Sunday, January 2, 2011

Fuck You, Judith Miller! - Updated

From the transcript:
JUDITH MILLER:... because he didn't care at all about attempting to verify the information that he was putting out or determine whether or not it would hurt anyone.
This is the same Judith Miller who, more than any other reporter, put out unverified - actually, unverifiable - information.

Information that put these guys in a place where this happened to them:
And who set up the scenario leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis:
Judith Miller has hurt millions of people.

There has yet to be a proven case of anyone being hurt by Wikileaks revelations.

Update - Tuesday 7:00 p.m: I've updated the post, changing the title from "Fuck Judith Miller!" to "Fuck You, Judith Miller"

This resulted from comments from Steve Aufrecht below. More later.


fromthediagonal said...

Thank you, Phil... could not agree more.

Anonymous said...

So true. She should be profoundly ashamed.

Steve said...

In May 2009 you had a post entitled "Bill O'Reilly - Accessory to Murder?"

So, if someone rapes Judith Miller, would I be out of line writing a post that says, "Phil Munger - Accessory to Rape?"

This is clearly verbal violence against a woman.

I've gone through your archive and I can't find a single post title like this.

Sure, you have the right to post whatever you like. But as long as your blog is titled Progressive Alaska you've got an obligation not to make progressive Alaskans look and sound like the worst of right wing trash talkers and thugs.

Perhaps you should consider a new name for the blog, maybe "Phil Munger's Bog."

Philip Munger said...


you missed the point.

scharles said...

Phil, you can make the point in other ways. Trash talk only stoops to Beck/Limbaugh garbage and, for me, any point your trying to make looses all credibility.

Steve said...

Phil, your wrote:


you missed the point."

Precisely! Because your title is so offensive that it detracts from what you have to say. But I did listen to the video. The words you quoted took about 9 seconds of a 64 second video. She also said that if you have that much 'overclassified' information (and she emphasized that way too much is classified) then someone is going to leak it. Her comments about Assange should be discussed:

Should he
a. have to verify the info as she suggests he should have done? The news is that this is what US diplomats wrote to each other, and it seems that no one is denying that these are the genuine documents. So that has been verified. He never claims what they said was true, only that they said it.
b. determine whether anyone would be hurt. Of course, no one has discussed who gets hurt by this information being secretly passed around among diplomats without the US public knowing. And from what I can tell, no one has claimed that anyone was hurt. And, I suppose, your point was that the leaking of Valerie Plame's CIA position hurt people and she didn't take that into account. And even the question of whether journalists CAN reasonably take this into account except in cases of imminent danger.

But I still don't see how the title advances the point. Do, please, explain. And while you're at it, explain how this is different from Limbaugh egging people on to kill abortion doctors. Why should we take him literally, but not you?

Anonymous said...

Just goes to show, metaphors can be a double edged sword-- people can take you literally. What if we took what you wrote here literally? Who would be doing the @$&!ing of Judith Miller? You? Obviously you didn't mean what you literally wrote. I don't think it is a sexist issue either-- you could have used this term on a male or female.

It is unfortunate that our society uses this term as a denouncement tool. There should be a better way to denounce or strongly disagree.