Judith Miller and the Times
The New York Times has now published a long article about the role of Judy Miller in the Plame investigations. The article sheds some light on the internal politics of the Times and the way different individuals there wanted to do different things. It even discusses Miller’s earlier articles on Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and the fact that her articles were based on false information and pretty much served as an outlet for the Bush administration to pass on propaganda.
This made it slightly difficult for the Times to defend Miller’s initial refusal to testify about who first told her the identity of Valerie Plame, a covert CIA agent as something that protected journalists who got information on government whistle blowers. After all, Miller seemed to be more interested in protecting the government than any of its critics.
Be as it may, the Times has stood behind Judy. Time will tell if it was worth the large costs, both financial and reputational.
If you want a funnier version of the whole thing, read Judy’s own memoirs. Here is a snippet:
When I was last before the grand jury, Mr. Fitzgerald posed a series of questions about a letter I received in jail last month from Mr. Libby. The letter, two pages long, encouraged me to testify. “Your reporting, and you, are missed,” it begins.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked me to read the final three paragraphs aloud to the grand jury. “The public report of every other reporter’s testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame’s name or identity with me,” Mr. Libby wrote.
The prosecutor asked my reaction to those words. I replied that this portion of the letter had surprised me because it might be perceived as an effort by Mr. Libby to suggest that I, too, would say we had not discussed Ms. Plame’s identity. Yet my notes suggested that we had discussed her job.
Mr. Fitzgerald also focused on the letter’s closing lines. “Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning,” Mr. Libby wrote. “They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them.”
How did I interpret that? Mr. Fitzgerald asked.
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.”
Heh.
October 15th, 2005 at 8:20 pm
After reviewing all the details including points made by Hunter at DKos, it is clear that Judith Miller is simply not a credible witness.
Her own editor disputes one assertion she made. Her “I can’t remember the source of her name” is completely reminiscent of the answers given by evasive Nixon lieutenants during Watergate. And what kind of reporter is given carte blanche at an institution like the NY Times, yet is incapable of keeping better notes?
Yes, it looks pretty clear that Libby’s going to be indicted, but it’s the evidence we don’t have - from all the other reporters - that will provide the oomph to convict.
Others, like Rove or Cheney? That’s not clear from Miller’s account. But her choice to shield Libby and his coded words to her suggests more than collusion between a dishonest administration and a reporter.
I can’t help but wonder if there’s even a blue dress in this, because Ms. Miller’s been co-opted as clearly as Armstrong Williams. Which makes me wonder, was it motivated by money, shared ideology or love?
October 15th, 2005 at 11:34 pm
Oh, now that is just rude. She’s rubbing all our noses in it!
October 16th, 2005 at 1:07 pm
COUNT ONE: THE COMMON PLAN OR CONSPIRACY
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count1.htm