You know how your ears perk up when you hear a D.C. insider say something truly frank and honest? After I heard the following by WaPo‘s Dana Milbank on NPR’s Day to Day, I had to find the audio to be sure I heard right. Madeleine Brand begins the interview with, “Why do you think the press is worked up about this? Do you think it’s because one of their own is in jail?” Milbank says emphatically:
Ms. Brand doesn’t ask why Miller’s so unpopular, but Digby might offer some clues in his “Judy, Judy, Judy” today:
Read all of Digby’s post. But only after you’ve taken your blood pressure meds.
Readers’ alert: In the comments section below, do not miss jpol’s letter to Salon about its latest Judy piece.
__________________
*I think Digby meant to write paean.
…who she went to prison to protect? Could it be someone even higher up on the food chain than Rove?
My money is on Dick Cheney.
Yours?
the only reporter that I am fairly sure talked to Cheney is Safire. Safire is good friends with Sharon, who he developed as a source when Sharon was out of power and roaming in the wilderness. And he was able to get heads of state to talk to him.
Miller might not have been able to get Cheney. Maybe Libby. Check that. Definitely Libby. Maybe Cheney.
Yes. And that THAT implies.
I don’t know about Cheney and Libby, but it seems to me just as plausible that she is protecting herself. About what – who knows. But it looks like she’s up to her eyeballs in all of the distortion that took place to “fix” the intelligence. Thats why I have such a hard time supporting her right to protect sources. I get the feeling she’s protecting herself.
What’s the difference between Judith Miller and Sean Hannity? Aren’t they both part of “the machine”? Except Judy gets paid by a real news source to spread her propaganda?
Maybe but Sean Hannity will never make the style pages of the WaPo.
I meant ALL that THAT implies.
So ol’ Judy is a flip flopper when it comes to protecting her sources. Meds please. It’s Libby/Cheney for sure. This is just getting too good. I am not getting anything done around the house with so much to keep up on.
Thanks for another excellent post Susan.
I sent the following letter in response to the Salon piece Susan linked to:
Dear Mr. Ohehir,
Your article about Judy Miller is well written, and unlike Mr. Manjoo’s piece, it clearly was not an obsequious paean to Judy Miller. Nevertheless I think it is seriously flawed and does nothing to convince me that Judy Miller deserves a “get out of jail free” pass.
Miller’s WMD reporting is really not at issue here, but since you brought it up I will comment on it. You write:
“The problem is that the journalistic establishment has no way of dealing with someone like Miller, who screwed up massively, but did so within the rules the profession has set for itself… Miller reported what she thought was the truth. She was led astray, one presumes, by some combination of ideological bias and journalistic hubris. The scary part about that — the part the Times has never even tried to confront — is that if a skilled veteran reporter like Miller can get so thoroughly hustled out of her shorts by a White House bagman, then exactly who in the media can we trust?… ”
You make some serious assumptions there Mr. Ohehir. They assume that Miller is gullible or stupid or both. I would submit that her longstanding associations with radical Neocons like Laurie Mylroie and Daniel Pipes, her ties to organizations like The Middle East Forum and Benador Associates, and her history of delivering speeches, in at least some cases for a fee, extolling the Neocon agenda and the urgency of ridding the world of Saddam Hussein, would suggest not that she was duped by Ahmed Chalabi, but rather that she and Chalabi shared a common agenda, and she had no qualms about advancing it under her byline in the pages of The New York Times.
As for the jailing of Miller, she has only herself to blame, which was broadly hinted at by Jeff Kurtz in today’s Washington Post. Alone among all the reporters subpoenaed by the grand jury investigating the Plame affair, Miller has refused to discuss anything, negotiate anything, give an inch about anything to special prosecutor Fitzgerald. She is claiming an absolute immunity that no court in the land could ever recognize, nor any prosecutor tolerate. This is bizarre conduct, and it makes one wonder whether Miller is using protecting her source (whose identity Fitzgerald already knows) as a smokescreen. Was she so enamored of the thought of going to prison that she would leave the judge no recourse but to send her there? Or was she more afraid that Fitzgerald might pursue avenues of questioning having nothing to do with her sources, for which she could claim no immunity? I believe the latter is the case, and that is why I refuse to accept the notion that believers in a free press should embrace her cause. She is at the very least in contempt of court. It could be far worse than that.
Terrific letter, JPol. If they don’t print it, they’re nuts. Heck, WE should print it!