[Timeout]

The Times' public editor has a column this morning which may clear it up. One line says: "Neither Mr. Keller nor the publisher had done much digging into Ms. Miller's contacts with any of her confidential sources about Ms. Plame before the subpoena arrived on Aug. 12, 2004".

That's about a year after the initial meetings between Miller and Libby, so I guess that subpoena is how Keller "learned from the special counsel".

But, now it seems to me that Keller is more on the hook than ever. He said: "I wish that when I learned Judy Miller had been subpoenaed as a witness in the leak investigation, I had sat her down for a thorough debriefing, and followed up with some reporting of my own...If I had known the details of Judy's engagement with Libby, I'd have been more careful in how the paper articulated its defense."

OK, if that's his explanation NOW, just what was he supposedly defending when he stood behind Miller going to jail? He didn't ask who her source was but he stood behind the "principle" of protecting her source. It appears Keller is now defining the principle as: We'll protect our sources---depending on who it is.

[Dolphy]

That does make more sense. Still, I continue to wonder about Miller's other sources. Ultimately she was able to protect them in her deal with Fitzgerald but it seems the NYTs ignores that aspect. Could it be only that they are embarrassed by her far from compelling or seemingly critical testimony?

[okie01]

It appears Keller is now defining the principle as: We'll protect our sources---depending on who it is.

Precisely.