Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Could Judy Miller Have Been the White House’s Source?
National Review ^ | August 1, 2005 | Clifford D. May

Posted on 08/01/2005 1:18:02 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative

Here's a sentence I never thought I'd write: Arianna Huffington has a point.

She reports in the July 27 edition of "The Huffington Post" that in the halls of the New York Times, among the colleagues of imprisoned reporter Judy Miller, a theory is being debated. It boils down to this: Perhaps after Joseph Wilson's notorious op-ed appeared in the Times, Judy called a source (or two) in the intelligence community to find out how and why Wilson was sent by the CIA to Niger to investigate whether Saddam Hussein had sought to purchase uranium.

Perhaps her source(s) told her that Wilson got the assignment thanks to his wife, Valerie Plame, who works at CIA HQ in Langley.

Now further suppose that Miller is trying to develop this into a larger story on Wilson and the controversy over the Bush administration's arguments for regime change in Iraq. So she calls people in the White House, Karl Rove, maybe, or Dick Cheney deputy Scooter Libby or someone. (Newsday identified a meeting Miller had on July 8 — two days after Wilson's op-ed appeared, with an "unnamed" government official.)

Judy perhaps says: "My sources tell me that Wilson's wife works at the CIA and that she was the one who recommended that he get the Africa assignment. How does that square with Wilson's claim that Cheney sent him to Niger, and that Cheney received his report and ignored it?"

At this point, whoever in the White House Miller talked with would know about Plame — but not based on their access to classified information.

And he (or she or they) still would not necessarily know that Plame had some sort of undercover status. Judy's source(s) might not have told her that. Indeed, the source(s) might not have known. The source(s) may have become acquainted with Plame at CIA HQ in Langley. Presumably, Plame would not have told such colleagues that she occasionally worked undercover. They'd have no "need to know."

Rove, Libby, or others might have passed on what they learned from Judy to Bob Novak or Matt Cooper or other reporters. Why not? They'd want to tell the truth, to rebut Wilson's false spin that Cheney had sent him to Africa and then had ignored his conclusive report.

They would not be revealing to reporters any facts derived from their access to classified information. And they still wouldn't have any idea they were discussing a CIA secret (or sometimes-sort-of-secret) agent rather than a run-of-the-mill agency analyst.

If this is close to what happened, it would explain why Judy would not feel free to testify before a grand jury. Were she to do so, she'd get her source(s) fired, and probably prosecuted. Reporters don't like to do that.

It also would explain why independent prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is keeping Miller in the slammer. If it were she who first told someone in the White House (who no doubt told others in the White House) about Plame, her testimony would be the key that solves the puzzle. In fact, without that key, it might be impossible for Fitzgerald to solve the puzzle.

There is much else in the Huffington post that is purely speculative and she also manages to throw plenty of mud at Rove and others — including Judy Miller whom Huffington accuses of having pushed "manipulated, twisted, and exaggerated intel in the Times."

But Huffington's basic point is perceptive (another sentence I never thought I'd write): Miller may not want to reveal her "source" at the White House "because she was the source....In this scenario Miller wasn't an innocent writer caught up in the whirl of history. She had a starring role in it."


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cialeak; huffington; libby; miller; plame; rove; wariniraq; wilson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 last
To: Yardstick

Fitzgerald's investigation is supposed to be wrapped up in October.


41 posted on 08/01/2005 4:26:29 PM PDT by NEPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: NEPA

And Novak will spill the beans right after the investigation ends...should be a fun October!


42 posted on 08/01/2005 4:28:58 PM PDT by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative

That is why she is sitting in jail...she will get time served from the Grand Jury, while trying to make some sort of statement.


43 posted on 08/01/2005 4:32:22 PM PDT by BurbankKarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nuffsenuff
This is getting ready to blow up in the Dems faces. I can smell it.

No way! Don't you pay attention? I mean, look at how the impeachment of Bush will occur as a result of:

We have much to fear ;)

44 posted on 08/01/2005 4:38:03 PM PDT by Shazbot29 (If you paid attention you'd be worried, too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle
So is the scenario: Plame told Miller, Miller told Libby, Libby told Rove and Novak, and Rove told Cooper? And Joe Wilson told everyone else? lol

These circular confirmations is what has been bugging me about the whole affair. From what I gather from Cooper's report, he told Libby something, Libby may have have told something to Rove, Cooper told Rove who replied "Yeah, I heard that," referring to what Cooper told Libby, and then Novak said something and Rove or Libby said "Oh, you heard about that, too?"

It seems that floating a rumor to one person who repeats it to a second person who confirms hearing it to the person who started it is what passes for confirmation theses days in the MSM.

-PJ

45 posted on 08/01/2005 5:03:42 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: NEPA

Thank you.


46 posted on 08/01/2005 5:40:04 PM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

I believe the inference was in his original article if you can get a copy of it.


47 posted on 08/01/2005 5:44:36 PM PDT by t2buckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: 4integrity

>> 'She (Miller)is protecting some Dem or someone on the NYT'

> Bingo...my bet would be on a big time Dim. If it was
> Rove, she'd have sung like a canary.

Particularly since Rove gave her the same blanket waiver
he gave Cooper, and Cooper has already blabbed what he
recalled of his conversations with Rove.

Of course, Miller could also be protecting herself. If
she had been [provably] warned about the undercover
status by anyone, dug up the name, and pubbed it, she
might be the smoking gun. Seems an unlikely scenario,
tho, as it's pretty clear that the law in question
didn't actually apply to Plame at the time.

So why is there still an investigation? Perhaps it's
morphed into a Stewart scenario, and is now just about
someone lying to investigators.


48 posted on 08/01/2005 6:03:06 PM PDT by Boundless
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative
This Boomerang is heading back to the Wilsons!! Can you say perjury???

Pray for W and Our Ground Pounders

49 posted on 08/01/2005 6:05:18 PM PDT by bray (Pray for the Freedom of the Iraqis from Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SittinYonder

LOL! Any time Huffington makes sense, I know I have entered the Twilight Zone.


50 posted on 08/01/2005 6:44:13 PM PDT by ladyinred (Here come the judges!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative
I have read an exhaustive report of this whole thing and Judith Miller is not in jail for the Valerie Plame thing.
She is in jail for refusing to name sources for another story entirely unrelated to the Plame Affair.
I believe this was in the Wall Street Journal last week. So check it out. Seems Fitzgerald is also investigating things not entirely related to the Plame Affair.
51 posted on 08/01/2005 6:48:24 PM PDT by Captain Peter Blood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

Just finished a great novel, "By Order of the President" by W. E. B. Griffin. One of the characters, a female CIA agent, is an ambitious, deceitful, physically attractive married woman. Her husband, another CIA agent assigned in Washington, is rumored to be gay. It it is obvious that the marriage is cosmetic only, since she promptly seduces the book's hero, telling him the she and her husband have "an understanding". I don't know why, but the name Valerie Plame popped into my mind when I read this section of the book.


52 posted on 08/02/2005 7:25:03 AM PDT by RightWingConspirator (Glad that Ted the Boorish Drunk, Hitlery the Witch and John Fonda/Fraud Kerry are not my senators.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson