THURSDAY'S LETTERS: Plame-Inspired Song Parodies Proliferate

By: E&P Staff On Wednesday, E&P reported on a song parody called "Secret Agent Plame" set to the tune of the old Johnny Rivers hit "Secret Agent Man." We kick off today's letters column with another song inspired by the CIA leak investigation. If you have your own tuneful ditty inspired by events in the news, send it to our online editor to post in this space.

***

That Lady Plame
(Sung to "His Latest Flame," by Elvis Presley)

Ole Karl Rove got cuffed today
'cause he was telling everyone in town
'bout the spy that he just found --
CIA's the game, of that lady Plame.

A needle in that traitor's vein was a a-burning
I wished him luck and then he said goodbye
They pushed him down the hall atop a gurney
What else was there for Bush to do but cry.

He talked and talked and I heard him say
That she was working for the agency
Checking out those Iraqis
CIA's the game, of that lady Plame.

Would you believe that yesterday
Bush was on TV and swore to us
He'd prosecute the treasonous?
CIA's the game, of that lady Plame.

Lyrics by Mark Schreiber
Tokyo-based journalist

***

Re: Will Judith Miller Probe Go Public?

How can Mr. Calame possibly spend his time on such a trivial issue as whether or not Judith Miller was played like a violin by Rove? He has BIG Times messes to correct, like how they unfairly accused Geraldo Rivera of being a nudge.

Steve Raaen
New York City, N.Y.

***

New York Times' Stonewalling

The reason Calame is not writing anything about Miller and stonewalling is he is waiting to see if Rove or someone from the White House might get indicted. Then it will take the focus off Miller and everyone will be going crazy over this, and then they will write a puff article on her, and she will totally get away with whatever she was doing. This whole thing has been a disgrace on the NYT and shows what kind of an editor Keller is.

Also I would like to know why we can never send an e-mail to most of the writers, and also to the editor. Are they afraid to let people know their e-mail address? They have written so many articles and have been wrong on many occasions, but they never correct them. What has happened to this paper? I had to cancel my subscription because they are just too hateful and they have an agenda.

Sandra Cristantielli

Ed's note: Readers can obtain a list of New York Times staff e-mail addresses by pinging staff@nytimes.com. A return e-mail would appear shortly with a list of address for those who opted in to the system.

***

I do believe that the NYT is scared to death that Judith Miller just might get indicted and is trying to distance itself from her. You saw what happened to CBS after Dan Rather got caught in a lie. The country is going to the dogs when the media spends the biggest part of its time trying to get someone rather than honestly reporting the news. Honestly reporting the news is a big statement. Some big news organizations don't really know what honesty is.

Sid Morris

***

The comments written by Michael Ryan (see Wednesday's letters column) and the fact that you supported it and wanted an explanation are very frightening. First, to abridge to deprive, to reduce in scope: Diminish attempts to the right of free speech. et al. To begin with the press has and always has had the right to free speech. The notion of a shield law is to protect a journalist from having to reveal the person who spoke or provided the information in question.

Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition -- Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of Religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the Press.

While it is clear Congress gave the People, then the Press the Freedom of Speech, at no point in the Constitution did it give a person or the Press the right to hide behind the Constitution in order to avoid responsibility for that said speech. It is also interesting to note that the very first priority and protection of the Constitution was given to Religion.

Indeed, the prohibition of passing a law against the free exercise of religion clearly gives an individual or groups the right to exercise their religion without any mention of any limits. What is surprising is the Press gives very little to the Governments intrusion into religion by prohibiting it in schools and public buildings when it is clearly in the Constitution. However, that same Press is able to read into the Right of their freedom of speech allows them to avoid responsibility for their Speech when there is clearly no provision in the Constitution for that.

David J Horchak
Circulation Director
The Herald/The Herald Press

***

It's understandable why Mr. Calame doesn't want to weigh in re: Judy Miller now, but he could weigh in on any number of topics, e.g.:

1) The Sheehan coverage. The pieces were largely puffery (e.g., how Sheehan is soft-spoken) and did not ever mention that Sheehan changed her story about her meeting with President Bush. The Times also never mentioned her more radical statements.

2) The judges. Funny how the Times justified Dem Senate tactics by parroting the "Clinton judges got the same treatment". Of course, the Times never pointed out that Bush I judges were stiffed by the Dem Senate, which would have dramatically undermined the Dems' position.

3) The Tom DeLay coverage. Funny how the movie story doesn't seem to make its way into the reporting. Nor is there any hint about Dem fundraising efforts in Texas that were very similar to, if not the same as, GOP efforts.

4) Steele/DSCC. Why was the Times' coverage so late? Why did Hernandez' piece ignore the fact that the DSCC is paying the legal bills of the staffers? Would the Times' reporting be late and incomplete if a GOP operative had done the same thing? Did bias have anything to do with the content, placement and lateness of the story?