PressThink: Times Report on Judith Miller: Key Moments, My Comments, and What the Blogs Say

Times Report on Judith Miller: Key Moments, My Comments, and What the Blogs Say

Here are my initial annotations of the big report. Key passages and brief comments. (Do add your own.) Plus my eight paragraph summary of the case and its press think.

I give credit to the Times for running the story a few days after they felt the legal clearances were had, for giving readers a look inside at decision-making normally hidden, for airing uncomfortable facts—including internal tensions—and for explaining what happened as well as the editors felt they could. This was a very difficult piece of journalism to do. As language in conveyance of fact, it is superbly edited.

I have a small bit of news to break if you skip down to “After Matter.” My eight-graph view of the case and its mangled press think:

Maybe the biggest mistake the New York Times made was to turn decision-making for the newspaper over to Judith Miller and her “case.” This happened via the magic medium of a First Amendment struggle, the thing that makes the newspaper business more than just a business to the people prominent in it.
Miller’s defiance played to their images of Times greatness, and to their understanding of First Amendment virtue. She always described her case in the language of their principles. They heard their principles talking in the facts of the case. She could shape those facts, and so on.

But her second attorney saw it more clearly. “I don’t want to represent a principle,” Robert Bennett told her. “I want to represent Judy Miller.” He did that. The Times was the one left holding the principles.
Mostly they didn’t apply to a case that was bad on the facts, a loser on the law, quite likely to result in victory for the prosecutor, and quite possibly an ethical swamp or political sewer, since it was about using the press to discredit people without being named. All this would warn a prudent person away. It’s why other news organizations settled.

It never seems to have registered with Arthur Sulzberger, Jr.—Miller’s biggest supporter and the publisher of the newspaper—how different it is to fight for the right to keep things secret, as against the right to publish what had improperly been kept from us. By taking Miller’s secret-keeping “into” itself the Times took on more and more responsibilities not to speak, not to publish, not to report, not to inquire. All this is deadly for a newspaper, and the staff knew it. At the end the readers knew it and they were crying out. Even the armchair critics knew a thing or two.

So did Bill Keller, so did Jill Abramson. But there was nothing they could do. By the time they realized what Miller’s secrets had done to their people and their journalism, Judith Miller—by staging a First Amendment showdown she escaped from—had effectively hijacked the newspaper. Her principles were in the saddle, and rode the Times to disaster, while people of the Times watched. The newspaper never got its Robert Bennett.

And in the end her secret-keeping extended to stiffing the Times on its own story. The newspaper’s international First Amendment hero wouldn’t talk, share notes, or answer any tough questions. Her copy was late for the big weekend package; so late the report didn’t run in 100,000 papers run off for the bulldog edition.

The spookiest thing to me about her first person account was the suggestion that Judy Miller may have—today—security clearances that her bosses (and colleagues) do not have. This could be the reason her treatment is so singular. She said the prosecutor asked her if she still had special clearances when she met with Lewis Libby. She said she didn’t know. Does that sound good?

On to some key moments in the report, The Miller Case: From a Name on a Pad to Jail, and Back. My eye fell on these passages. I explain a little about why.

And when the prosecutor in the case asked her to explain how “Valerie Flame” appeared in the same notebook she used in interviewing Mr. Libby, Ms. Miller said she “didn’t think” she heard it from him. “I said I believed the information came from another source, whom I could not recall,” she wrote on Friday, recounting her testimony for an article that appears today….

Miller cannot recall where the name at the center of the case came from? Wowzer. Sure to be the center of controversy over the next week. Claiming memory loss about the most important fact in the story is weak. Very.

Miller actually subtracts from public knowledge in this part, a feat. She introduces into the narrative a new “source” who must have been around to plant the name on her, and then promptly tells us she cannot remember anything about him. So we know less if we believe her.

Mr. Sulzberger and the paper’s executive editor, Bill Keller, knew few details about Ms. Miller’s conversations with her confidential source other than his name. They did not review Ms. Miller’s notes. Mr. Keller said he learned about the “Valerie Flame” notation only this month. Mr. Sulzberger was told about it by Times reporters on Thursday.
Interviews show that the paper’s leadership, in taking what they considered to be a principled stand, ultimately left the major decisions in the case up to Ms. Miller, an intrepid reporter whom editors found hard to control.

“This car had her hand on the wheel because she was the one at risk,” Mr. Sulzberger said.

Like I said, it became Judy Miller’s newspaper. Her decision-making, I said on CNN, was driving the newspaper’s. Mr. Sulzberger is the publisher; the Times is a public company. Isn’t his hand supposed to be on the wheel for the newspaper as a public trust?

This car had her hand on the wheel… I know what he meant. It was her call on whether to “end” the case by testifying. But it was his call when the Times declared her case a First Amendment struggle and matter of high journalistic principle. Because the particular high principle invoked by Miller—protecting a reporter’s sources—in this case tied their hands for later stages of the fight their strategy brought on. They turned over the wheel to Judy Miller; her games of telepathy with Libby became the case “logic.”

Just ask yourself when you re-read the Times report, who was actually in charge of these events?

“We have everything to be proud of and nothing to apologize for,” Ms. Miller said in the interview Friday.

Ms. Miller seems incapable of self-doubt. Is this the person you want driving the car in a game of chicken with a federal prosecutor?

Asked what she regretted about The Times’s handling of the matter, Jill Abramson, a managing editor, said: “The entire thing.”…

Indeed.

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

I called this The Hypothesis: “Judy Miller would not, in any material way, cooperate with the team of Times reporters.” (See Armchair Critic Speculates, Oct. 12.) Seems like she didn’t. What principle of confidentiality extends to “interactions with editors?” I am not aware of one the Times would uphold.

And how’s this for corporate candor? The Washington Post reported today: “Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said yesterday that Miller is now cooperating with fellow reporters on the story.” Odd definition of cooperating. (See “After Matter” for an update on it.)

This, I think, is what will finally sever Judy Miller from the Times: Ms. Miller generally would not discuss… Not forgivable in the newsroom’s moral code. Your colleagues are trying to finally tell the truth and get it right— and you won’t help? (Editor & Publisher’s Greg Mitchell agrees and calls for Miller to be fired.)

Ms. Miller said in an interview that she “made a strong recommendation to my editor” that a story be pursued. “I was told no,” she said. She would not identify the editor.
Ms. Abramson, the Washington bureau chief at the time, said Ms. Miller never made any such recommendation.

So she won’t even identify the editor, and Jill Abramson says no way, it never happened? Second wowzer.

In the fall of 2003, after The Washington Post reported that “two top White House officials disclosed Plame’s identity to at least six Washington journalists,” Philip Taubman, Ms. Abramson’s successor as Washington bureau chief, asked Ms. Miller and other Times reporters whether they were among the six. Ms. Miller denied it…

Was she lying? Times reporters will have vivid opinions on that. Lying to an editor is an immediate firing offense. It has to be, if the newsroom is going to function. One of many reasons Miller will not be returning to the newsroom.

The Times said it believes that attempts by prosecutors to force reporters to reveal confidential information must be resisted. Otherwise, it argues, the public would be deprived of important information about the government and other powerful institutions.
The fact that Ms. Miller’s judgment had been questioned in the past did not affect its stance. “The default position in a case like that is you support the reporter,” Mr. Keller said.

It was in these early days that Mr. Keller and Mr. Sulzberger learned Mr. Libby’s identity. Neither man asked Ms. Miller detailed questions about her conversations with Mr. Libby

A striking feature of the entire story: the men in charge didn’t know some of the key facts because they didn’t ask. Normally this would be bad. But it was okay not to know because Judy was making the calls. She knew.

Mr. Abrams told Ms. Miller and the group that Mr. Tate said she was free to testify. Mr. Abrams said Mr. Tate also passed along some information about Mr. Libby’s grand jury testimony: that he had not told Ms. Miller the name or undercover status of Mr. Wilson’s wife.

The most confusing part of the article is this. From what it says, I can see no reason Abrams or the Times had for not accepting Tate’s “she was free to testify,” except Miller’s subjective feeling about it, and the fact that she didn’t get the call she felt she would get.

“Judy believed Libby was afraid of her testimony,” Mr. Keller said, noting that he did not know the basis for the fear. “She thought Libby had reason to be afraid of her testimony.”
Ms. Miller and the paper decided at that point not to pursue additional negotiations with Mr. Tate.

The two sides did not talk for a year.

Amazing, especially: he did not know the basis for the fear. This is what the Times staff was afraid of. Had the paper—and the newsroom bosses—taken too great a risk? Maybe Keller didn’t know things he would have to know to guard against it.

Asked in the interview whether he had any regrets about the editorials, given the outcome of the case, Mr. Sulzberger said no.
“I felt strongly that, one, Judy deserved the support of the paper in this cause - and the editorial page is the right place for such support, not the news pages,” Mr. Sulzberger said. “And secondly, that this issue of a federal shield law is really important to the nation.”

As I have written, it is sad to me that this stance is repeated, and occupied as some kind of high ground, when it has been admitted by Keller that Miller’s case would not have been covered by a national shield law. How can she be a symbol of it?

And when Sulzberger says “the editorial page is the right place for such support, not the news pages…” I must say I draw a blank. The news pages weren’t supporting Miller? Where did he get that? The news pages of the New York Times were edited for many months under the principle: don’t report anything that would anger the prosecutor or affect Miller’s case. That’s “support.” And the Times report documents this, including the stories that weren’t published and the reporters who did them, and the discouraging “message” the Washington bureau took from it, and so on. If Sulzberger believes the news pages didn’t support Miller, that’s alarming.

A few weeks later on Capitol Hill, in November 2004, Ms. Miller bumped into Robert S. Bennett, the prominent Washington criminal lawyer who represented President Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and who is known for his blunt style and deal-making skills.
Ms. Miller recalled Mr. Bennett saying while he signed on to her case: “I don’t want to represent a principle. I want to represent Judy Miller.”

Three points:

With his “Judy you need someone to represent you,” Bennett had a clear-eyed view of the case, easier because he was coming to it later.
Who on the Times side said, “I’m not representing a principle, I have to represent the New York Times?”
The Times story never explains why Miller switched lawyers or added a criminal defense attorney. (See Mark Schmitt on this.)

How strange:

Every day, she checked outdated copies of The Times for a news article about her case. Most days she was disappointed.

She didn’t know why there weren’t any news articles about her case? By their own account, the editors were holding back in deference to her.

Finally, it says so much about this case, about the information underworld of confidential sources, how little the Times own rules mattered to her, and how far gone Miller herself is when, in her account accompanying the Times article, she says:

Mr. Fitzgerald asked about a notation I made on the first page of my notes about this July 8 meeting, “Former Hill staffer.”
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.

Telling. (Let Josh Marshall explain why.) The new description for Libby is wholly misleading to readers—amounting to a lie, a misdirection play—but Miller is fine with it because it’s technically true.

After Matter: Notes, reactions & links…

My bit of news is

TIMES STANDS BY CLAIM: MILLER COOPERATED.

Meaning I e-mailed New York Times spokesperson Catherine J. Mathis with a question:

The Washington Post said you told them Judith Miller was cooperating with reporters. The Times report says: “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.” That says she didn’t really cooperate.
So my question is: did you want to elaborate or revise your statement? Or is the Times statement [still]: “Judy Miller cooperated with this report?”

Her reply: “While Judy put limits on what she would discuss, the fact that she did sit for interviews and wrote her own account of her testimony certainly represents cooperation.”

Represents to whom? I guarantee you Times journalists did not see her “limits” as reasonable or as cooperation. Susie Madrak, a journalist who blogs as Suburban Guerilla: “Well, the Times spokeswoman ‘misspoke,’ since Judy wouldn’t answer questions nor show her fellow reporters her notes.”

Bill Keller is quoted in the Wall Street Journal’s story on the report (Oct. 17): “Knowing everything I know today about this case, I might have done some things differently, but I don’t feel the least bit apologetic about standing up for a reporter’s right to do the job.”

See Keller’s note to staff from Asia, where he’s visiting bureaus.

Best post I have read on Miller, post-report, is Next Time, Try Monster.com by Jane Hamsher at firedoglake. She thinks Miller wants to land at the Wall Street Journal, and gave a “pitch” interview to their reporters. Read why it didn’t work.

Tom Rosenstiel in Howard Kurtz’s “reactions” story, Oct. 17: “It is still not clear entirely what principle Miller felt she was protecting that also allowed her to testify.” Agreed.

Kurtz’s Media Notes column is better for your range-of-reactions needs. Listen to how how he starts:

The Judy Miller story is so hot right now that I want to get right to the blogosphere reaction, and will make you scroll down to read my print column…

Farhad Manjpoo in Salon: Judy Miller and the damage done. Cogent and it answers questions instead of just posing them. I recommend it, and warn you I am in it.

Ditto for FishbowlNY’s wrap-up. Also see Fishbowl DC’s Miller post. (Both Oct. 17)

Kathy Gill, a “guide” at About.com for US Politics, has a nicely thorough round up of bloggers reactions. About is owned by the Times.

Mickey Kaus is asking good questions. Jeff Jarvis has a good round-up of reactions. He’d have more to say but he’s a consultant to the Times. Also see Joe Gandelman, as you always should when these things break.

David Weinberger:

It’s one thing to be gamed by a punk like Jayson Blair who lied so outrageously that you’d have to be as nuts as him to think he was making it all up. It’s another to be gamed by a senior Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter. That requires a systemic flaw.

And that requires David—a philosopher—to think about it, and tell us what the flaw might be.

Halley Suitt, keeping it real: “And as for metaphors of who was running the show, the Times publisher suggests Judy Miller was in the driver’s seat at the paper, but c’mon guys, can’t we call it what it was … she seemed to have the boys by the balls.”

James Wolcott: “You’re sitting there having breakfast at the St. Regis with Scooter Aspen, buttering each other’s toast, and somehow the name ‘Valerie Flame’ pops up in your notebook without you knowing how it got there! It’s your handwriting, sure enough, but rack your brain much as you will, you just can’t remember which little birdie tweeted that name into your ear.”

Dan Gillmor: “This is a sad day for the Times and for journalism.”

Mark Jurkowitz, Boston Phoenix: “Plenty to suggest that the Times has paid a major price for again failing in its oversight of a strong-willed reporter who had generated internal skepticism about work habits and work product. And that sounds all too familiar.”

Steve Lovelady at CJR Daily: “The Times Gives Us a Modified, Limited Hangout.”

Historian David Kaiser: “the Times seems to have forgotten not only the purpose of protecting confidential sources, but also the reason we have a free press at all.”

“Then she starts to get a little crazy and reckless,” writes Jane Hamsher. “She sticks it to her lawyer, which is not really the best idea when he’s the only thing standing between you and a ten year stretch in chick prison…”

Mickey Kaus explains why Sulzberger’s stand on “principle” has actually made it harder for journalists.

KAUS: It’s now clear confinement wasn’t pointless. It worked for the prosecutor exactly as intended. After a couple of months of sleeping on “two thin mats on a concrete slab,” Miller decided, in her words, “I owed it to myself” to check and see if just maybe Libby really meant to release her from her promise of confidentiality. And sure enough - you know what? - it turns out he did! The message sent to every prosecutor in the country is “Don’t believe journalists who say they will never testify. A bit of hard time and they just might find a reason to change their minds. Judy Miller did.”

SPECIAL SECTION: Judy Miller And Her Security Status

Q. Does Judy Miller have security clearances enabling her to deal in classified information, preventing her editors from knowing what she knows, even if they knew to ask?

A. From Judith Miller’s My Four Hours Testifying in the Federal Grand Jury Room come these passages suggesting she may:

… 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 if I had discussed classified information with Mr. Libby. I said I believed so, but could not be sure. He asked how Mr. Libby treated classified information. I said, Very carefully.

Mr. Fitzgerald asked whether Mr. Libby had shown any of the documents to me. I said no, I didn’t think so. I thought I remembered him at one point reading from a piece of paper he pulled from his pocket.

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.

She did not know? I wrote this at PressThink on Oct. 13:

Jack Shafer in a column on the risk of criminalizing relations with sources writes: “National-security reporters—none of whom have clearances—receive classified information for a living.” How does he know that there aren’t any reporters with security clearences? It would be a good way of favoring a favorite, says I. Surely such arrangements would be secret if they existed. In fact, I could see a journalist fighting pretty hard to keep that kind of secret.

Military and media blogger Sisyphus (Tim Schmoyer) has some good background on Miller’s “security clearance” during the hunt for WMD’s. Interesting portrait of Miller in the field. TPM Cafe is asking questions about this too.

I say it’s either 1.) a big nothing—Miller’s exagerrated description of clearances other embedded reporters had during the war, a kind of puffing up—or 2.) a very big deal if she had “special” clearances post-embed that came into play during her talks with Libby. Reporters I have talked to said that would be shocking and troubling, if true. 1) seems more likely, 2.) would explain a lot.

Read William Jackson’s September 2003 column (just put back online by E & P) about Judith Miller… “It appeared that she was, once again, the ‘drop’ of choice for a politically-motivated leaker.” It has a portrait of Judy Miller operating in Iraq, where she claimed to have “secret” clearence to see things other reporters could not. (Judy calls this kind of behavior “having sharp elbows.”)

An e-mail message to me from her PAO sergeant escort regarding a three-week trip with META in April stated: “She did not have a SECRET clearance.” She was “high maintenance and came to the field badly prepared. The problem I had with her was that whenever other members of the press showed up, which they did as embeds from other units or as unilaterals, she would insist that I get rid of them and that the 75th’s story was her story, exclusively. She didn’t seem to have any idea that the Army needed as much coverage of the 75th’s mission as possible and that excluding everyone else was detrimental to the credibility of what the 75th was trying to accomplish.

Bill Lynch, retired CBS News correspondent, in a letter to Romenesko:

There is one enormous journalism scandal hidden in Judith Miller’s Oct. 16th first person article about the (perhaps lesser) CIA leak scandal. And that is Ms. Miller’s revelation that she was granted a DoD security clearance while embedded with the WMD search team in Iraq in 2003.

Read the rest; it’s interesting.

Franklin Foer’s New York magazine profile of Miller also has background on this. The Source of the Trouble, it’s called.

About.com has good background on military security clearances.

NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski checked it out (Oct. 17):

WASHINGTON — Officials from the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon say they have no idea what New York Times reporter Judith Miller was talking about when she claimed to have been given a “security clearance” while she was embedded with a U.S. Army unit in Iraq in 2003.

There’s more if you are interested. Also see historian Bob Bateman’s letter to Romenesko.

This is a very good compendium of facts and links to articles about Judith Miller. And here’s an index of everything that’s appeared at Romenesko about Miller, Libby, Plame, Fitzgerald, Cooper, Novak, etc.

Posted by Jay Rosen at October 15, 2005 7:00 PM Print

Jay the key passage in the whole thing was this:

Before the grand jury, Mr. Fitzgerald asked me questions about Mr. Cheney.

She buried the lead - as if the story were about her! And her NYT editors, even at this late date, let her. That's the scandal....(I have a brief post up).

Posted by: Tom Watson at October 15, 2005 7:38 PM | Permalink

I don't believe for a second that she actually cooperated with the NYT reporters. She wrote up her version of the GJ testimony and had it reviewed by her lawyer. Then when she was called back, she updated her write-up. That's pretty much all the reporters had to work with. They learned more by talking with her colleagues than from her.

And her testimony is cagey and not credible. She cannot explain why Valerie Flame is in her notes except to say she learned the name from someone else (but can't remember whom)?

The NY Times management must feel sick at this point. They wasted millions of dollars defending her, lost their own credibility in the process, and for what?

Possibly a shareholder lawsuit?

Posted by: Libby Sosume at October 15, 2005 8:03 PM | Permalink

Thanks for the analysis, Jay.

I'd like to know how long Miller had this notebook in her possession after she was released from jail and before she turned it over to Fitz. The "Valerie Flame" part is so odd. Who's to say she didn't do a bit of creative editing before she turned over the notes?

Posted by: Valley Girl at October 15, 2005 8:08 PM | Permalink

Jay,

The article says, "And when the prosecutor in the case asked her to explain how "Valerie Flame" appeared in the same notebook she used in interviewing Mr. Libby, Ms. Miller said she "didn't think" she heard it from him. "I said I believed the information came from another source, whom I could not recall," she wrote on Friday, recounting her testimony for an article that appears today."

1. If she did not believe Mr. Libby gave her Valerie Plame's name, what was she protecting him from?

"Once Ms. Miller was jailed, her lawyers were in open conflict about whether she should stay there. She had refused to reopen communications with Mr. Libby for a year, saying she did not want to pressure a source into waiving confidentiality. But in the end, saying "I owed it to myself" after two months of jail, she had her lawyer reach out to Mr. Libby. This time, hearing directly from her source, she accepted his permission and was set free.

"We have everything to be proud of and nothing to apologize for," Ms. Miller said in an interview Friday."

2. Ms. Miller talked herself into believing Mr. Libby's original release, was not. In the end, what she owed to herself was to get out of what she hoped was a martyr role, but had not turned out that way. For a year or more she chose not to clarify Mr. Libby's position?! Sounds completely self-serving to me.

"On Tuesday, Ms. Miller is to receive a First Amendment award from the Society of Professional Journalists. She said she thought she would write a book about her experiences in the leak case, although she added that she did not yet have a book deal. She also plans on taking some time off but says she hopes to return to the newsroom."

3. I for one will not buy her book, unless or until she earns my respect.

Posted by: Bill Riski at October 15, 2005 8:28 PM | Permalink

This passage jumped out at me:

Within a few weeks [of becoming executive editor], in one of his first personnel moves, Mr. Keller told Ms. Miller that she could no longer cover Iraq and weapons issues. Even so, Mr. Keller said, "she kept kind of drifting on her own back into the national security realm."

The NYT has never come completely clean as how flawed they've known Miller's reporting to be.

How much more do the editors know about her reporting that they haven't told us yet?

This reminded me of a run-in that David Albright had with Judy Miller in the lead-up to the war.

Albright had been in contact with a number of nuclear experts within the intelligence establishment, and he was trying to blow the whistle to Miller on how the Aluminum Tubes were NOT suitable for uranium enrichment after reading Miller's September 8th, 2002 article.

In December 2003, Albright released a report describing his interaction with Miller. From page 17:

Judy Miller had called me at home and left a message before her September 8th story, but I was out of town and only got home on the day the story appeared. I called her back and alerted her to the internal expert criticism of the administration’s public claims. Partly in response, she decided to do another article, which appeared on September 13. In a surprising development, however, the article was heavily slanted to the CIA’s position, and the views of the other side were trivialized. An administration official was quoted as saying that "the best" technical experts and nuclear scientists at laboratories like Oak Ridge supported the CIA assessment. These inaccuracies made their way into the story despite several discussions that I had with Miller on the day before the story appeared—some well into the night. In the end, nobody was quoted questioning the CIA’s position, as I would have expected. [emphasis added]

Albright also indirectly raised concerns about Miller's coverage before the war on September 23, 2002 saying:

In fact, the intelligence community is deeply divided about the purpose of the tubing, with a significant number of experts knowledgeable about gas centrifuges dissenting from the CIA view. It appears that the New York Times stories represented only one side of this debate.

I have a feeling that there's still a lot of things about Miller's pre-war reporting that the NYT hasn't come clean with yet.

Posted by: Kent Bye at October 15, 2005 8:39 PM | Permalink

It is just as forecast -- Sulzberger and Keller turned the newspaper over to Miller.
And now key protagonists are telling conflicting accounts. (Miller versus Abramson, Tate versus Abrams.)
That's all I have to say for now. (Not going to scoop myself by printing my thoughts here before I do so on my own website -- something I've done before. Duhh ! )
But Jay, let me say this -- this is a superb public service you have been performing this past week. You have created a place that is a destination for travelers from widely different points of departure. They -- most of them -- come here precisely because they want to hear a panoply of views.
And in a world where most people seek out only affinity groups, that is no small accomplishment.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at October 15, 2005 8:42 PM | Permalink

No, I guess she didn't cooperate:

"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."

And Raw Story says she is now on indefinite leave while the Times decides what to do with her. Which of course really means, "Judy, we'll give you some time off to write your letter of resignation."

I'll enlarge my predictions. BK and/or PS will be gone by tomorrow night. Hopefully both.

Posted by: Libby Sosume at October 15, 2005 8:43 PM | Permalink

In the fall of 2003, after The Washington Post reported that "two top White House officials disclosed Plame's identity to at least six Washington journalists," Philip Taubman, Ms. Abramson's successor as Washington bureau chief, asked Ms. Miller and other Times reporters whether they were among the six. Ms. Miller denied it.
"The answer was generally no," Mr. Taubman said. Ms. Miller said the subject of Mr. Wilson and his wife had come up in casual conversation with government officials, Mr. Taubman said, but Ms. Miller said "she had not been at the receiving end of a concerted effort, a deliberate organized effort to put out information."

Another wowzer! Lying and sidestepping the question. And what, pray tell, does "generally no" mean? No? Sorta no? Almost no?

"You could see it in people's faces," Ms. Miller said later. "I'm a reporter. People were confused and perplexed, and I realized then that The Times and I hadn't done a very good job of making people understand what has been accomplished."

One of the deeper mysteries of this story is whether Miller is merely a self-serving liar or just delusional. What has been accomplished? I'm sure her newsroom colleagues, who greeted Miller with "restrained applause," could explain it in detail.

Posted by: Chiaroscuro at October 15, 2005 8:57 PM | Permalink

Here's the link to the Raw Story article mentioned by Libby: Reporter in leak case to take leave of absence effective immediately.

Personally, I gained more from Miller's article but this part struck me:

"Mr. Freeman advised Ms. Miller to remain in jail until Oct. 28, when the term of the grand jury would expire and the investigation would presumably end."

Hmmmm.

The company lawyer certainly seemed to have the Times' interests ahead of poor Judy's. So it seems that there was some pressure for her to fight for the "cause."

Posted by: Ron Brynaert at October 15, 2005 8:58 PM | Permalink

In his comment in tomorrow's Times, Frank Rich writes: "It's long been my hunch that the WHIG-ites were at their most brazen (and, in legal terms, reckless) during the many months that preceded the appointment of Mr. Fitzgerald as special counsel."

It's long been his hunch, he says, but he has waited until tomorrow to tell us so. He also neglects to tell us the extent to which his subject -- the WHIG -- has been discussed in the Times.

And then he says: "We still don't know the whole story of how our own democracy was hijacked on the way to war."

Posted by: Cervantes at October 15, 2005 9:07 PM | Permalink

I generally agree with your first take, Jay. A couple of other questions came to mind:

- So the "Valerie Flame" notation wasn't in the section of the notebook where she had her Libby notes, and she doesn't remember where it came from. Um, so, *where* in the notebook did the notation appear? Who was being interviewed?

- There was absolutely no discussion about how the notes from the June meeting were "discovered." This seems like a weird omission.

- That line about Miller pitching the story to an editor-who-shall-not-be-named is *really* strange. I assumed that it must be to someone other than Abramsom -- after all, it did seem that was working with a variety of desks at the paper -- but for the life of me I can't imagine why the name of the editor has to be a secret. Is she lying about this and if so, why? Or does she think she's protecting someone? Why?

- Libby is so very very hosed.

I agree that it must have been a horrible story to write. And I really don't blame the reporters for all the holes in the article: I think Miller didn't give them much to work with, probably on advice of counsel. But the article didn't even come close to answering all the questions it was supposed to answer.

Posted by: Sunny Seattle at October 15, 2005 9:20 PM | Permalink

Also from Rich's Sunday column (from behind the wall):

The vice president cited as evidence a front-page article, later debunked, about supposedly nefarious aluminum tubes co-written by Judy Miller in that morning's Times. The national security journalist James Bamford, in "A Pretext for War," writes that the article was all too perfectly timed to facilitate "exactly the sort of propaganda coup that the White House Iraq Group had been set up to stage-manage."

Posted by: Ron Brynaert at October 15, 2005 9:46 PM | Permalink

But the article didn't even come close to answering all the questions it was supposed to answer.

Indeed, from a crisis communications point of view this was an opportunity lost. Speculation will continue and is likely to be more damaging to the NYT that whatever the truth would have been.

As long as Sulzberger has the confidence of the Board of Directors no one can touch him, with the possible exception of bond holders.

Posted by: Alice Marshall at October 15, 2005 9:48 PM | Permalink

What a load of crap.

Keller says he never reviewed Miller's notes because he felt no need to do so, implying pretty directly that he could have if he wanted to. But Miller refused to let reporters review her notes, implying pretty directly that she has control over them. Which is it? If Keller could have reviewed the notes, could he not have ordered Miller to give his reporters access to them? To whom do Times reporters' notes belong, the reporter or the paper?

Mr. Keller told Ms. Miller that she could no longer cover Iraq and weapons issues. Even so, Mr. Keller said, "she kept kind of drifting on her own back into the national security realm."

Well, gee, maybe Mr. Keller should have complained to the executive editor that one of the paper's reporters was ignoring instructions from the executive editor. "Bill, this is Bill. Judy's ignoring me. What should I do?"

This is bad reporting. Congratulations to the Times for acting so quickly once Judy gave them the green light. Too bad it's crap.

More later. I have to take my kid to the westling extravaganza now, where I fully expect the participants to be more straightforward than the Times or Miller.

Posted by: weldon berger at October 15, 2005 9:52 PM | Permalink

(I posted this at the end of the last thread, after reading the Times article.)

The first word that came into my mind to describe the Times piece on Miller was "mushy." Considering the number of words used, there is relatively little of any real substance to the piece.

************************

My "bullshit" meter did go off the charts when I read this particular passage....

Ms. Miller had written a string of articles before the war - often based on the accounts of Bush administration officials and Iraqi defectors - strongly suggesting that Saddam Hussein was developing these weapons of mass destruction.

"Often" based on the 'accounts of Bush administration officials and Iraqi defectors'?!!?!?

"Strongly suggesting" that 'Saddam Hussein was developing these weapons of mass destruction'?!?!?!

there is a time for understatement....this wasn't it.

On my pet issue, the article certainly gives no indication that the Times itself had "legal entanglements" that prevented it (and Byron Calame) from doing its (and his) job. The story "strongly suggests" (i.e. "says") that Keller and Sulzburger never demanded to know from Miller what it was she was "protecting", and whether it really was worthy of putting the full force of the Times' reputation behind Miller. Miller claimed she was acting on principle, and Pinch and Keller just took her at her word.

So what are these fabled "legal entanglements" for the newspaper that kept Calame from writing about the subject? Its starting to look like the Times may need someone to act as the Ombudsman for its own Ombudsman....

Posted by: ami at October 15, 2005 9:59 PM | Permalink

Sad to say because no one likes to see careers ruined - although it appears greatly warranted - some important heads have to roll.

Ms. Miller's journalistic career is obviously gone.

Bill Keller needs to resign.

This is just a terrible terrible failure on the part of everyone involved with this issue who works on the paper.

Unless there's something extremely critical that I'm missing; something I cannot begin to imagine.

SMG

Posted by: SteveMG at October 15, 2005 10:06 PM | Permalink

Miller:

"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."

Is that level of distortion normal for reporters? She would agree to call him a "former Hill staffer" to cover up the fact that he was a senior White House official?

Posted by: Cal Lanier at October 15, 2005 10:08 PM | Permalink

Why did Libby go out of his way to have his lawyer convey that, “He(Libby) had not told Ms. Miller the name or undercover status of Mr. Wilson’s wife.” Why? Because that is exactly what he did tell her. Keller says, “She thought Libby had reason to be afraid of her testimony.” Yes, Libby’s fear was that she’d tell the truth. But he shouldn’t have feared. His fellow neo-con, Miller, came through for him and told a lie: “Ms. Miller said she ‘didn’t think’ she heard it from him. ‘I said I believed the information came from another source, whom I could not recall,”” How could she not recall? Don’t forget Novak’s column came out shortly after she made the note “Valerie Flame” on the pad she used while interviewing Libby. Like any good reporter she must have then recalled then where she got the name. But she’s leaving the impression that it was two years ago so she can’t recall. She’s still protecting Libby, her old neo-con buddy, who earlier used her as a wholly owned subsidiary of the “chicken hawk” brigade that got us into this war with Iraq.

Posted by: Socrates at October 15, 2005 10:12 PM | Permalink

Oh, my. The last line, about not recognized Libby. She's at a rodeo. And, he's in a hat, and sunglasses. Where's Mr. Burkett? What's so strange about lying liars, and their faked recollections. Libby's letter to Judy, in jail, goes under the mircoscope. And, nobody see's how odd Miller's take is? Libby's not the source! Valerie Flame could be a porn star, for all we know. And, we're getting closer and closer to "Deep Throat." Either a porn star queen, or an FBI #2. Take your pick. But if the MSM were doing a retread on a script, they're gonna get bitten by this farce. What a cockamamie story.

Posted by: Carol_Herman at October 15, 2005 10:20 PM | Permalink

Cal: That one jumped out at me too. 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."

I think that is so telling. Outrageous, of course. But it tells you a lot about Miller and this case.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at October 15, 2005 10:26 PM | Permalink

Great work.

And for free.

Thanks.

And so it goes.

Novak's #2 source may well be Miller's source, and no, it's neither RovEvil or Scooter.

Sorry.

It appears that Fitzgerald may be looking closely at someone, but who?

Miller, anyone?

...

Sucks to be Joseph Charles Wilson IV.

Not to mention Valerie Double-0-Plame.

Really.

Posted by: MeTooThen at October 15, 2005 10:38 PM | Permalink

If Libby is not the source for "Valerie Flame," as Judith Miller maintains, can Miller be a source for the White House officials? In other words, to what extent was Miller feeding officials information gleaned from her knowledge and contacts--which I imagine could be better than those of specific officials.

As such, Miller would be assisting the admin. agenda not only through her stenography of their WMD agenda, but by passing along info useful to their propaganda campaign.

I hope this isn't going out on a limb. I simply feel that if the underlying premise is that Miller facilitated Bush's Iraq agenda--in her reporting--all these still unanswered questions bring up the issue of what she was doing behind the scenes, perhaps in exchange for scoops, perhaps out of ideological conviction on Miller's part.

Posted by: John at October 15, 2005 10:43 PM | Permalink

No. That's not common journalistic practice to ID a source by some other job/position they may have had. Why not ID Libby as a former high-school junior. He was one at some point.

Judy has been busy playing newspaper reporter. Brenda Starr gets the big scoop!!

This is an extraordinary bit of reporting on L'Affaire Miller. I've seen reporters fired for much less. It's depressing as hell to see a once-great newspaper become a parody.

Wonder how the folks at SPJ feel about their award for Ms. Miller now?

Posted by: Dave McLemore at October 15, 2005 10:46 PM | Permalink

I think I figured this out. Joe Wilson, who got himself an Op Ed spread in the NY Times, to blast our war efforts in Iraq, and President Bush, was lying. We know that now. BUT WHAT IF THE ATTEMPT TO SMEAR THE PRESIDENT, goes beyond just Joe Wilson, and his wife? What if the game was set up at the CIA, a democratic strong hold. With the help of Colin Powell and/or George Tenet.

The Mainstream Media will never let the truth out! It was just easier to go after Rove and Libby. And, didn't Joe Wilson get quoted that he was sure "Rove would be frog marched/or perp walked out of the White House?" I think I've read that quote.

How can the media keep carrying this one? The Iraqis have voted on their Constitution. This time, the terrorists weren't able to grab the headlines with horror acts of explod-y-dopes.

It's no wonder there's a lot of head burying. But the Internet is on top of this story. And, that's just another sign that the Internet is alive with the sounds of Americans trying to fathom how Judith Miller hijacked the NY Times reputation, itself. We're way beyond Jayson Blair now. We're into Mary Mapes' territory. Another broad with a book deal.

Posted by: Carol_Herman at October 15, 2005 10:48 PM | Permalink

You forgot the Clintons, Carol_Herman. In addition to Wilson, his wife, the CIA, the Democrats, a liberal media, Colin Powell and George Tenant, (I have to admit, typing that last sent me into a fit of giggles.) you can always blame the Administration's woes on Bill and Hillary.

Posted by: Dave McLemore at October 15, 2005 10:58 PM | Permalink

Miller is obviously not giving us the whole story -- and I have to wonder whether the NYT has been protecting Miller so staunchly in order to prevent a fall from grace that could shine a spotlight on other pre-war institutional failures.

It wasn't until Chalabi had his fall from grace that the NYT felt like it could run it's first Mea Culpa on May 26, 2004 -- despite all of the evidence that had long gathered.

I just relistened to a radio debate between Michael Massing and Judith Miller from February 3rd, 2004.

There were a few whoppers that jumped out at me -- like Miller's defense of her stenographic approach to investigative journalism:

My job was not to collect information and analyze it independently as an intelligence agency; my job was to tell readers of the New York Times as best as I could figure out, what people inside the governments who had very high security clearances, who were not supposed to talk to me, were saying to one another about what they thought Iraq had and did not have in the area of weapons of mass destruction.

Miller basically admits that she's nothing more than a conveyor belt of official propaganda, and so how can we believe her when she then says:

"Believe me, I tried to vet information in every way that I could before it was published. We never published -- not once -- an administration allegation without checking it against alleged experts, independent experts."

Those two statements don't seem to be compatible.

Jack Shafer's dissection of Miller's radio appearance is well worth rereading -- and very telling.

Posted by: Kent Bye at October 15, 2005 10:59 PM | Permalink

From Barney Calame's post, "Now Is the Time":

An important and obvious issue that has arisen in recent days, of course, is Ms. Miller’s seemingly belated discovery of notes from a June 2003 conversation that she had with I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff.

The Times story does not address this question at all. What gives?

Posted by: Zach at October 15, 2005 11:03 PM | Permalink

To be fair to the reporters that wrote the story: I think they tried. The key people who could have answered the questions, wouldn't.

My feelings precisely.

Posted by: Alice Marshall at October 15, 2005 11:05 PM | Permalink

Rove and Libbey would like us to believe that. Before the end of the month we will find out what the grand jury believes.

Posted by: Alice Marshall at October 15, 2005 11:09 PM | Permalink

One thing that jumped out at me is this sentence from Judy's article:

"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."

Maybe everyone knew, or assumed, this. It is a logical assumption. But doesn't a security clearance for a reporter seem a little strange? This is more than being embedded, it's participation. Which fits with the stories about Judy giving orders to, and threatening, members of the military assigned to look for WMD in Iraq.

Overall, it looks to me like Saint Judy's still not telling the truth. Not that I'm surprised.

Thanks, Jay, for your insightful analysis. So far, your speculation seems to have been right on target. And thanks to a large group of intelligent commentors as well.

Posted by: Chuck Dupree (Belisarius) at October 15, 2005 11:13 PM | Permalink

Jay:
Are you concerned that Fitzgerald may go after Administration officials for discussing classified information?

If we have the government going after officials simply for discussing classified information, then the ability of the press to gather information about government wrongdoing will be severely - I mean severely - curtailed.

Does the name Daniel Ellsberg ring a bell?

It seems to me that there are a lot of people who want to get Rove or the evil neocons and in doing so will be doing a great deal of damage to our ability to monitor what our elected officials do.

This is a little more complicated than the "let's get those bastard Republicans" crowd seems to understand.

Posted by: EricH at October 15, 2005 11:18 PM | Permalink

This is parody, right?

Posted by: ami at October 15, 2005 11:35 PM | Permalink

Thanks, Chuck. Regular readers (you may be one, of course) would I think say I don't speculate very often in posts. I especially think it's dumb to speculate about stuff that you're gonna know around the corner anway. But this was different because the people who should be telling us weren't. Also, the Times was being un-transparent.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at October 15, 2005 11:39 PM | Permalink

Maybe I should have known this, but I didn't know Miller had security clearence. This adds an suspicous element. If she had clearence she could see things other reporters couldn't. Adds layers to Fitzgerald's case.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at October 15, 2005 11:48 PM | Permalink

Jay.... Not only that, but her own editors could not know what she knew because they did not have clearance... and certainly her readers could not know. Was she an agent of her readers, or not?

Posted by: Jeff Jarvis at October 15, 2005 11:54 PM | Permalink

Definitely, Jeff. I had this as one of my speculations, but I didn't use it because I didn't have any facts clearly for it, just inferences. I wrote this at PressThink on Oct. 13:

What intrigued the hell out of me was Miller could not say whether she still had security clearances.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at October 16, 2005 12:10 AM | Permalink

I have NEVER heard of reporters getting security clearances. Who gives clearances to them: DOD, CIA, NSA ...??? Why would any government agency give a reporter clearance?

Too weird.

Posted by: K at October 16, 2005 12:19 AM | Permalink

Jay, even if Miller had a security clearance, she wouldn't have been authorized to know the identity of a Non-Official Cover (NOC) agent. At that level of security, only those with a need to know are authorized to receive that kind of critical information. It's hard to conceive of a scenario where Judith Miller, NY Times reporter, would have a need to know the identity of a NOC. In the reality-based world, that is.

I remember when she was granted the clearance; it was controversial at the time.

Posted by: Phredd at October 16, 2005 12:20 AM | Permalink

I wasn't saying it would have been okay for her to know about an agent or Valerie Wilson. No. It makes Miller vulernable to other forms of manipulation and silencing. It makes her harder to believe because she's protecting a new level of "confidentiality." It justifies her haughty manner (if you knew what I knew), and it explains--possibly--why she was unsupervised and out of control.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at October 16, 2005 12:26 AM | Permalink

My suspicion is that all this Miller/Rove/Libby focus is off target and that Fitzgerald may be more interested in shinanigans going on in the basement of the CIA. And you can bet if indictments come down on those folks, there will be a lot fewer sources for the likes of Judith Miller not to recall.

Posted by: Jake at October 16, 2005 12:37 AM | Permalink

Still curious to know if it is correct to assume that Miller's notes/ notebook were in pristine/ virgin/ unaltered condition, so to speak, when they were passed on to Fitz. Or, am I wrong in assuming that he has these in hand?

Posted by: Valley Girl at October 16, 2005 12:40 AM | Permalink

Miller did "tell what happened" no? But she didn't tell everything, and I guess that's the issue.

Here's my question. Miller is an investigative reporter--they are a strange breed and as far as I know a fairly rare one, even at newspapers. When I think of Miller--I do not compare her to a Cooper but to a Seymour Hersh, off the rails a bit, a bit freaky, not entirely trustworthy and certainly very secretive. Sy gets a lot of things wrong too, and he gets used. But to my question: is it reasonable for an investigative journalist to guard her notes and her sources like an animal protecting its young, even from her own editors? I think it is, right? In that context, her behavior might even seem to be expected, rather than "suspicious." She did put forth a complete account of facts directly connected to the case (if you believe it) in the pages of The Times but certain things--the things someone of her ilk automatically holds to the vest--she didn't give up, things that perhaps she feels are extraneous to the focus of the investigation and her testimony. Would another investigative reporter--let's say one who usually gets things right--behave differently?

Posted by: Lee Kane at October 16, 2005 1:36 AM | Permalink

Man, I didn't think my opinion of Judith Miller, especially after my blistering attack of her earlier, could get lower.

But to quote what I assume must be a journalism term: wowza.

I hear the phrase "I don't remember" in regards to testimony and I think back to Reagan using that to justify his lack of recall regarding Iran Contra.
Now we know maybe that was alzheimers.

Did Miller have an explanation for how she can conveniently forget such inforamtion?

Let's try for a second to take her story at face value:
- It's coincidence that the name of Valerie Flame (she even got that wrong!) is on the notepad.
- She has another source but she can't recall who it is.

So what if she had a follow-up question she wanted to write or - call me crazy - she wanted to actually write an article. How would she go about that if she didn't even know the source?

Either she knew the source and forgot the name - pretty hard to imagine in a profession whose currency is knowledge, memory and connections - or she's lying, which is perjury.

I'm starting to wonder she did with her time in jail in between entertaining visting sources (another major no no in my book).

If I was in jail over a story I'd be stewing over what I did right, what I did wrong, what could have gone differently, etc.

What I don't think I would do is avoid determining or "remembering" the identity of such an important source.

Earlier I compared Miller to Jayson Blair in terms of the magnitude of her errors, the Times handling of this and how both need to re-learn their profession.

Reading over this article and the PressThink comments on it I have to wonder two questions:
1) How do we - or even her editors - know that another source exists and that she's not pulling a Jayson Blair and making it up?

2) Didn't the Times put into place safeguards post-Blair to try to avoid reporters playing fast and loose with the truth?

So where were these safeguards in stopping someone like Miller? If her editors and colleagues had concerns about how she was operating why did it take all of this to bring matters to a head?

3) If she goes ahead with a rumored book deal will she give some of the proceeds to the people dying in the war that she helped promote?

Posted by: Scott Butki at October 16, 2005 1:51 AM | Permalink

Another interesting tidbit:

Mr. Abrams said Mr. Tate also passed along some information about Mr. Libby's grand jury testimony: that he had not told Ms. Miller the name or undercover status of Mr. Wilson's wife.

[..]

Ms. Miller said in an interview that she concluded that Mr. Tate was sending her a message that Mr. Libby did not want her to testify.

My take on this is that Miller, after being sent signals that Libby had perjured himself in front of the grand jury, decided to cover for him by going to jail. She went to jail to protect a highly placed government official who perjured himself. And that wasn't newsworthy?

And Bill Keller knew about this all along. He knew that a group of high government officials had disseminated lies in the push to sell the public on the war. Elisabeth Bumiller, another New York Times reporter, knew about the "evidence" fabricated by the White House Iraq Group in the late summer of 2002. Yet, none of them chose to inform their readers about this fact. Not until 3 years later, under threat of felony indictment.

The New York Times is not a newspaper, folks. The evidence so far suggests that it is the major propanganda arm of the Bush Administration.

Posted by: Phredd at October 16, 2005 1:56 AM | Permalink

At what point does an act become "conspiracy"? Does it take more than 2 people, or are 2 people sufficient?

Oh, and after the (potentially undiserved) heat the CIA took for the so-called faulty intel in the state of the union address, I'd bet that there are a few CIA folks looking to get even.

Posted by: xoblog at October 16, 2005 1:59 AM | Permalink

A few other thoughts before I go to bed:

There is, I think, one positive note: At least one of the main editors is unhappy with how this has all progressed, a nice contrast to the main editor who seems clueless and tone deaf to what Miller and the newspaper has done wrong.

Asked what specifically she regretted about how the matter was handled Managing Editor said: 'The entire thing.'"

Exactly.

And that is a marked contrast to the tune of Miller who while refusing to comment - even to her own newspaper - about her notes and her relationshp with the editors. still acts as if nothing improper has happened.

In the article Miller is quoted as saying: "We have everything to be proud of and nothing to apologize for,"

That suggests she either has no idea why others - including some at her own paper - can't believe how much she was coddled and tolerated despite doing a terrible job as a reporter.

Or.. she knows and is just spinning to try to put a happy face on matters.

In either caes I've reached the same conclusion as
Greg Mitchell of Editor and Publisher: It is time for Miller to be fired.

Ok, gotta go crash.
Good nite,Jay.
Good nite, Kilgore.
etc.

Posted by: Scott Butki at October 16, 2005 2:18 AM | Permalink

Carol: I think I figured this out. Joe Wilson, who got himself an Op Ed spread in the NY Times, to blast our war efforts in Iraq, and President Bush, was lying. We know that now. BUT WHAT IF THE ATTEMPT TO SMEAR THE PRESIDENT, goes beyond just Joe Wilson, and his wife? What if the game was set up at the CIA, a democratic strong hold. With the help of Colin Powell and/or George Tenet.
"This is parody, right?"

Hardly. Its a known fact that Wilson was revealed to be a liar by the Senate Intel Committee. Its also a known fact that several CIA peeps forgot [and were fired] because they forgot that their job was to gather intel & advise the president, not create their own foreign policy when they disagreed with POTUS.

Posted by: Fen at October 16, 2005 2:22 AM | Permalink

Right. Thats why so many of us conservatives read it...

Posted by: Fen at October 16, 2005 2:24 AM | Permalink

Excellent analysis as always. This is such an inside-baseball story for the media-political axis, but that doesn't mean it's not important. I have a few reactions to points you made:

Jay writes: "Miller cannot recall where the name at the center of the case came from? Wowzer. Sure to be the center of controversy over the next week. Claiming memory loss about the most important fact in the story is weak. Very."

But keep in mind that while the outing is at the center of the case now, at the time she first heard about Valerie "Flame" it was not. Miller heard about Plame's occupation, but thought she was an analyst, not a covert agent. The disclosure of Plane's job appears to have been made in a very low-key way, and it was not at all the "center" of the various stories that Miller was reporting on at the time. In a case like that, it's not particularly surprising that Miller does not today -- 2-plus years later -- remember where the name came from. It just wasn't the point of the story back then.

Jay writes: "Like I said, it became Judy Miller’s newspaper. Her decision-making, I said on CNN, was driving the newspaper’s. Mr. Sulzberger is the publisher; the Times is a public company. Isn’t his hand supposed to be on the wheel for the newspaper as a public trust?"

Although most of the conversation is on Miller, and although everyone involved will probably agree that this is not a great case, remember that sometimes important principles hang on bad cases. (See almost everything involving Larry Flynt for support on this point.) Sulzberger correctly (IMO) viewed this not as a flawed factual case involving Miller but as an important stand for the paper to take no matter what. For example, quoting the Times takeout this morning: "After Ms. Miller was jailed, an editorial acknowledged that "this is far from an ideal case," before saying, "If Ms. Miller testifies, it may be immeasurably harder in the future to persuade a frightened government employee to talk about malfeasance in high places."" Sulzberger is protecting every reporter at the Times with his stand on this, and that
means his hand was indeed also on the wheel in behalf of the newspaper as a public trust (the trust in this case being, we must protect the ability of the press to be the voice of whistle-blowers, even if the facts of this particular case are not the best.)

Jay writes: "Ms. Miller seems incapable of self-doubt. Is this the person you want driving the car in a game of chicken with a federal prosecutor?"

Probably not. (grin) But it's the kind of drive and determination I love to see in reporters. Reporters have to have a strong belief in themselves when they go out and try to confront powerful people. This is not possible when reporters are wracked with self-doubt.

One thing that is getting lost in the focus on Miller's foibles is that important principles were being upheld here by the Times. If you ever want to cover a story that the government or a powerful individual or institution does not want you to cover, then protecting reporters who protect their sources is a vital role for the newspaper to play (assuming the source-protection has been vetted by an editor). Say what you want about whether Miller's earlier reporting on WMD was skewed by wrong or duplicitous sources. The larger important point to me is, will a newspaper stand behind a reporter when that reporter is at risk in the ways that Miller has been at risk? How I wish the facts in this case were better, but if the Times did not do for her what they did, how does any other reporter at the Times know that the paper will be there for them in better circumstances?

Posted by: John Granatino at October 16, 2005 2:31 AM | Permalink

Fen, your take on Wilson is beyond absurd. Republicans control the White House, both chambers of Congress with their massive investigative authority, the Justice Department and in large part the courts. The Plame investigation is being conducted by a Republican US Attorney who was appointed to office by George W. Bush, and yet somehow you manage to feel victimized, at least in part by a paper that through Miller and her leeeebrul editors lent its imprimatur to the bogus intelligence the administration used to sell the invasion. That's just pathetic.

Posted by: weldon berger at October 16, 2005 3:04 AM | Permalink

A few comments from reading all of this.

When the NYT turned control of the car over to Ms. Miller, what they really did was turn control over to people like Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove.

Ms. Miller is obviously very close to Mr. Libby. Mr. Libby's love note to her in jail was telling, and she still seems to be going to great lengths to cover for him.

And the very interesting question is did she just perjure herself to a grand jury covering for Mr. Libby? Or for someone else?

BTW, the fact that her notes spell the last name as "Flame" instead of "Plame" says to me that she was hearing this name verbally from someone else for the first time when she made that note. That's the way you might spell the name if you'd heard it, but never seen it. To me, that says she was getting the name from someone else, not passing it along to Mr. Libby. If she knew about Ms. Plame and Mr. Wilson from her WMD work before (and possible contacts with that group in the CIA), then she'd know how to spell the name.

Ms. Miller obviously did not carefully cross-check and verify anything she was hearing from her neocon friends/sources. I know within hours of hearing the 'niger uranium' story for the first time, I was hearing very critical commments on this story. The facts were clear that all uranium in Niger is mined in mines that are owned by western european firms, and that all the uranium was committed to long term contracts. And that the nuclear powers watch this all very closely. Thus to me there were very credible questions about this story being raised long before Amb. Wilson's op-ed piece or the IAEA's declaration that the documents were crude forgeries. If I'm picking that up from the internet as a casual reader, then surely an 'expert' on WMD's like Ms. Miller should have been able to learn this very easily.

Its clear to me that her role was to help support her friends like Mr. Libby. Real investigative reporting was never a part of the plan.

Posted by: Marc S at October 16, 2005 3:29 AM | Permalink

Please provide something other than fallacy by association, as well as the ad-hom strawman that I'm pathetic b/c I feel victimized by the NYT [you're an empath, over the net? LOL]

My point is that Carol's speculation is not without foundation - since his op-ed in the NYT, we've learned that Joe Wilson lied to congress, lied about his wife's involvement, mis-represented his "intel-gathering" trip to Africa. We also know that he floated his wife's name around the DC cocktail circuit, to lend himself credibility and impress his newly found "journalist" friends. His photo shoot for Vanity Fair pretty much sums up the kind of character we're dealing with.

As for the NYTs, its a joke amoung conservatives. We've considered it a leftist propaganda piece for quite some time, and find comments that its shilling for Team Bush to be hysterical.

Posted by: Fen at October 16, 2005 3:41 AM | Permalink

The facts were clear that all uranium in Niger is mined in mines that are owned by western european firms, and that all the uranium was committed to long term contracts. And that the nuclear powers watch this all very closely.

Prime Minister Tony Blair, 2003:

"In case people should think that the whole idea of a link between Iraq and Niger was some invention, in the 1980s we know for sure that Iraq purchased round about 270 tons of uranium from Niger."

Posted by: Fen at October 16, 2005 3:53 AM | Permalink

"In case people should think that the whole idea of a link between Iraq and Niger was some invention, in the 1980s we know for sure that Iraq purchased round about 270 tons of uranium from Niger"

Er, so? The situation in Niger, with regards to disposition of uranium, has probably changed since then.

Further, Iraq was supposed to have 500 tons on-hand, so why bother seeking more?

Posted by: Jon H at October 16, 2005 4:47 AM | Permalink

Well you know, Fen, it hardly requires an empath to detect the mewling victim in someone who thinks the dreaded MSM is capable of preventing a party controlling every lever of investigative power from investigating a Wilson-led conspiracy against itself.