ping!
I have a hard time believing Waas' article, because his main premise is Libby/Tate discouraged Miller from testifying and Libby, supposedly, was not clear on his initial waiver. However, on CNN Reliable Sources, Miller's prior attorney, Abrams, said to the interviewer, Kurtz:
"KURTZ: I talked to people at the "New York Times" who are angry and confused about this. They say, understanding -- look, many journalists have used confidential sources. Most of us have not gone to jail. They say you could have had something approaching the same deal before she went to jail. You and Judy Miller took an absolutist position -- we cannot possibly betray the source -- by going to jail and what happens at the end? She takes the waiver and testifies before the grand jury.
ABRAMS: We couldn't have had the same deal. Indeed, in one respect I tried to get a deal a year ago. I spoke to Mr. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, and he did not agree at that time to something that he later did agree to, which was to limit the scope of the questions he would ask, so as to assure that the only source he would effectively be asking about was Mr. Libby. She has other sources and was very concerned about the possibility of having to reveal those sources, or going back to jail because of them."
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011865.php
So Abrams said it was the "other sources" issue. Why does Waas leave out key facts?