These are a few of my impressions of the NYT’s article.
But Mr. Sulzberger and the paper’s executive editor, Bill Keller, knew few details about Ms. Miller’s conversations with her confidential source other than his name. They did not review Ms. Miller’s notes. Mr. Keller said he learned about the “Valerie Flame” notation only this month. Mr. Sulzberger was told about it by Times reporters on Thursday.
As I’ve said for some time in posts and comments here, I’ve had a “gut” hunch that Judith Miller lied or withheld key information from the NYT, which hampered her editors and publishers’ realistic appraisal of her case and how they represented her case to the paper’s readers.
Once Ms. Miller was jailed, her lawyers were in open conflict about whether she should stay there. She had refused to reopen communications with Mr. Libby for a year, saying she did not want to pressure a source into waiving confidentiality.
Judith Miller’s attorneys — Floyd Abrams, the First Amendment specialist also representing the NYT, and Bob Bennett, a criminal attorney, both spoke on September 30, independently of each other and on different talk shows, about their communications with Joseph Tate, Scooter Libby’s attorney. Neither Abrams or Bennett ever referred to the other in interviews that day.
Their lack of referral to each other, and seeming independent work on contacts with Tate, lead me to believe that the two men were competing for the limelight or did not get along. Such discord on a legal team can adversely affect clients, in this case both Ms. Miller and the NYT.
But in the end, saying “I owed it to myself” after two months of jail, she had her lawyer reach out to Mr. Libby. This time, hearing directly from her source, she accepted his permission and was set free.
Wrong. Just plain wrong. Judith Miller’s attorneys weren’t the ones successful in reaching out to Joseph Tate. It was Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s September letter to Tate that got the ball rolling, reported the A.P.’s Peter Yost yesterday. (Yost: “It was Fitzgerald’s letter to Libby’s lawyer in September that helped resolve the impasse over Miller, resulting in her testimony.”)
“W.M.D. – I got it totally wrong,” she said. “The analysts, the experts and the journalists who covered them – we were all wrong. If your sources are wrong, you are wrong. I did the best job that I could.”
Judith Miller perpetuated easily disproved lies that have led to the deaths of almost 2,000 American soldiers, the injuries of tens of thousands, and the injuries and deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqs. She has NO excuse. She did the worst job possible for a highly influential newspaper that affects how news is subsequently reported around the world.
More BELOW:
Ms. Miller said her notes leave open the possibility that Mr. Libby told her Mr. Wilson’s wife might work at the agency.
This is complete bullshit. And I hope the NYT reporters told her so.
The notebook Ms. Miller used that day includes the reference to “Valerie Flame.” But she said the name did not appear in the same portion of her notebook as the interview notes from Mr. Libby.
I can’t imagine any self-respecting reporter buying this crap, or being willing to write this crap.
The notebook Ms. Miller used that day includes the reference to “Valerie Flame.” […]
Ms. Miller returned to the subject on July 12 in a phone call with Mr. Libby. Another variant on Valerie Wilson’s name – “Victoria Wilson” – appears in the notes of that call.
Who’s kidding who here. Judith Miller purposely wrote the names down slightly “off” in a juvenile attempt to obscure what she was being told — or, dare I suggest, to cover up the fact that it was she who was telling this to Libby, so she pretended, in her notes, that she was taking down the information.
Update [2005-10-15 22:23:39 by susanhu]: I’m stopping here .. I’m on the third page of the eight-page article. Over and out. More later, or I’m hoping that Jerry and Boo write their usual briliant stuff.
as far as I’m concerned is how it happened that the Times allowed such unsubstantiated crap to be published – often on the front page. Her former editor said,
I take that to be a very guarded and polite way of saying – if you don’t watch her like a hawk and continually challenge her, she’s she’ll write God knows what. As she did.
After he left, it seems no one was overseeing her writing – they just printed it without question or any demand that she provide credible evidence or sources for what she was writing. Is this how a newspaper with any self-respect – one who believes in the journalistic principles they were purporting to uphold by defending her – is supposed to operate?
Contrast this to the picture we get of Woodward and Bernstein being constantly frustrated because the WaPo demanded more evidence for their claims in their Watergate articles.
I get the picture that Judy was being treated like a columnist, who can write any damn thing they want to under the guise of “opinion,” rather than as a reporter covering the news – conveying information to their readers – who is expected to verify her facts. No one at the NYT seemed to care – at the editor or publisher level, anyway, if what she was writing was true or not.
My take on the article – disjointed, evades the real point. Too much about the back and forth of negotiations between Libby’s and her lawyers, tantalizing hints about who gave who Valerie Wilson’s name, and too little about the proper relationship between editor and reporter, standards that the paper sets for credibility and verification of the information it is publishing in straight news stories for its reporters.
Maybe this isn’t the appropriate article to address these questions – but will the NYT ever do that? Their mea culpa on their WMD reporting was a wimpy and infuriating non-apology “apology.” (You know, the ones that go, “I’m sorry, but . . . ” followed by nothing but making excuses. And they never mentioned Miller by name in their non-apology. They can’t say they were defending high journalistic principles by failing to hold her responsible for her crappy “reporting.” They should have fired faster than they fired Jason Blair.
one thing that comes to mind in reading your post is this: Woodward and Bernstein were exposing the administration, but Judy was coming to her editor with sources from the VP’s office, the WMD sections at state, energy, CIA and Pentagon. And the editor knew that no one would complain if he ran their version of events. Plus, there was rarely anyone in a position to know for sure, that could rebut the calims of Bolton, Hadley, Libby and so on.
I think that is explains a lot of why the NY Times printed it and the WP was hard on W & B.
But now Woodward prints his sources from the VP’s office, the WMD sections at state, energy, CIA and Pentagon. Sigh.
Hey, Boo .. i haven’t finished dissecting the story. Jerry says he’s working on something. Maybe you’ll have something too! I hope so cuz I’m tired, I have to get my cat inside (Althea — she’s playing “I’m a feral cat too!” at the moment), and I wanna veg and finish the Vanity Fair article on Cheney.
the Vanity Fair article on Cheney is lots of fun and you’ll find it a very enjoyble and relaxing luxurious diversion…I’m sure.
I haven’t even read the Judy articles. I was too busy watching ‘Sideways’ for the first time. That was a nice diversion.
Now…to Judy.
Judy.
Judy.
Susan exits stage left and it’s
Sideways
Sideways
Sideways!
(Actually, i watched the first 20 minutes when Darcy brought over the Netflix DVD and popped it in my ‘puter, but I can’t get into watching a movie on my computer screen … i need to recline with my five pillows, my comforter, my hot tea, my foot-warmers (those being cats)
Judy, Judy, Judy. Why do I giggle every time I see Atrios type that.
You just need a video card with an output jack. Then you can run a cable from your computer to your TV, and do exactly that.
(You might even have the output jack in the pc already)
Nixon and his henchgoons would have attacked the WP, so they were trying to make themselves “safer” by making sure their facts were unassailable, but the NYT had nothing to fear from BushCo?
Makes sense, if the only goal of a newspaper is to protect itself, and it’s lost all sense of its duty to inform the citizens of a democracy. Oh wait . . .
that seems to be the most innocent explanation available. It’s easier to print the lies of the administration (as long as they are largely unchallenged) than it is to print the ugly truth about them (when it is vigorously challenged).
Good comments, Susanhu, except for your last one.
More likely, she jotted that on a different page surreptitiously, not wanting Libby to see what she was writing (maybe he had told her they were speaking off the record), and either had mis-heard or mis-wrote. Oh, I don’t know.
Other than that, I think you are completely on the money. At least, I suspect that you are.
Yes. That’s a very good possibility. As Atrios would say (and often does), “Judy, Judy, Judy.”
There will be lots of great and insightful commentary here on this crappy but predictable saga of betrayal, and I’m frankly straining my overworked brain cells just to keep up with all the angles.
So, to indulge in some levity to ease the strain, I want to say that I hope that someone nails Miller right square in the face with a pie when she appears to collect her award at that upcoming “First Amendment Ceremony” thingy. And I hope it’s a schmaltz pie, (schmaltz is congealed chicken fat but with whipped cream on it it looks just like lemon meringue).
And of course I hope “Crooks and Liars” gets the video.
Let someone smack Judy with a pie, even a lemon custard one. Or better, the audience should boo her off the stage. Or even better, the award committee rescinds the honor.
I want to say something that I hope is not too far off the intended thread.
I admit to having read with little interest the NYT article and JM’s “confessions.” Why? Because, while the focus of the media has been on the “outing” of Valerie Plame, that is not the most important crime in my opinion. (Yes, I also believe that the Administration has worked very hard to keep the focus there.)
I hope that Patrick Fitzgerald has not taken two years of GJ investigation only to find out who let slip VP’s name. I hope he has found out who forged the Niger yellow cake letter.
I hope it involves the WHIGgies; I suspect it involves Cheney and Bush. If my suspicions are confirmed by the much-anticipated indictments, then we have inescapable grounds for several impeachments, not to mention criminal trials.
Curtains.
doesn’t the applicable law against outing CIA agents contain some text about if it would compromise national security or some such.
So in the case of a discarded operative, would lawyers not argue that the law was not violated, that the agency had no further use for Ms. Plame, and therefore were free to out her if they wished?
I thought the yellow cake documents were signed by the former foreign minister of Niger, I can’t remember if he signed them posthumously, or if he is still alive, I haven’t seen him on Larry King, which is pretty suspicious.
Here’s just one quote, sure it’s the Washington Times and “an official” isn’t IDed. But the FBI is/was in charge of the investigation.
No mention of his appearance on Larry King. ;>)
But there’s also this interview conducted by Ian Masters with Vincent Cannistaro, the former CIA head of counterterrorism operations and intelligence director at the National Security Council under Ronald Reagan, which aired on the Los Angeles public radio KPFK on April 3, 2005.
–from which. . .
The WHIG membership never included Ledeen (ha ha), but these are the members who were brought together and who
*You can read the little said about that strategy here.
But then Ledeen has his various Italian connections:
And it was
Gee, doesn’t that invite one to speculate that Ledeen is a spy, or would that be counter-spy, or would that be mole?
I think a lot of our frustration is that we hope that the outing of Valerie Wilson is like the “third-rate burglary” at the Watergate that unraveled much more than campaign dirty tricks. On the face of it, outing a CIA agent is more heinous than burglarizing a political opponent’s offices. In a way, it’s almost a shame that this does start with a more serious crime because it makes an excuse for keeping the focus there.
But the question is – will there be any real investigative reporters who are willing to start investigating WHIG, the forged letter and much, much more. As has been pointed out, a search at the NYT’s archives for “White House Iraq Group” turns up nada, zip. Evidently, they’ve never mentioned it. You know, since they were instrumental in selling the American people on a disastrous war, you might think the “paper of record” (those days now past) would at least mention them.
Susan reports rings around those NYT “reporters.”
Frank Rich’s column for Sunday’s paper:
[Emphasis mine]
I haven’t even finished reading it and I’m saying “About damn time!” Of course, the question still remains, why is this found only in an op-ed, and not been actually reported on?
A Times Select column ( of course) but MSOC has given y’all the password . . . 😉
I’m going to go finish reading it.
[Bolding – me again.]
And as for the real story, as I bumblingly posted on a Kos thread, the entire media are saying:
Don’t mention the war.
Susan — what was your take on the “Valerie Flame” notation. Do you think Judy is fudging or do you take it at face value. Personally, I think there is definitely a second source. I wonder who it will prove to be? ;P
Can you say Bolton?…I knew you could. I still haven’t heard an explanation Re: his ‘visit’ to judy, judy, judy during her incarceration…I love a good mystery…:{)
Peace