The Paper of Record Hides the Truth
"In Cooper's account, Rove told him the wife of White House critic Joseph Wilson worked at the "agency" on WMD issues and was responsible for sending Wilson on a trip to Niger to check out claims that Iraq was trying to buy uranium. But Rove did not disclose this conversation to the FBI when he was first interviewed by agents in the fall of 2003—nor did he mention it during his first grand jury appearance, says one of the lawyers familiar with Rove's account. (He did not tell President George W. Bush about it either, assuring him that fall only that he was not part of any "scheme" to discredit Wilson by outing his wife, the lawyer says.) But after he testified, Luskin discovered an e-mail Rove had sent that same day—July 11—alerting deputy national-security adviser Stephen Hadley that he had just talked to Cooper, the lawyer says."
Wouldn't you think that the Times might have an inside track on this story? I guess they "don't want to get to far out in front" on this.
The New York Times is considered by some (it used to many) to be America's newspaper of record. The Times motto is "All the News That's Fit to Print," yet it certainly appears that the Times has a lot more news regarding the relationship of its reporter, Judith Miller and the true story of the Bush Administration's attack on former ambassador, Joseph Wilson.
Armando at the Kos finds some substantial reasons to believe that the Times is up to its editorial eyebrows in the Plamegate cover-up that includes Miller and key figures in the Bush Administration.
"It is NOT unfair now to speculate that a New York Times reporter conspired with members of the Bush Administration in a scheme to discredit a critic of the Bush regime. It is NOT unfair now to speculate that the management of the New York Times is engaged in obfuscation and stonewalling in order to cover up its complicity in Ms. Miller's actions.
The New York Times is now suspect on this story. They owe their readers and the nation a full explanation of what Ms. Miller was doing, why, what they knew, when they knew it, and what they did in reaction to it."
Over at k/o, Kid Oakland riffs on the same theme, what did the Times know and when did they know it?
"If, as it turns out, that the roads of this story cross more and more at what happened in the office of the editors at the New York Times....decisions they made in 2002 and 2003, in the lead up to both a Presidential election and a war, decisions that may have put the interests of their paper and their staff above the interests of their public and their nation: ie. reporting the truth...then we do, at a very minimum, have a right to know much more than we've been told. The New York Times owes its readers a full and thorough reporting of this story and Judith Miller's involvement in it."
Humm. The New York Times more interested in protecting itself than in telling the truth. Another bastion of the "liberal media" turns out to be a Potemkin prop.