HELP PLEASE! Someone at my work has put an article...

[I Have A Dream]

out which states that Judith Miller's testimony clears the B* administration. I know that this isn't true, but I don't have anything to refute it. Is anyone aware of anything that I can use to refute this?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[Caution]

1. Just wait for the indictments and when they come down post that story

No need to refute it until then.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

2. Ignore it

The truth will set you free.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. Uhm, I feel like you could just go to cnn.com.

Or any other news organization that's actually covering Miller's testimony. Seriously, why do you need help doing this?

[I Have A Dream]

5. I was hoping that someone was aware of an article that made...

it really clear that her testimony didn't do this. I understand that there are news articles that basically say this but don't explicitly say this.

By the way, if you don't want to help, I have no problem with this. I'm at work and can't spend time doing this. I was just wondering if anyone was already aware of an article that dealt specifically with this issue.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. I just feel like you're lending it far more credibility than it deserves.

There's absolutely nothing in the real media that indicates anything close to Miller exonerating the Bush administration. I really just can't understand why it's so hard or why it requires that much effort.

[acmavm]

4. Just go to the index for latest breaking and editorial. There's no end to

the articles that say otherwise.

[rpannier]

6. Refute by this

Ask the poster of the article why it is that FitzGerald is so focused on Cheney, Rove and Libby. Why it is that everytime a question about the honesty of a witness becomes known, FitzGerald hauls the scrubbo admin team back to the Grand Jury.

[skids]

7. dKos now has tags.

Use `em:

http://www.dailykos.com/tag/Judith%20Miller
http://www.dailykos.com/tag/Valerie%20Plame
http://www.dailykos.com/tag

[mzteris]

8. The NYT article today

post that.

[OKNancy]

10. Financial Times has a good article

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/2285dbae-3e7c-11da-a2cb-00000e2511c8.html

It's title is:
White House prepares for possible indictments


A snip:

The White House is bracing itself for the possible indictment of senior officials as Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, prepares to wrap up his two-year inquiry into the leaking of a covert CIA agent's name.

Further details about the role of White House officials were underlined in a report in the New York Times on Sunday.

Judith Miller, the reporter released from jail after 85 days after she agreed to testify before a grand jury, gave an account of her conversations with Scooter Libby, chief of staff to Dick Cheney, vice-president. She also admitted that Mr Fitzgerald had asked whether Mr Cheney had personally authorised Mr Libby to speak.

[whatever4]

11. It's terribly unAmerican to defend a corrupt administration

from justice.

Judith Miller clears them?

How sad to see people stand in the way of justice, throw that at him/her. How sad to see people defend liars with more lies.

As if any "clearing" makes up for the lost lives of informants. Another unfounded rumor? Or one that will eventually be proven, like her "clearing" rumor? I'd say the ruination of a spy net built for our security, complete with murders, is something that person might want to consider in this case. People loyal to our nation DIED because of that leak. I wonder what Judith has to say to clear that.

and furthermore, I don't even care. It was wrong. Spies for our nation were outed, for politics, and some died. Why in the world would any, any loyal American want to cover that up? For THIS president? Hardly. I'd call that person a modern American traitor, for implying this admin should be "cleared" so easily. It's not in our best interests to support treason, and it's kinda treasonous to keep supporting the lies. Kinda treasonous to support the admin.

[yellowcanine]

12. No need to refute. Save a copy and wait 2 weeks for the indictments.

He who laughs last laughs the most.