Nov 10, 2005 at 8:47 PM by Political Chase
Following are President Bush’s honorees for the Medal of Freedom. Who is missing from the list?
Aretha Franklin, Carol Burnett, Muhammed Ali, Alan Greenspan, Vinton Cerf, Robert Kahn, Jack Nickalaus, Andy Griffith, Paul Rusesabagina, Paul Harvey, former Representative Sonny Montgomery (MS), Robert Conquest, Gen. Richard B. Myers (retired) and Frank Robinson.
Hint: remember a recipient from last year and his/her accomplishments.
—–
Nov 10, 2005 at 6:22 PM by Political Chase
A suicide bomber attacked a Baghdad restaurant today killing at least 29. The bomb was claimed by al Qaeda and allegedly carried out by what al Qaeda refers to as a “cub.”
The group, which often refers to its members as "lions," said today that one of its "cubs" carried out the attack, according to a statement reported by The Associated Press. The statement could not be verified.
What level of damage does a lion inflict? That’s a question I hope never gets answered.
Nov 10, 2005 at 2:08 AM by Political Chase
Judy Miller is "retiring" from The New York Times, but it sounds more like Kramer vs. Kramer.
The Times’ piece begins with the obligatory pleasantries quoted from a memo written by Bill Keller, executive editor, to The Times staff this afternoon.
"In her 28 years at The Times, Judy participated in some great prize winning journalism."
and a brief statement by Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., publisher of The Times.
"We are grateful to Judy for her significant personal sacrifice to defend an important journalistic principle," adding, "I respect her decision to retire from The Times and wish her well."
Absent any delay, The Times rapidly moves from the pleasantries (recitals) to the pleadings, findings of facts, judgment etc.
Lawyers for Ms. Miller and the paper negotiated a severance package, the details of which they would not disclose. Under the agreement, Ms. Miller will retire from the newspaper, and The Times will print a letter she wrote to the editor explaining her position. Ms. Miller originally demanded that she be able to write an essay for the paper’s Op-Ed page challenging the allegations against her. The Times refused that demand - Gail Collins, editor of the editorial page, said, "We don’t use the Op-Ed page for back and forth between one part of the paper and another" - but agreed to let her write the letter.
In that letter, to be published in The New York Times on Thursday under the heading, "Judith Miller’s Farewell," Ms. Miller said she was leaving partly because some of her colleagues disagreed with her decision to testify in the C.I.A. leak case.
Articles previously published by The Times and other major news outlets, places this statement by The Times on a short list of candidates for understatement of the year.
“Ms. Miller said she was leaving partly because some of her colleagues disagreed with her decision to testify…”
Going back a bit, I am rather curious about Miller’s Op-Ed request/demand. The content must be significant (for/against whom?) or is a plethora of hyperbole, since it is noted in the article and was obviously a debating point. What is Miller so compelled to articulate via a Times Op-Ed now, rather than saving to spice up the book she will surely author?
If Miller wants a forum in the immediate future, she will not have a problem finding one, but is she possibly concerned her silver has tarnished a bit leaving major “credible” institutions uninterested in her tale of woe.
In an apparent attempt to vindicate herself, the terms of Judy Miller’s separation agreement (divorce from bed and board) required Keller to publish a memo written with a probable intent of facilitating dispute resolution. Keller still gets the last word . [Emphasis added].
Dear Judy,
I know you’ve been distressed by the memo I sent to the staff about things I wish I’d done differently in the course of this ordeal. Let me be clear on two points you’ve raised.
First, you are upset with me that I used the words “entanglement” and “engagement” in reference to your relationship with Scooter Libby. Those words were not intended to suggest an improper relationship. I was referring only to the series of interviews through which you and the paper became caught up in an epic legal controversy.
Second, you dispute my assertion that “Judy seems to have misled” Phil Taubman when he asked whether you were one of the reporters to whom the White House reached out with the Wilson story. I continue to be troubled by that episode. But you are right that Phil himself does not contend that you misled him; and, of course, I was not a participant in the conversation between you and Phil.
I wish you all the best for the future.
Regards, Bill
Film at 11:00.
—–
