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.
The issue is not what's being reported, but instead what isn't being reported.
We know that Miller probably leaked all over the NYT and they didn't want to print it because it was harmful to Bush.
Then you have issues about who's before the GJ. It's not important who's in front, but who isn't in front at this stage.
Then the pieces begin to fall into place. I have been wrong on things before, but I am 95% sure Rove won't be indicted. Maybe some other people will.
In a nutshell, this article clearly states that Judith Miller had a source that gave her Valerie Plame's name. It also clearly shows that Scooter Libby was not that source. Furthermore, Miller reveals that she did not consider Plame to be an undercover agent.
So far, the only reporter [sic] to have revealed (falsely) that Plame was undercover was David Corn. And David Corn's source? Joe Wilson.
I think it says that all you need is an eraser to change a "P" into an "F".
When watching, keep in mind that Tim Russert is involved in this whole Plame mess even deeper than Judith Miller.
Thank you! I thought it was just me.
I guess it is written so all those sophisticated readers of the Slimes can make it out to say whatever they want it to say.
No one made them publish Wilson's op-ed.
Joe Wilson's Perfidy
Joe took the Islamicists' side,
When he said that the President lied.
Since the Times spread Joe's tale,
Please put them in jail
And, certainly, Joe should be fried
FWIW, those shows are live. Or at least, they go out live. A lot of stations sit on them for an hour or two in order to air religious programming first.
As an example, MTP goes out live at 9:00, but even in NYC and DC it doesn't get broadcast till 10:30. The pols probably don't mind, since that gives them 30 minutes to spin any screwups they make during the interview.
Now this is interesting. Drifted on her own, back to the security realm? Or drifted on her (own) back? Which might be code for: she had quite a warm relationship with Libbey?
As good an explanation as any for the pointless prose from the NYT.
Remember, the NY Times and Judith Miller are being investigated by Fitzgerald for 2 reasons:
1. Valerie Plame
2. Judith's head's up phone call to an Al Qaeda fundraiser about an upcoming FBI raid that allowed them to destroy records prior to the raid.
I would think the NY Times is primarily spending all their legal money defending Judith Miller for reason number 2. The question Fitzgerald is asking Miller is who tipped her off to the upcoming Al Qaeda raid?
bump...
EXCELLENT point!!!
Please, share with the class!
Here's a better link straight from NYT
http://nytimes.com/2005/10/16/national/16leak.html?ei=5094&en=ae9961705f60a5d9&hp=&ex=1129435200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print
They were just finding out if someone lied about it so they could be charged with a crime.
She's protecting her source who gave her advance notice of FBI raids on Al Qaeda fundraisers in the U.S. I would bet that that person who was leaking the FBI raid information was also her source on Plame.
Miller is getting hung out to dry. The NYT wants to distance itself from her before she gets charged.
The first part of the NYT article is essentially throwing Miller under the bus.
The second part is incredibly poorly written. The general drift appears to be that Libby did it and Miller is covering for him. Unfortunately for the NYT and these reporters, Miller simply says it is not true.
I hope Fitzgerald has more substantive information to rely on because Ms Miller's story is so hopelessly confused that any defense lawyer would have a field day with it.
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.
Tough to find a lead line...
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.