Saturday, October 01, 2005

The book of Judith

Some have asked for my take on the Judith Miller tale. Truth is, I'm still not sure what to make of it. Xymphora sums up the basic conundrum as well as it ever has been summed up:

The Judith Miller case doesn't make any more sense than it ever did. She spent 85 days in jail to avoid doing what she has now apparently agreed to do, rat out Scooter Libby. Libby could have given her the unconditional specific waiver she claims to have required at any time, but didn't. Or rather, he claims he gave it over a year ago, and subsequently, but she didn't accept it. Libby's lawyer, laying it on awfully thick, said (my emphasis):

"We told her lawyers it was not coerced. We are surprised to learn we had anything to do with her incarceration."
Surprised? Only in the same sense that Claude Rains was shocked to discover gambling at Rick's. Scooter was fingered long before Judy entered the big house.

I've long been suspcicious about the "non specific" release Miller received from her source -- that is, from Scooter. Virtually any other reporter in any previous case would have viewed such a release as a green light, especially after a source tried to steer a reporter down a false trail. Yet Miller, quite inexplicably, viewed her green light as a stop sign. She insisted on a more "specific" waiver. And just what, specifically, does "specific" mean in this context? You got me!

Here's one possible scenario. Consider it fanciful if you will, but at least consider it:

Let us suppose that, before Judy went to jail, she met with a representative from Cheney's office. She was told that she would receive, pro forma, a confidentiality waiver, in order to save Scooter's ass if the truth of the matter should come out. Despite this waiver, she was instructed to keep mum nonetheless. "Keep silent and we'll reward you. Talk and we'll kill you."

That noir-ish image may strike many readers as a little too simplisitic, a little too Mario Puzo. But it does have the virtue of clearing up a few mysteries.

As for her recent turnabout, Xymphora's suggestion makes as much sense as anything else I've read:

It appears likely that the real story is that Fitzgerald finally had enough on Libby to go after him without Miller, so it was no longer necessary for Miller to keep her mouth shut as Libby was finished anyway. The fan dance about the waiver is a trick to hide the truth.
I don't see how Fitzgerald can leave it at Scooter while keeping Cheney untouched.

A correspondent has suggested to me that Cheney may be planning his retirement -- hence his recent shopping-for-expensive-real-estate excursion in Maryland. I wish. But don't hold your breath -- if Cheney goes, who will run the government?

Still, a Maryland manor is precisely where the disgraced Agnew ended up. Wouldn't it be a kick to watch history repeat itself?

Wayne Madsen makes another kicky suggestion:

One possible explanation for the sudden turn of events regarding Miller and Libby is that Fitzgerald may have also "flipped" Libby as a witness. A promise of limited immunity to Libby would have cleared the way for testimony from Miller on what she discussed with Cheney's chief of staff. That means the ultimate target of Fitzgerald could be Cheney.
A cute idea, but I don't think Scooter has agreed to squeal.

Arianna Huffington, who has been covering this story well, draws our attention to the recently-published "love letters" from Libby to Miller -- and lo and behold, the Iran nuke contorversy comes front and center. Herrrrre's Scooter:

Your reporting, and you, are missed. Like many Americans, I admire your principled stand. But, like many of your friends and readers, I would welcome you back among the rest of us, doing what you do best – reporting.

You went into jail in the summer. It is fall now. You will have stories to cover – Iraqi elections and suicide bombers, biological threats and the Iranian nuclear program. Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them. Come back to work – and life. Until then, you will remain in my thoughts and prayers
"They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them"? Weird shit. Gotta be a code of some sort.

The obvious message: If Miller wants to come back "to life" (heh heh heh), she has to lie about Iran as effectively as she lied about Iraq. Scooter apparently feels that Miller's 85-day "ordeal" has given her new credibility -- indeed, recredibilizing Judy may have been the very purpose of her incarceration from the very beginning.

And thus Plame-gate dovetails into what I have dubbed the Most Important Story of Our Time.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi Joseph

I think the key for her "coming out" was Fitzgerald agreeing to keep his questions very specific.

As the Washington Post reports:
" Miller also turned over redacted copies of handwritten notes she made after one of the conversations with Libby, a condition set by special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald"

Me thinks something else was discussed that she/they didn't want to come to light - Fitzgerald's guarantee of limited questioning and acceptance of redacted notes means that skeleton stays in the closet.

reference: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/30/AR2005093000553.html

Anonymous said...

Cheney may well retire, putatively for reasons of "health", but the real reason will be to endow the next right-wing Republican presidential candidate with the crucial advantage of incumbency.

Whatever the exact explanation for Judy's odd behavior, one thing is clear: this woman takes her cue from Cheney's office. The prior "release" (also in writing) apparently didn't really mean "talk". But now Cheney et al. have given Miller permission to make exactly the same deal she could have made months ago. Note that they haven't provided her with anything she didn't have months ago (except the wink). Something happened which rendered her testimony redundant or inconsequential. This woman is simply taking orders. The whole thing is a ludicrous charade.

Besides, if there was a real principle involved for Judy, the release signed by Libby would be irrelevant, then and now.

Anonymous said...

What about this weird stuff?

Libby: Coded Message to Miller?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/1/132251/998

There's discussion on DU about it too.

Anonymous said...

"If David Kelly was the peace-lover described by some in the anti-war movement, what was he doing hanging around with the New York Times' Judith Miller?"

http://tinyurl.com/8dxq3

Anonymous said...

i believe miller and kelly became acquainted while she was penning her book on bioweapons.

the fact is, fitzgerald had threatened to convene another grand jury, which would have kept ms. miller's sorry ass in jail another 18 months. this had far more to do with her 'coming out' than the prosecutor's agreeing to her limited testimony. which i have yet to figure out why he'd do that, but whatever.

another fact is, she knew full well she had a waiver when she was sentenced. hell, judge hogan reminded her of this fact as he sentenced her, scolding her for the pretence of principle. i believe he said something like 'you can't stand on principle here; you're not protecting a whistleblower, but someone who attacked a whistleblower.'

the judge and fitz, unlike most of the journalistic community, completely get the reason reporters would protect sources. it's not about just protecting sources, but the larger issue of exposing abuses of power. if a source takes the risk to do that, then by golly they need to be protected. i'm very concerned about the way this debate has focused on 'source protection' as if this is the principle embodied in the first amendment. that's such pedestrian crap. but it may be more sinister excrement. if a federal shield law is enacted based on the debate as we've seen it so far (i mean, what bizarre bedfellows we find in this traditionally liberal cause, novak and safire and bob dole? oh my!), then the roves of the world will be able to misinform and propagandize with impunity. it even seems the nytimes is even helping to set up this arrangement.

but why are they risking the paper for miller? the suggestion that her 'stand' was planned as a way to recover her credibility is intriguing and plausible, given libby's coded love letter. my take on the 'connected at the roots' aspens reference is a thinly veiled threat that if she takes anyone down, she goes with them. we're all in this together. so get back out there and do your job; take us to war in iran.

as for cheney, it appears that both he and his puppet shrub may be targetted in the conspiracy part. check out the big story back in june when he checked into the hospital in aspen. remember? it was the same week miller went to jail. and they both had criminal attorneys present for their 'interviews'.

two things still bother me, though. one is, i really cannot for the life of me figure why fitz would agree to limited testimony. it's not as if he wasn't holding al the cards, especially knowing how she hated staying in jail. he could convene another grand jury on the case, or he could charge her with criminal contempt. so there's got to me lots more going on here. gee duh; ya think? and given that miller never even published a story on this (so again, how is it she's standing up for some valued journalistic principle?), the likelihood that she is implicated in other ways is pretty high. my bet is she's going to get indicted herself for obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct, etc.

joe's scenario is not that far-fetched. the visit from bolton always smelled to me like a visit from the hatchet man.

which brings me to my second confusion: none of the players listed so far in the press this weekend could have been the person who was the original leaker of plame's cia identity. all the folks mentioned had reason to use the information by making it public, but none of them could have been the originator of the information. though cheney and bush have security clearance, neither of them would have just happened to know about plame. i've always been convinced it was bolton, or someone in his office, like his cia chief of staff, fleitz.

but to bring my own confusion full circle, there's always the possibility that miller, in her work on the bioweapons book, actually (perhaps even through david kelly, who knows) came across the fact that plame was cia and worked on wmds. she might actually be the original source, and is thus working doubly hard to cover her ass. this story might explain the fact that rove used the line that he had first heard about plame from the press. in this light, i reads just like his favorite lies that are technically true.

ah, what a mind bender! this is going to such a ride!

Anonymous said...

With the excellent posts I have very little to add. Like the others who posted, I agree there is probably more to this than meets the eye. There are a few ideas i would like throw in:

I did notice the "book" was mentioned, but not the $1.5 million dollar deal she has been offered which Iam assuming is one and the same book -- or maybe she is writing another book? With the free publicity she has gained name recognition so once her book is released it assures more book sales. Does anyone know if her book intimates a specific country interested in bioweapons? Can it be used to make the case for invading another -- any particular -- country?

One post referring to Miller as a CIA agent is plausible -- I've read that elsewhere which could in-part fit the odd circumstances surrounding this saga and explain why her articles promoted the Iraq war and/or her ties with Chalabi. Notwithstanding, Chalabi has been ferreted out by the CIA as not credible. There is another possibility: is it feasible she was part of the Iraqi Group?

Or is it simply because she is a cheerleader for the bush administration's agenda?

I might add too that since Fitzgerald agreed to narrow the scope of her testimony perhaps his investigation will not encompass anything other than the outing of Plame. It had been rumoured Fitzgerald's investigation would expand into the false claims of Saddam's WMD that failed to materialize. Perhaps his investigation will end concluding no crimes were committed and that will be the end of that!

It will be interesting to watch this unfold.

Anonymous said...

It always helps to check several places. Like this one law and order

Anonymous said...

I love your site.

I can help people who plan to move to San Diego save $5,000 to $25,000 on the purchase of their next home by negotiating with the seller. real estate office real estate office

Come and check my website out if you get time :-)

Anonymous said...

Nice site. Check mine out if you can. investing in china

Anonymous said...

Nice site. Check mine out if you can. florida time share resales