Posted on 10/24/2005 5:47:26 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
NEW YORK - New York Times reporter Judith Miller is defending herself against her own paper's criticism of her role in the CIA leak controversy, saying she was proud to serve time in jail to protect a confidential source, "even if he happened to work for the Bush White House."
Miller's response came in a lengthy e-mail to public editor Byron Calame, who recommended in a Sunday column that the Times review Miller's journalistic practices for conduct that raised "clear issues of trust and credibility."
Miller spent 85 days in jail for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating the leak of CIA covert officer Valerie Plame's identity.
She was released Sept. 29 and agreed to testify after a source, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, released her from her promise of confidentiality.
In her testimony, Miller said she talked with Libby, but said she could not remember who told her the name she wrote in her notebook as "Valerie Flame."
Since Miller published her account and the Times published its own story about Miller on Oct. 16, media critics and journalists have derided her, both for her stories strongly suggesting the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and for failing to explain how she learned Plame's identity.
Executive Editor Bill Keller said in an e-mail to staffers Friday that Miller appeared to have misled editors about her conversations with Libby. Columnist Maureen Dowd, meanwhile, wrote on Saturday that editors had been unable to control Miller.
Miller's e-mail to Calame was posted in his Web journal late Sunday on the Times' Web site. In it, Miller said she was "dismayed" by his essay and referred to Keller's staff e-mail as an "ugly, inaccurate memo."
Calame had noted Miller's assertion that she recommended to an editor a story be pursued on Plame, but had been told there was no interest. Miller's boss at the time, Jill Abramson, has said Miller didn't make such a request, and Calame wrote that he believed Abramson, now the paper's managing editor.
"Now I ask you: Why would I — the supposedly pushiest, most competitive reporter on the planet — not have pushed to pursue a tantalizing tip like this?" Miller wrote.
While she and Abramson have different recollections, Miller wrote that "without explanation ... you said you believed her and raised questions about my `trust and credibility.' That is your right. But I gave my recollection to the grand jury under oath."
Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis didn't return a telephone call seeking comment Monday.
Miller, 57, won a Pulitzer Prize in explanatory journalism in 2002 for her work on global terrorism threats.
she can be pardoned.
Like I said from the outset, the reason the liberal media is beating her up is that she did not finger Rove and Libby.
Basically, the NYT thought it was paying her to put Rove and Libby in jail. You can best believe that if she'd fingered Rove and Libby, they'd love her, and would be talking about how courageous she was to stand up to the powerful (Republican) politicians. She'd be in line for a promotion.
She's being punished for telling the truth.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that Libby never asked to be protected and released her to testify from the start.
I thought the reason she went to jail was because she wanted the scope of questioning limited to her contacts with Libby only, which means it was someone else she was protecting.
Of course, at the time she was probably not expecting the long knives of the NYT to come out and skewer her, and this turn of events could lead to an epiphany, especially if the skids were to be greased with a hefty book publisher's advance... That would be too late to help the Bush administration people who are currently in Fitzgerald's sights, though...
correct.
Note to Judith. I hope you have cashed all your paychecks from those days in the can. You have been working for a bunch of unprintable fecal matter.
she wanted the scope of questioning limited to her contacts with Libby only
Yup, according to her the questions were limited to Libby. Lets hope the other sources were connected to the NYT or the MSM.
Hope she sings and sings and sings!
They want her to say Libby but she might accidentally say Rand Beers.
AUGUST 2002 - MARCH 2003 : (RAND BEERS IS 'MAIN' WHITE HOUSE 'COUNTERTERRORISM ADVISOR')------- "Former security advisor says Bush failing to counter terror threat ," AFP via Yahoo, June 16, 2003 Monday, 2:36 PM ET
Judith Miller = Mary Mapes.
I love it when they turn on each other. Did anyone catch the Maureen Down column. She's clearly Sulzberger's lap b*itch.
I really hope she has that epiphany, and doesn't accidently turn up dead in the near future. Sheesh what a sh&t storm that would be!
Yes,that`s right,George and Dick asked Joe to go to Niger for them.
doesn't accidently turn up dead
There are many parks in NY. I hope not. She is confused, but something tells me she wants to do the right thing?
"Niger!" Ooh, what you said! Oh, right, that's the country.
What the AP leaves out from Miller's memo is the most important part. That after she requested to pursue the Wilson/Plame story, it was Times Editor Abramson who told her not to.
"Is the Times doing this to sell papers?"
The Times is doing this to make the Bush Administration look like villains. And to protect their soulmates, Wilson and Plame.
"Sounds like they're blaming her personally for the war in Iraq."
And anything else they can think of. Having refused to become part of their "solution", she is now part of the problem.
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.