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.
There's still a couple of missing characters. Who did Valerie talk to in getting Joe the job? Whe went to Valerie to give her the info from the White House?
Deem this "Dem Holdover in the Whitehouse".
After going through everyone's posts here (some interesting insights into the "why's") but the only thing we now know from all this is ...
.. Libby can not be indicted based on what Miller said.
No Jury would indict him. Someone else is the witness or there isn't one.
I'm outraged at an administration that can't get out of it's own way to achieve it's stated political goals. There are elements within the government that are both openly and secretly working to undermine our war efforts, and this is the best the administration can do? That, sir, is indeed an outrage.
"I do not recall" - It's the Hillary defense!
> Oh my, as articulate as this woman is I can't wait for her book.
Those who write with a shuffling dance step have things to hide.
My opinion? Hope Miller made friends in jail 'cos she's going back. And I think some of her NYT buddies are joining her. AND I think this whole affair will end up either sinking or seriously damaging the already tattered rep of this lie-rag.
you are correct sir. an outrage and pathetic. the WH invites abuse by displaying weakness. dem hold overs , new tone . i never bought into that jive. think of how further along we could be if we and the administration were not constantly defending this junk. ask ronnie earle about push back. delay plays to win and he will. these rodents are cowards and they understand one thing only.
Pass the popcorn, please. I'm putting up my feet. Settling into a big chair. I'm going to enjoy this.
Thank you very much for the links.
From Jim Romenesko's web site:
SUNDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2005
Ex-CBSer claims there's a scandal hidden in Miller's report (http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=10495)
The headline and story lede should reflect that there is ABSOLUTELY nothing here to implicate Libby (never mind Rove, who is not mentioned) in any criminal deed, but of course a socialist weasel like Greg Mitchell wants to be careful not to report anything favorable to the WH......
Excellent summation!! Interesting how the MSM hordes will try valiantly to avoid stating these basic observations for the public to draw appropriate conclusions.
The questions that Miller reported Fitzgerald asked her tend to show that the prosecutor has his sights fixed on Libby. Take, for instance, the questions about the letter from Scooter to Judith. I don't think Fitz believes Libby or Miller.
Many aspects of this story display the utterly gross incompetence and bias of the people arrayed against the administration. At least Miller has the decency not to falsely attribute info about "Valerie Flame" to Libby, but then she doesn't have the decency to absolve him completely, either (when she surely does know who her true source was), perpetuating the cloud of scandal just a little longer.
No competent reporter could fail to get the precise name of someone closely related to a major story, so Miller's failure to clarify the spelling of "Valerie Flame" with her real source does not speak well of her reporting abilities (if you end up needing to use the name in your story you need to have the spelling correct, that is Journalism 101 or should be).
Miller's notebook should make it crystal-clear which notes were taken from each source (with date, time, and circumstances), so the fact that there is any uncertainty at all about whether the "Valerie Flame" reference came from Scooter Libby or from someone else is more evidence of a level of incompetence that should not be accepted even on a high school paper.
Anyway, it sounds to me like (obviously) the NY Slimes spent millions prolonging this matter so they would not have to admit to the public that the whole stupid story was a set-up against the WH. The Slimes editors KNEW that the WH could be exonerated so they just kept putting out clouds of oily black smoke to keep the MSM speculating about Libby and Rove.
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.