD in Iraq on the front page of the NYT, you don’t need to find an ideologically driven person. In fact, that might complicate the issue once it was placed under scrutiny. You just need to find someone who’s interests parallel yours. Miller was motivated by her career.

What do you mean ‘More cool aid?’

Do you mean for me? for someone else?

It’s Kool-aid.