Posted on 10/15/2005 4:35:48 PM PDT by Laverne
NEW YORK Shortly after 3:30 p.m. on Saturday, The New York Times delivered its long-promised article probing Judith Miller's involvement in the Plame case. It reveals many devastating new details about her experience -- and dissent within the newspaper about her role and the way the Times handled her case.
Among other things, the article discloses that in the same notebook that Miller belatedly turned over to the federal prosecutor last month, chronicling her July 8, 2003, interview with I. Lewis Libby, she wrote the name "Valerie Flame." She surely meant Valerie Plame, but when she testified for a second time in the case this week, she could not recall who mentioned that name to her, the Times said. She said she "didn't think" she heard it from Libby, a longtime friend and source.
The Times' article is accompanied by Miller's own first-person account of her grand jury testimony. In it, among other things, she admits that the federal prosecutor "asked if I could recall discussing the Wilson-Plame connection with other sources. I said I had, though I could not recall any by name or when those conversations occurred."
In this memoir, Miller claims that she simply "could not recall" where the "Valerie Flame" notation came from, "when I wrote it or why the name was misspelled."
But her notes from her earlier talk with Libby, on June 23, 2003 -- belatedly turned over to the prosecutor last week --also "leave open the possibility" that Libby told her that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, though perhaps not using the name "Plame."
The article concludes with this frank and brutal assessment: "The Times incurred millions of dollars in legal fees in Ms. Miller's case. It limited its own ability to cover aspects of one of the biggest scandals of the day. Even as the paper asked for the public's support, it was unable to answer its questions."
It follows that paragraph with Executive Editor Bill Keller's view: "It's too early to judge."
Somewhat buried in the article is this note: "In two interviews, Ms. Miller generally would not discuss her interactions with editors, elaborate on the written accounts of her grand jury testimony or allow reporters to review her notes." Thus, the article appears to be less than the "full accounting" with full Miller cooperation that the editors promised.
Just as surprising, the article reveals that Keller and the Times' publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, did not review her notes. Keller said he learned about the "Valerie Flame" notation only this month. Sulzberger knew nothing about it until told by his reporters on Thursday.
The article says that Miller is taking some time off but "hopes to return to the newsroom," and will write a book about the case.
Meanwhile, newsroom leaders expressed frustration about the Times' coverage (or lack of) during the entire ordeal. Asked what she regretted about the paper's coverage, Jill Abramson, a managing editor, said: "The entire thing."
The article details how the paper's defense of Miller, coming from the top, crippled its coverage of Plame case, and humiliated the paper's reporters on numerous occasions.
Saturday's story says that Miller was a "divisive figure" in the newsroom and a "few colleagues refused to work with her." Doug Frantz, former chief investigations editor at the paper, said that Miller called herself "Miss Run Amok," meaning, she said, "I can do whatever I want."
The story also paints a less-than-flattering picture of Keller. At one point it dryly observes: "Throughout this year, reporters at the paper spent weeks trying to determine the identity of Ms. Miller's source. All the while, Mr. Keller knew it, but declined to tell his own reporters."
*
During the July 8, 2003, talk with Libby, he told her that Plame worked on weapons intelligence and arms control, and Miller allegedly took this to mean that she was not covert, but she didn't really know one way or the other.
Revealing her working methods, perhaps too clearly, she writes that at this meeting, Libby wanted to modify their prior understanding that she would attribute information from him to an unnamed "senior administration official." Now, in talking about Wilson, he requested that he be identified only as a "former Hill staffer." This was obviously to deflect attention from the Cheney office's effort to hurt Wilson. But Miller admits, "I agreed to the new ground rules because I knew that Mr. Libby had once worked on Capitol Hill."
She talked to Libby again on the phone four days later, and the CIA agent's name shows up in her notes yet again, with her married name this time, "Valerie Wilson." Miller had by then called other sources about Plame, but she would not talk about them with the Times.
Two days after her third chat with Libby, Robert Novak exposed Plame.
In her first-person account, Miller writes that when asked by the prosecutor what she thought about the Robert Novak column that outed Plame as a CIA agent, "I told the grand jury I was annoyed at having been beaten on a story."
* For the first time this clearly, Miller, in Saturday's article, admits, "WMD--I got it totally wrong," but then goes on to say that "all" of the other journalists, and experts and analysts, also were wrong. "I did the best job I could," she said.
The article reveals, also for the first time, that Keller took her off Iraq and weapons issues after he became editor in July 2003. Nevertheless, he admits, "she kept drifting on her own back into the national security realm," making one wonder who was in charge of her.
Another mystery the article may solve: Critics have long suggested that Miller was not even working on a story about the Joseph Wilson trip to Niger when she talked to Libby and others in 2003. But the Times' article reveals that she had been assigned to write a story about the failure to find WMDs in Iraq, but this was her beat, so it's hard to understand why she would need an assignment. In any case, in talking to Libby on June 23, 2003, he wanted to talk about Wilson.
In a somewhat amusing sidelight, Miller at the end of her piece addresses the much-discussed "aspens are already turning" letter from Libby last month that some thought was written in code or somehow had something to do with Aspen, Colo. Well, the Aspen part is right, Miller confirms, recalling a conference in that city in 2003 and an expected encounter with Libby -- in cowboy hat and sunglasses -- shortly afterward.
When losing, obfuscate!
bjc wrote: "Finally, it is beyond sense that Miller would not know or have connections with CIA analyst involved in WMD proliferation and hence know of Plame. She is clearly not revealing all her sources."
Bingo! the Flame puzzled me for this very reason. But then Judy herself "explained" it when she accounted for a possible reason for her "Victoria" Wilson later in that same notebook. She herself speculates that perhaps she had deliberately mispoken this name in front of Libby to see his reaction, whether he'd correct her (or something to this effect) OR (conspiracy theorists, pay attention!!!!) TAKE THE BAIT! It makes no sense that a NYT reporter would be so sloppy in her notetaking that she wouldn't even record her source for something. It makes far more sense that she already knew the name and hence her notes record no source for this info. Sadly, if she knew Plame, then we can't pin this leak of Plame's name to Miller on Joe Wilson.
But the more nefarious explanation for both entries is that they were added way after the fact, that Miller is trying to make Libby look guilty even while overtly claiming she can't be sure. She could reason that Fitzgerald doesn't need bulletproof evidence to indict--just sufficient smoke, so to speak. But I doubt that Miller would be so ballsy as to fabricate evidence and I also think Fitzgerald is smarter than to indict on such flimsy evidence.
The subjects of indictments almost never testify before GJ's (since prosecutor is obliged to warn them they are target before testifying, hence few lawyers advising them let them testify since the risks of doing so generally outweigh any conceivable benefits). Thus, I actually find it encouraging that both Libby and Rove have testified and even more encouraging that Wilson and Plame have not. I personally think Fitzgerald may be after Wilson himself. Time will tell.
It would have been or should have been clear to Miller in her likley dealings with Plame, by the very nature of Plame's work, that Plame was an element of the Intelligence Community. And Plame no doubt confirmed that to Miller some way to establish her bona fides. And why not? Plame probably thought Miller herself was connected to the spook world, by virture of the work she was doing at the NYT. If anyone is at risk of violating the anti-spook-outing law, it thus could be Miller herself, especially if she has a security clearance. That is one simple, relevant question that could be posed to her: Have you ever had a security clearance?
I say this because of Miller's own characterization of herself as "Miss Run Amok," operating without any real supervision or control, proclaiming ownership of the WMD story and gaining access to a torrent of IC propaganda sources on that. Her stories were always a little too good to be true.
Don't think for a minute that the top levels of US journalism are not salted with IC plants. Not a lot, maybe, but key voices in key publications. Told just enough to be useful and obedient enough not to stray off topic.
What a bunch of pathetic scumbags.
Look at this tidbit from Miller's 'story':
My notes contain a phrase inside parentheses: "Wife works at Winpac." Mr. Fitzgerald asked what that meant. Winpac stood for Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation, and Arms Control, the name of a unit within the C.I.A. that, among other things, analyzes the spread of unconventional weapons.
Miller's notes contained the Winpac acronym, but not the explanation of the full name. Clearly, then, Winpac was not a new acronym to Miller, and must not have been introduced or spelled out by Libby at the time of the note-taking, otherwise it would have been written out in full in Miller's notes. So if Miller is already familiar with Winpac, it doesn't take much of a leap to believe that she already knows people in that organization, and probably knows Plame herself.
Maybe it's because you are a dunce, Judith.
I'm not amused. Why was Scooter Libby at the Aspen Institute's Brainstorm conference with former President Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, and former General Wesley Clarke in July of 2003 (i.e. 2004 Presidential election cycle)?
http://www.aspeninstitute.org/site/c.huLWJeMRKpH/b.613381/k.59F0/Celebration_Week_July_28August_2.htm
In answer, I told the grand jury about my last encounter with Mr. Libby. It came in August 2003, shortly after I attended a conference on national security issues held in Aspen, Colo. After the conference, I traveled to Jackson Hole, Wyo. At a rodeo one afternoon, a man in jeans, a cowboy hat and sunglasses approached me. He asked me how the Aspen conference had gone. I had no idea who he was.
"Judy," he said. "It's Scooter Libby."
Now, how did he know that Miller had been at the Aspen conference? Did it mean that he was there, or did he guess, or did someone else tell him about Miller being there, or what?
Who wrote this article? The publisher? The point of view is that Judith Miller was an out of control staff reporter whom everyone there hates. Why didn't they just fire her?
The reason this article is confusing is that the writer does not want to take responsibility for Miller working for the Times. You can read into it the politics of the newsroom, but maybe someone just needs to be sacrificed because Sulzberger screwed up.
Thanks for the ping. I hope it all comes out in 2 weeks -- I don't understand it all.
Don't you love the way the Old Grey Lady leaps immediately to the assumption that it was CHENEY'S fault!
(( ping ))
You don't want to miss this one.
Actually, that sentence comes from Editor and Publisher, and not from the NY Times...
Ah, yes, forgot the most important part.
Someone should send Chrissy a can of strawberries and a set of steel balls.
That second point seems far more important than the first, considering all the other Washingtonians who seemed to already know Plame's CIA status. Also the timeline of Plame's covert to non-covert transition (bearing children seems to be a bit of an obstacle in the spy game) doesn't seem to qualify as pertinent to the law involving exposing an active CIA undercover operative. I hadn't even heard about the Al-Qaeda tip-off. Why did they let her out of jail?!
Details on the two investigations by Fitzgerald of NY Times and Judith Miller. The Valerie Plame issue and the Al Qaeda fundraiser tipoffs. And whenever the press says the the matters are unrelated, you know they're related. Fitzgeralds wants to know from the NY Times and Judith Miller, who told her about the upcoming Al Qaeda raids?
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB112259089033899249-6eJAQFJYZQQKUnUcZ75nGzdfauA_20060729.html
Pat Fitzgerald's OTHER investigation of the NY Times and Judith Miller:
Feds investigate possible leak of terror fund probe
http://www.suntimes.com/output/terror/cst-nws-fitz12.html
Agreed. This was a set up from the beginning.
Is the New York Times related to "Times, Inc.?" The reason I ask is because Mandy Grunwald's father was Op Ed of Times, Inc. for a long time. Mandy is Hillary's best friend and media advisor. She ran Bubba's last campaign.
Mandy's father died not too long ago. He was the first in an unkind way that Nixon should resign. Lo and Behold, shortly after he died, Deep Throat came out. We know others than Felt were involved in Deep Throat. The agreement was "upon death" or mutual agreement, Deep Throat would/could become known.
Assuming she was, I find it odd that your outrage would be directed at the 'amateurish' nature of the outing, rather than the illegal and unethical nature of it...
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.