Booman Tribune ~ A Progressive Community

NYT Account of Judith Miller Is Up

by susanhu
Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 06:44:27 PM EST

The Miller Case: From a Name on a Pad to Jail, and Back (Printer-friendly version of an 8-page story)

By DON VAN NATTA Jr., ADAM LIPTAK and CLIFFORD J. LEVY

ALSO UP:

Judith Miller's "My Four Hours Testifying in the Federal Grand Jury Room" (Printer-friendly version of an 5-page story)

My notes indicate that well before Mr. Wilson published his critique, Mr. Libby told me that Mr. Wilson's wife may have worked on unconventional weapons at the C.I.A.
My notes do not show that Mr. Libby identified Mr. Wilson's wife by name. Nor do they show that he described Valerie Wilson as a covert agent or "operative," as the conservative columnist Robert D. Novak first described her in a syndicated column published on July 14, 2003. (Mr. Novak used her maiden name, Valerie Plame.)
[.....]
During my testimony on Sept. 30 and Oct. 12, the special counsel, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, asked me whether Mr. Libby had shared classified information with me during our several encounters before Mr. Novak's article. He also asked whether I thought Mr. Libby had tried to shape my testimony through a letter he sent to me in jail last month. And Mr. Fitzgerald asked whether Mr. Cheney had known what his chief aide was doing and saying.
My interview notes show that Mr. Libby sought from the beginning, before Mr. Wilson's name became public, to insulate his boss from Mr. Wilson's charges. According to my notes, he told me at our June meeting that Mr. Cheney did not know of Mr. Wilson, much less know that Mr. Wilson had traveled to Niger, in West Africa, to verify reports that Iraq was seeking to acquire uranium for a weapons program. ...

Jerry Policoff is reading both documents. I may have to leave. Please start reading and provide your feedback here. Hopefully, Jerry will lend his considerable expertise to a review of the two articles.

NOTE: There are also two timelines: Judith Miller and The Leak Inquiry

NYT Account of Judith Miller Is Up | 31 comments (31 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: NYT Account of Judith Miller Is Up (4.00 / 3)

This was an extremely sad story to read. Really, it had nothing to say, except for the between-the-lines story that The Times blew it and that Miller was no one to go to bat for.

The headline should have been "Once Proud Newspaper Hits Bottom."

by Aaron Barlow on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 07:20:32 PM EST

exactly n/t (none / 0)

by catnip (llamg88 at hotmail.com) on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 07:22:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NYT Account of Judith Miller Is Up (4.00 / 3)

That NYT article must reflect the atmosphere at the paper. It's disjointed and frankly presents the NYT's operations as sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. It derides Miller and it demeans her. In the same breath it holds her up as a cause celebre for the 1st amendment.

I don't know if it comes across that way because the reporters who wrote it have different opinions about her... or what... but it's a very uncomfortable piece to read.

As for Miller, screw her for not being willing to share her notes with those reporters. What is she hiding? Still? From the people who supported her?

If anyone reading that article doesn't come away with the feeling that she should be fired, they haven't read it closely enough.

She doesn't remember how she ended up writing the name "Valerie Flame" in her notes the day she met with Libby? What kind of bullshit is that beyond just a handy legal defense for not pinning this on Libby? I'm sorry, but this woman will never get sympathy from me.

As for her so-called integrity, she caved on testifying because she didn't want to spend more time in jail. She admits that. Bring her down from her cross and throw her in a ditch somewhere. Her martyrdom is a farce.

On to her article now...

by catnip (llamg88 at hotmail.com) on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 07:21:55 PM EST

Re: NYT Account of Judith Miller Is Up (4.00 / 3)

I hope she does get fired! She had no business doing the things she has done for her own gratuity for one reason. Others saw right thru her motives. Why in heavens sake did they not see if for what it was a pure unadulterated sham.

Miller has her own agenda for doing the things she does. Judy is only out for Judy not others. If she were three would not have been all that bru ha ha from her on the WMDS and Chalobi. I read the article where the Army ppl she was with in the beginning hated here being there. She is intrusive and she should never have been allowed to do the things she has done.

Her career was and will remain intrusive of others...in fact, not wholly the truth of things only exaltations of things, as only Judy sees it. She is really not factual, for if she was, she would have checked her sources and then she would not have made the mistakes she has made.
Can you tell, I am not on her side of this???? :o) I do not feel one bit sorry for her! She knows what she is doing, or should know.

by BrendaStewart (stormyweather1@hotmail.com) on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 07:34:46 PM EST

Miller's account - still on June 23, 2003 meeting (4.00 / 2)

Soon afterward Mr. Libby raised the subject of Mr. Wilson's wife for the first time. I wrote in my notes, inside parentheses, "Wife works in bureau?" I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I believed this was the first time I had been told that Mr. Wilson's wife might work for the C.I.A. The prosecutor asked me whether the word "bureau" might not mean the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Yes, I told him, normally. But Mr. Libby had been discussing the C.I.A., and therefore my impression was that he had been speaking about a particular bureau within the agency that dealt with the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. As to the question mark, I said I wasn't sure what it meant. Maybe it meant I found the statement interesting. Maybe Mr. Libby was not certain whether Mr. Wilson's wife actually worked there.

And why did Libby bring up Wilson's wife? Answer that one Judy. Obviously, Libby told her more than she revealed in her account.

by catnip (llamg88 at hotmail.com) on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 07:39:32 PM EST

Re: Miller's account - (none / 0)

you got that one right!!!!!!!!!

by BrendaStewart (stormyweather1@hotmail.com) on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 09:04:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Miller - second meeting (4.00 / 2)

My recollection, I told him, was that Mr. Libby wanted to modify our prior understanding that I would attribute information from him to a "senior administration official." When the subject turned to Mr. Wilson, Mr. Libby requested that he be identified only as a "former Hill staffer." I agreed to the new ground rules because I knew that Mr. Libby had once worked on Capitol Hill.

Did Mr. Libby explain this request? Mr. Fitzgerald asked. No, I don't recall, I replied. But I said I assumed Mr. Libby did not want the White House to be seen as attacking Mr. Wilson.

Cagey asshole. So now how do we even know that when Novak said "two senior adminstration officials", he wasn't talking about someone completely different? Two former admin officials? Who? What's with these reporters that they can and will blur the identities of their sources like that?

by catnip (llamg88 at hotmail.com) on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 07:43:30 PM EST

Re: Miller - second meeting (none / 1)

That is incredible.... there's a world of difference between a "former Hiil staffer" and an "administration official."

IMHO, that's unacceptable. That's unethical. And that's a f--king lie.

If we readers are supposed to put up with unnamed sources, we at least have a right to know something about their placement in gov't -- and if that much can't be revealed, then say so. Don't make up shit like "former Hill staffer." It's completely irrelevant that he once was on the Hill .. his current position is all that matters in this context ... this didn't HAPPEN when he was on the Hill.

How can Miller accept that?

Hickok: "You know the sound of thunder. Can you imagine that sound if I ask you to? Ma'am, listen to the thunder."

by susanhu (susanhuatearthlinkdotnet) on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 07:48:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Miller - second meeting (4.00 / 2)

This is incredible. She outright admits fabricating a cover story for her source. Scooter says, hey, let's pretend I'm someone outside of the WH and she says, okay. This is an admission of unethical journalism and she doesn't even seen to realize it. Or does she? Her whole story is so fucked up with trying to make herself look good that she doesn't even realize how revealing it is.

I tell ya, the next time I read "senior White House official" or "unnamed administration source," I'm going to wonder if it was some janitor being interviewed. Ya know, this makes The Hill and Enquirer stuff about Bush falling off the wagon look reputable. Jeez, she's blown the whole house of pretense on which so-called insider info is based. How is this different from Blair or Glass just making shit up?

by sjct on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 08:02:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Miller - second meeting (none / 1)

That's the first I've ever heard about that practice. I guess we'll find out just how widespread it is now.

by catnip (llamg88 at hotmail.com) on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 08:03:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"I don't recall" (4.00 / 2)

This is such crap from the NYT and Miller:

From the NYT, we get mealy-mouthed junk about she was a bitch, she was out-of-control, she wouldn't cooperate with us but, hey, we had to support her on principle. Would that be the CYA principle?

From Miller we get nonsense about not being able to recall who said "Valerie Flame" to her and when. I mean, is she a reporter or what? And my favorite from her, "I was all wrong," on WMD but a reporter is only as good as their sources. Um, excuse me, you couldn't investigate the motives of your sources, you couldn't discern the validity of what they told you? Well, you're a hack, pure and simple. And I love the way she pretends she wasn't knifing Scooter in the back while playing her faulty memory game. Jeebus, just the stuff about the back and forth between Tate and Abrams convicts Tate and/or Scooter of Obstruction.

As I said on the Open Thread, my absolute favorite part is Scooter dressed up like a cowboy... out West where the Aspens all turn together. He had to tell her who he was his disguise was so baffling. Har.

If the Grand Jury fails to issue a flurry of indictments all over these people I am going to be flabberghasted. No, I'll actually start screaming.

by sjct on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 07:48:55 PM EST

Re: NYT Account of Judith Miller Is Up (4.00 / 2)

I hope no one takes Miller's absurd tale seriously.

The fact that she expects anyone to believe it credible that while Valerie Flame's(sic) name appears in her notes that she can't remember who told her that name is so ludicrous it's insulting. And it's insulting not only to us, the public, but it's a direct insult to every responsible news person out there.

Secondly, (and perhaps an even bigger insult to her fellow journalists and newspeople), for her to claim to take at face value the things she recounts Libby saying to her is, if nothing else, powerful confirmation of her lack of objectivity, awareness, and investigative skills as a reporter. This alone would be grounds for any credible news organization on the planet to fire her on the spot for incompetence at the very least.

Millers little fictional piece here is basically a non-story. It's now just a part of another in a string of very sad days for the formerly great NYT, a publication firmly on the road to ruin thanks to creatures like Miller and her supporters Sulzberger and Keller.

Probably no other reputable major newspaper has raced to the bottom of the integrity scale as quickly and perhaps as thoroughly as the NYT has.

It's a sad day for us all.

Denial is our most dangerous adversary.

by sbj on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 08:22:53 PM EST

CNNi Support Iraq War Drops 16 pts (none / 1)

.
Just reported on CNNi :: under Republicans, the question whether going into Iraq was the right thing to do, support dropped 16 pts in one month!

Dissatisfaction is not just creeping in, but hitting hard under true republicans, too bad there are no elections this fall!

I couldn't find a link yet, only recent poll numbers for Colorado, which shows the support for President Bush's job approval is dropping. Some remarks:

"Bush is faring very poorly nationally among African-Americans post-(Hurricane) Katrina, so that could be playing a part," she said.

A 67-year-old southeast Denver woman, who asked not to be named, said the cost of Hurricane Katrina is one of the factors that changed her mind about the wisdom of the war in Iraq.

Part of her increasing distaste for the war "has to do with the increasing needs at home," said the woman, who is white. She also wasn't happy with the president's performance.

"Frankly, I'm a little disappointed," she said, adding that she voted for Bush twice. The nomination of Harriet Miers as a U.S. Supreme Court justice "is what tipped me over the edge . . . I cannot find too much about Miss Miers that qualifies her in my mind for the highest court in the land".

▼ ▼ ▼

by Oui on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 06:56:09 PM EST

Re: CNNi Support Iraq War Drops 16 pts (none / 0)

Oui, can you put posts like this in the Open Threads? Thank you.

Hickok: "You know the sound of thunder. Can you imagine that sound if I ask you to? Ma'am, listen to the thunder."

by susanhu (susanhuatearthlinkdotnet) on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 07:40:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

MIller's account (none / 1)

It is also difficult, more than two years later, to parse the meaning and context of phrases, of underlining and of parentheses. On one page of my interview notes, for example, I wrote the name "Valerie Flame." Yet, as I told Mr. Fitzgerald, I simply could not recall where that came from, when I wrote it or why the name was misspelled.

That has to be bullshit. Novak's column appeared on July 14th that year - less than one month after she made that scribble about Valerie Flame in her notebook. Does anyone believe she didn't know at that time exactly who had told her that name? Wouldn't that have rung a bell with any normal person? Claiming she can't remember two years later is just crap. It was one of the biggest flipping stories that year. Lying liar...

by catnip (llamg88 at hotmail.com) on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 07:30:36 PM EST

More on Miller's account (none / 0)

On the afternoon of June 23, 2003, I arrived at the Old Executive Office Building to interview Mr. Libby, who was known to be an avid consumer of prewar intelligence assessments, which were already coming under fierce criticism. The first entry in my reporter's notebook from this interview neatly captured the question foremost in my mind.

If he was such an avid consumer then why the hell didn't his boss, Cheney, know about Wilson's trip to Niger? Does anyone out there believe that he wouldn't have brought it up with Cheney? Yeah...I didn't think so.

by catnip (llamg88 at hotmail.com) on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 07:33:46 PM EST

Libby (none / 1)

The other indicated that Iraq was seeking a broad trade relationship with Niger in 1999, a relationship that he said Niger officials had interpreted as an effort by Iraq to obtain uranium.

He may have wanted to interpret it like that but the senate report shows that others disagreed and if he was such an "avid consumer" of intel reports, he would have know that.

by catnip (llamg88 at hotmail.com) on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 07:46:18 PM EST

Miller (none / 1)

Mr. Fitzgerald asked if I could recall discussing the Wilson-Plame connection with other sources. I said I had, though I could not recall any by name or when those conversations occurred.

Is she that sloppy of a reporter that she doesn't keep track of which sources tell her what information? Not buying that one, Judy.

by catnip (llamg88 at hotmail.com) on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 07:50:53 PM EST

Miller (none / 1)

In my grand jury testimony, Mr. Fitzgerald repeatedly turned to the subject of how Mr. Libby handled classified information with me. He asked, for example, whether I had discussed my security status with Mr. Libby. During the Iraq war, the Pentagon had given me clearance to see secret information as part of my assignment "embedded" with a special military unit hunting for unconventional weapons.
...

Mr. Fitzgerald asked me if I knew whether I was cleared to discuss classified information at the time of my meetings with Mr. Libby. I said I did not know.

How could she not know? Any reporters out there...?

by catnip (llamg88 at hotmail.com) on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 07:55:31 PM EST

Miller ad nauseam (none / 1)

At least this explains Libby's odd letter to her (the apens are turning etc):

In answer, I told the grand jury about my last encounter with Mr. Libby. It came in August 2003, shortly after I attended a conference on national security issues held in Aspen, Colo. After the conference, I traveled to Jackson Hole, Wyo. At a rodeo one afternoon, a man in jeans, a cowboy hat and sunglasses approached me. He asked me how the Aspen conference had gone. I had no idea who he was.

"Judy," he said. "It's Scooter Libby."

by catnip (llamg88 at hotmail.com) on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 08:02:25 PM EST

Yep,... (none / 1)

that's my favorite part of this colossal mind game -- imagining Scooter disguised as a cowbody.

Hell, I'm going to watch "Sideways" on HBO. I wait for Booman's take in the morning.

by sjct on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 08:06:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yep,... (none / 1)

Funny she didn't recognize him, and that he just came up on her like that! (I haven't read that section yet -- did he know she was going to be at the rodeo? And what in the hell was she doing at a rodeo? UGH!)

Ditto! And, if there are reruns of Rome on later, I'll watch those too!

Hickok: "You know the sound of thunder. Can you imagine that sound if I ask you to? Ma'am, listen to the thunder."

by susanhu (susanhuatearthlinkdotnet) on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 10:19:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yep,... (none / 1)

Btw, I was just watching FOX and they're doing a special on Saddam's upcoming trial. They showed -- in comparison to Abu Ghraib, etc. -- what "real torture" looked like under Saddam. Glad to find out!

Hickok: "You know the sound of thunder. Can you imagine that sound if I ask you to? Ma'am, listen to the thunder."

by susanhu (susanhuatearthlinkdotnet) on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 10:21:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I need a nap (none / 1)

We need to get Meteor Blade's take on all of this.

Thanks for posting it so promptly, Susan. These published stories will have legs for weeks if not months. Wow.

by catnip (llamg88 at hotmail.com) on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 08:07:24 PM EST

Judith Knows Details of Her Choosing (none / 1)

Very selective in what information she remembers. Libby wasn't too concerned discussing classified documents at breakfast with a reporter.

At the behest of President Bush and Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Libby had signed a blanket form waiver, which his lawyer signaled to my counsel was not really voluntary, even though Mr. Libby's lawyer also said it had enabled other reporters to cooperate with the grand jury.

...
My notes indicate that Mr. Libby took issue with the suggestion that his boss had had anything to do with Mr. Wilson's trip. "Veep didn't know of Joe Wilson," I wrote, referring to the vice president. "Veep never knew what he did or what was said. Agency did not report to us."

...
As I told Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Libby also cited a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, produced by American intelligence agencies in October 2002, which he said had firmly concluded that Iraq was seeking uranium.

...
I told Mr. Fitzgerald that Mr. Libby might have thought I still had security clearance, given my special embedded status in Iraq. At the same time, I told the grand jury I thought that at our July 8 meeting I might have expressed frustration to Mr. Libby that I was not permitted to discuss with editors some of the more sensitive information about Iraq.

Mr. Fitzgerald asked me if I knew whether I was cleared to discuss classified information at the time of my meetings with Mr. Libby. I said I did not know.

by Oui on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 08:08:58 PM EST

WTF (none / 1)

She went to jail for two months to protect a source whose name she can't recall?

The Albany Project. The best damned blog about New York State politics.

by NYBri on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 08:10:04 PM EST

heh (none / 0)

(and please excuse me for hogging this thread...I will now go and do penance...while napping...)

by catnip (llamg88 at hotmail.com) on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 08:15:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NYT Account of Judith Miller Is Up (none / 0)

First reactions: On Miller's account: I noted Fitzgerald's questions to Miller, about what Cheney knew and whether he was behind efforts to get Wilson. The questions were more revealing than her answers.

On the Times reporting: it confirms leaks yesterday than the newsroom was upset. The emphasis on newsroom attitudes and hostilities is signficant, and there are several instances where the reporters asked Miller questions she refused to answer.

I'd interpret that as a message to Miller not to come back. Though she denies having a book deal, one has been reported, and the Raw Story report yesterday suggested that she wasn't talking to the Times reporter but saving stuff for her book. So it strongly hints that she would not be welcomed back. If she does go back, they really will have to face the decision of whether to fire her. And she may not be the only one to lose a job there before this is over.

As for the effect on the Plame case, obviously she's bending over backwards not to incriminate Libby or anyone higher. So there's no smoking gun here, but---Fitzgerald may have answers to more specific questions that fit together with other testimony. And again, there are those questions he asked about Cheney.

"The end of all intelligent analysis is to clear the way for synthesis." H.G. Wells "It's not dark yet, but it's getting there." Bob Dylan

by Captain Future (captainfuture is at sbcglobal.net) on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 08:49:29 PM EST

Re: NYT Account of Judith Miller Is Up (none / 1)

In two interviews, Ms. Miller generally would not discuss her interactions with editors, elaborate on the written account of her grand jury testimony or allow reporters to review her notes.

So her newspaper compromises itself for her, spends millions on her legal defense, and she won't even be straight with the reporters from her own newspaper trying to cover the story about her?

We are all different, but all in the same boat. --Alice

by Janet Strange (jstrange1925athotmaildotcom) on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 09:13:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NYT Account of Judith Miller Is Up (none / 0)

Quite frankly, my dear, I do not give a damn about the NYT's. They have sacrificed their reputation for this one reporter. It is their problem not ours. They will surely have given up more than reputation when it comes down to the fact that their readership is down because of this. When they can not report the truth, this will tell all of their standing with politics and their position overall.

I do not trust them anymore, what so ever!!!!!!! I am sure I am not alone with this thought either.

by BrendaStewart (stormyweather1@hotmail.com) on Sat Oct 15th, 2005 at 09:19:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NYT Account of Judith Bulllshit Is Up (none / 1)

Number ONE: The US District Court of Appeals ruling that Cooper and Miller must testify, threw the first amendment protection in this case out the window because of the seriousness of the potential crime committed. The Judges concurred that the reporters were seeking protection to report on a crime while protecting the criminals:

"Had Cooper based his report on leaks about the leaks--say, from a whistleblower who revealed the plot against Wilson--the situation would be different. Because in that case the source would not have revealed the name of a covert agent, but instead
revealed the fact that others had done so, the balance of newsvalue and harm would shift in favor of protecting the whistleblower. Yet it appears Cooper relied on the Plame leaks themselves, drawing the inference of sinister motive on his own. Accordingly, his story itself makes the case for punishing the
leakers. While requiring Cooper to testify may discourage future leaks, discouraging leaks of this kind is precisely what the public interest requires........

Were the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security or more vital to public debate, or had the special counsel failed to demonstrate the grand jury's need for the reporters' evidence, I might have supported the motion to quash. Because identifying appellants' sources instead appears essential to remedying a serious breach of public trust, I join in affirming the district court's orders compelling their testimony. Judge Tatel Febraury 15 2005.No. 04-3138 IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA, JUDITH MILLER
Excerpt Page 82 and 83

NUMBER TWO: Judy is still spinning for Bush/Cheney Corporation:
Not really even between the lines -the majority of judith's article/ account of what happened is devoted to continuing to promulgate a defense of the wh for going to war, protect cheney, et. al and attack the CIA
"as i told the grand jury, i recalled Mr. Libby's frustration and anger about what he called 'selective leaking' by the CIA and other agencies from what he recalled as their unequivocal prewar intelligence assessments." "The selective leaks trying to shift blame to the white house, he told me were part of a perverted war over the war in in Iraq" (what an ironic perversion) AND she is attempting to posit that she had special security clearance as an embedded reported in iraq. AND ' VEEP didn't know joe wilson-never knew what he did or what was said...

Number Three:She is lying- Who does not think she is lying? She learns Flame's name from another source she can't recall- she spends months waiting for the Court to decide if her subpeona should be quashed and is not cognizant of every note and detail she has written about the issue?- and suddenly finds a mystery notebook behind door number three?

My apologies-there is not a begining, middle and end to my comment-i only barely skimmed her article, excuse me now, i need to go and throw-up.

reb

by reb on Sun Oct 16th, 2005 at 02:08:00 AM EST

NYT Account of Judith Miller Is Up | 31 comments (31 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ Booman Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

. Home
. About
. Contact
. Advertise
. FAQ
. Search

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Gift Cards * New Arrivals

NOTE: Overstock bests Amazon's prices and is "blue."

THE BOOKS WITH "BUZZ":
______________

Senator Edward M. Kennedy tells his extraordinary personal story:

True Compass: A Memoir
by Edward M. Kennedy.

Read Barack Obama's vision for America:

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
by Barack Obama

Boran2 and maryb2004 recommend:

The Big Over Easy: A Nursery Crime
by Jasper Fforde

Must-have information for all presidents-and citizens-of the twenty-first century?

Physics for Future Presidents: The Science behind the Headlines
Richard A. Muller

rae recommends:

Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire
by Morris Berman.

On BooMan’s shelf:

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
by Doris Kearns Goodwin

This looks interesting:

Adventure Divas
by Holly Morris

Here’s a good one from
Elizabeth Gilbert:

Eat Pray Love
by Elizabeth Gilbert

"Crash" * Best Motion Picture, Academy Awards * Only $11.79 at Overstock * 2006 SAG Winner, Best Ensemble

Check out
Powell's new section:
NEW FAVORITES
Selected new arrivals at 30% off

Recommended by Indianadem and ejmw:
The Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Wellstone

From northcountry’s bookshelf:

The New Golden Age:
The Coming Revolution Against
Political Corruption and Economic Chaos by Ravi Batra

A novel about contractors in Iraq from the woman that runs The Spy That Billed Me:

Outsourced: A Novel
from RJ Hillhouse.

Great Deals
----- * ^ * -----

Find mystery novels by Nancy Pickard ("Kansas")

Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power by Phyllis Bennis (interviewed on DN!)

Featured by Keith Olbermann, New (Powell's Sale): Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum (whose other books merit serious consideration)

"Explosive" State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration
by James Risen

The book the CIA doesn't want you to read: Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander
Larry Johnson's review

BT's all-time best seller:

PERMACULTURE:
A Designers' Manual
$79.95 * Sale: $59.95

Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women's History (Third Edition)

The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor And Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!

The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl
by Timothy Egan

Green Press Initiative
----- * ^ * -----

Journalistas: 100 Years of the Best Writing and Reporting by Women Journalists by Eleanor Mills * NYT review

Bury Me Standing: the Gypsies & Their Journey

1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus

Brokeback Mountain
by Annie Proulx
----- * ^ * -----
Check out Powell's
"At The Movies"

Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World by Noam Chomsky (Power & Terror: Post 9-11 Talks)

The Price of Privilege:

How Parental Pressure and
Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of
Disconnected and Unhappy Kids
by Madeline Levine

Save 35-70% on
name brand clothing,
footwear, and outdoor gear
at SierraTradingPost.com
:

We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris. (Selection (MP3) excerpted from "The Skin.")

Banned Books * Are you a fan of Film Noir, Art House, Documentaries or Hong Kong Action? * Searching for a long-lost children's book or a first printing of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on vinyl? Find it at Alibris!

:
:

Booman Tribune Homepage
admin@boomantribune.com
powered by Scoop

More blogs about Blogs at Technorati.

Technorati Profile