Being up on the Hill this morning allowed us to trot down to the
U.S. Courthouse for the New York Times' Judy Miller's
coming out party. Her press conference after her grand jury
testimony was revealing.
There has been talk for some time that part of Miller's apparent
zeal to uphold journalism's highest ethics was an ongoing review
inside the Times of her use of sources and information
during the runup to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Word inside the
Times is that that report was completed about the time
Miller went to jail in Alexandria, and that the report is not kind
to Miller. Some have gone so far as to say that prosecutor Pat
Fitzgerald saved Miller's job and reputation.
Miller's sourcing on any number of things has never really been
in doubt. White House insiders -- at least those who have done
time inside the National Security Council -- knew Miller well.
According to one former NSC staffer she was a regular visitor to
the NSC offices in the Old Executive Office Building, nosing
around, asking for various people she apparently spoke to on a
regular basis, etc. Everyone knew that a range of NSC and Cheney
folks were speaking on background and off the record about Iraq,
Saddam, weapons, human rights violations, and the like, not only to
Miller, but to much of the major media, both print and broadcast.
So it isn't a surprise that "Scooter" Libby was a source for
Miller, never mind that Libby himself stepped forward a year ago to
confirm it.
What was telling today, and what should make those who supported
Miller so blindly nervous, is that clearly it wasn't Libby's
supposed clarification of his release to her or prosecutors that
allowed her testimony. Rather, it was Fitzgerald's deal with
Miller attorney Bob Bennett to limit the scope of the
questioning that changed her mind about going before the grand
jury.
It will be interesting to see what areas of possible interest
were taken off the table. For example, did Fitzgerald agree to not
probe conversations Miller might have had with Joseph Wilson or
Valerie Plame Wilson prior to Wilson's column appearing in the
New York Times? Or were they questions about
conversations Miller might have had with New York Times
op-ed staff prior to Wilson's column being published?
Miller continues to act like someone who has a greater stake in
this story than as just a mere conduit of information and protector
of a source. For months, there have been whispers that she may
very well have been a nexis of this story, and this latest twist --
narrowed scope of questioning -- once again lends credence to that
line of thought.
topics:
Iraq
