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.
"Yes and it says a lot of the staff is unhappy with her for protecting a Bush administration source."
So who is the "Bush administration source"? Or is that just wishful thinking on the part of the Slimes?
'NY Times' Publishes Devastating Judith Miller Article,
Raising Serious Questions While Revealing Questions While Revealing Newsroom Controversy
That is the full title of the article....but I got a message that it had too many characters to post in the title box. I probably should have repeated the title in the text body.
My interpretation:
The NYT wanted to implicate the Bush administration in breaking the law by passing SECRET information to a journalist, e.i., the identity of a government agent.
The Bush bashers in the media wanted Judith Miller to name the person in the WH who gave her the name of the agent. Rather than testify before a grand jury, Ms. Miller was sent to jail until she agreed to cooperation. She sat in jail for months, giving the appearance that she was protecting her "source".
However, she really wasn't protecting anyone -- because her attorney already had it in writing that she was released by her "WH source" to tell all she knew.
Finally, I guess when she got tired in sitting in a jail, she SAID she got a "personal" release from her source, and was willing to testify.
Then she testified that her "WH source" really didn't tell her anything about the government agent -- that it was someone else who told her -- someone whom she can't recall.
It was a setup to make it look like someone close to the President broke a law. And Ms. Miller was willing to sit in jail to make it look like she was protecting them.
She was an idiot to allow herself to be used. She THINKS she will get a financial payoff by writing a book about it.
I hope no one buys her stinkin' book. She's a liar.
"She admits protecting other sources on " Valerie Flame " or " Victoria Wilson " and would remain in jail to protect those sources-but, she can't remember who they are."
Then she must be brain-dead. If she doesn't recall who her sources are (which I don't believe for a nanosecond), then all she had to do was tell the grand jury she didn't recall and she wouldn't have had to go to jail. This seems really, really, really . . . screwed up.
The bottom line is - Joe Wilson lied about his fact finding mission to Niger. He attempted to discredit a President at a time of war. Rather than report to Vice President Cheney (who he claims sent him to Niger initially - another lie), he shared his "findings" with the public via the New York Times and attacked President Bush on the sixteen words in his State of the Union address. Everything Wilson has said or written has been a lie. The boy worked for Gore, he worked for Kerry, he is without a doubt a traitor to this country. He is a democrat operative who has attempted to use the uncovering of his non-undercover wife's job, his trip to Niger, his juvenile, self centered book as a way to discredit President Bush. With all the attention the mainstream has give this loser, he's made headway in weakening our resolve and emboldening those we fight. He is a traitor.
If the premise - what goes around comes around - is true, Joe Wilson will burn in a special hell.
Oh my, as articulate as this woman is I can't wait for her book. If I think I'm confused now, the book should make everything crystal clear. UGH!
Thanks for fixing the title.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked about a notation I made on the first page of my notes about this July 8 meeting, "Former Hill staffer." My recollection, I told him, was that Mr. Libby wanted to modify our prior understanding that I would attribute information from him to a "senior administration official." When the subject turned to Mr. Wilson, Mr. Libby requested that he be identified only as a "former Hill staffer." I agreed to the new ground rules because I knew that Mr. Libby had once worked on Capitol Hill. Did Mr. Libby explain this request? Mr. Fitzgerald asked. No, I don't recall, I replied. But I said I assumed Mr. Libby did not want the White House to be seen as attacking Mr. Wilson.
BS.
Yes, I typed White Sox instead of White House. I am in a baseball room as I discuss here. That's why.
How about the ballbearings? Jake
The whole "protecting a source" stance is specious...her subpoena required her to answer questions about her conversations with a specific, named, individual...Scooter Libby. Her source was already known to the prosecutor. She wasn't protecting anyone.
See this posting on PowerLine.
In her own words:
"Equally central to my decision was Mr. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor. He had declined to confine his questioning to the subject of Mr. Libby. This meant I would have been unable to protect other confidential sources who had provided information - unrelated to Mr. Wilson or his wife - for articles published in The Times. Last month, Mr. Fitzgerald agreed to limit his questioning."
Note that the companion NYT article completely downplays this second reason. It even falsely asserts that Miller revealed the name of her source to the grand jury, which is an utterly ridiculous characterization since she was there to answer specific questions about Libby.
True. But the longer Miller is, or is near, the center of attention, the more money she rakes in for the rights to the certain-to-be-written book (screenplay, movie, docu-drama, play, serialization, video game, ringtones, action figures) growing out of this.
[It reveals many devastating new details...]
Hardly "devastating". Who wrote this article, a High School Freshman?
[...when she {Miller} testified for a second time in the case this week, she could not recall who mentioned that name to her...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."
Ah, another case of "Washheimer's Disease" -- quite common among Washington DC Leftists and corrupt politicians.
[She said she "didn't think" she heard it from Libby, a longtime friend and source.
This is distressing. Hopefully, Libby has been reassigned to removing pigeon droppings from DC monuments for the rest of his tenure.
[But her notes..."leave open the possibility" that Libby told her that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife worked at the CIA...]
The usual wishful thinking from the ignorant and childish Leftist OM.
[The article concludes with this frank and brutal assessment: "The Times...limited its own ability to cover aspects of one of the biggest scandals of the day.
One of the biggest scandals of the day? Please add the term "delusional to my previous comment.
[Even as the paper asked for the publics support, it was unable to answer its questions.]
The MSM siren song: "Please, please help us defeat the evil Conservatives. We can't do it alone. Especially when the facts fail to support our position.
[Thus, the article appears to be less than the "full accounting" with full Miller cooperation that the editors promised.]
Translation: "Since we created this horrible mess in our rabid attempt to discredit Bush prior to the 2004 election, and since he was elected anyway, we're going to cover our asses and ignore this story now, and we really wish it would all just go away."
[Just as surprising, the article reveals that Keller and the Times' publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, did not review her notes.]
Obligatory non-denial denial / CYA memo as regards NYSlimes' editors and publishers (especially old Pinchy -- he has lots of loaves to pinch in the future).
[The article says that Miller is taking some time off but "hopes to return to the newsroom,"...]
Translation: "Miller is taking time off to be with her family -- this before she is about to have a lot more time off to be with her family."
[Meanwhile, newsroom leaders expressed frustration about the Times' coverage (or lack of) during the entire ordeal.]
Coverage? There was coverage?
[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 Slimes prepares to throw Miller under the bus. When you become a liability to a Stalinist, better steer clear of Ft. Marcy Park.
[The story also paints a less-than-flattering picture of Keller.] The Slimes prepares to throw Keller under the bus.
[...Libby wanted to modify their prior understanding that she would attribute information from him to an unnamed "senior administration official."
He should now be a "banished and disgraced ex-senior administration official".
BTW, this is a horribly organized and terribly written article. I'm hoping the author isn't more than 21 years of age.
And Miller can't come clean about it, because she would be fingering one of her long-time sources on WMD and related classified material -- Valerie Plame.
This is big. This will pull the rug out from under those who say Bush lied about WMD.
Everyone was saying Iraq had WMD. The reporters had been saying it for years. And the NYT was one of the biggest sources for the "lie".
Exactly. She knew ahead of the Libby meeting because she had previously worked on Nat'l Security issues and WMD issues most likely meeting with Plame, Wilson or both and getting the rundown from them. Plame wasn't exactly in hiding and Wilson is like a moth to a lightbulb when cameras appear. I'm guessing SHE brought the name up at the meeting and is now playing the alzheimer's game about who she discussed it with previously. Wouldn't it explain alot if it was Plame herself who blabbed to Miller.
Judith Miller's days at THE new york times are proabably over.
No, but their lawyers proably did and told them what the notes say.
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.