At the moment, though, it looks like Gray Lady wouldn’t recognize the truth if it came up and slapped her right in her five o’clock shadow.
Back to Main
October 17, 2005
WB: The Miller’s Tale
Comments
Nice choice of title, even without talking about
Judy’s Chaucerian capacity to bang like a shithouse
door in a gale, an all but indispensable skill for the modern Mata Hari wannabe.
Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Oct 17 2005 8:11 utc | 1
Well, the NYT will have to do a lot, and especially it’s board of directors will have to make some fast decisions, to get back to the status of a newspaper. For now it`s pretty much fishwrap without a secondary use.
—
Meanwhile Bloomberg is one of the few services pushing the REALLY IMPORTANT issue and they did some serious digging: Cheney May Be Entangled in CIA Leak Investigation, People Say
A special counsel is focusing on whether Vice President Dick Cheney played a role in leaking a covert CIA agent’s name, according to people familiar with the probe that already threatens top White House aides Karl Rove and Lewis Libby.
The special counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, has questioned current and former officials of President George W. Bush’s administration about whether Cheney was involved in an effort to discredit the agent’s husband, Iraq war critic and former U.S. diplomat Joseph Wilson, according to the people.
Fitzgerald has questioned Cheney’s communications adviser Catherine Martin and former spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise and ex-White House aide Jim Wilkinson about the vice president’s knowledge of the anti-Wilson campaign and his dealings on it with Libby, his chief of staff, the people said. The information came from multiple sources, who requested anonymity because of the secrecy and political sensitivity of the investigation.
…
There’s no indication Fitzgerald is considering criminal charges against the vice president, who gave unsworn testimony to investigators last year. One option for Fitzgerald is to outline his findings about Cheney’s role if he files a final report on the investigation.
Fitzgerald, 45, has also questioned administration officials about any knowledge Bush may have had of the campaign against Wilson. Yet most administration observers have noted that on Iraq, as with most matters, it’s Cheney who has played the more hands-on role.
One lawyer intimately involved in the case, who like the others demanded anonymity, said one reason Fitzgerald was willing to send Miller to jail to compel testimony was because he was pursuing evidence the vice president may have been aware of the specifics of the anti-Wilson strategy.
…
To make a case against Cheney as part of a conspiracy indictment, Fitzgerald would have to show the vice president was an active participant in a decision to smear Wilson, Barcella [an unrelated lawyer] said. “It’s a case most easily made if you can prove a person knowingly entered into an agreement to do something illegal,” he said. “Beyond that, it can be tricky.”
…
In an interview yesterday, Wilson said that once the criminal questions are settled, he and his wife may file a civil lawsuit against Bush, Cheney and others seeking damages for the alleged harm done to Plame’s career.
If they do so, the current state of the law makes it likely that the suit will be allowed to proceed — and Bush and Cheney will face questioning under oath — while they are in office. The reason for that is a unanimous 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that Paula Jones’ sexual harassment suit against then-President Bill Clinton could go forward immediately, a decision that was hailed by conservatives at the time.
(upps – just saw that annie broke the Bloomberg piece in the other thread earlier. But is definitly worth to be posted multiple times:)
@Hannah – firedoglade pushed the nice title of Mata Whori for Miller. Maybe that one will stick …
Imad Khadduri’s Free Iraq site provides some useful
context and comment on the past and present of
disinformation. The question posed about the photo from
yesterday’s issue of the NYTimes is an interesting one. The spirit
of Miss Run Amok lives on.
Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Oct 17 2005 8:41 utc | 5
as usual an excellent post billmon.
some wild speculation on my part. flame, hmm, and what does it mean to flame someone. i, for one, didn’t even give this a second thought. it’s just a nick name she chose for her.
now for the real stretch. wife works in bureau? billmon speculates this is an area libby suggests she check out. i didn’t read it that way. she’s writing herself a note. this is obviously the clincher of the slime. the big tamale. the ??? could be, how to slide this into the story, how to incorporate it in such a way as to really make use of it. we know the file on plame was delivered to whig prior to their meeting. she could have put the ? there to check out if it was legal to mention this. it may not have been a question he had as much as her own question about how to flame the fire.
all in all , i agree it raises more questions than it answers, but one thing i know for sure, fitz got more out of her than we’re getting.
Posted by: annie | Oct 17 2005 9:24 utc | 7
As for wild speculation, I’ll up you one annie, (no punn intended ), I’ll be willing to bet the farm, that before or during the Fitz-bang, we will have a bio-chem attack on US soil. Hows that for creative imagination? Any takers? I know some of you think it too. I just can’t not say it.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 17 2005 10:24 utc | 8
It would appear that Mr. Fitzgerald is aiming his ‘harpoon gun’ at the Great White Whale because one must get the Whale before one removes Ahab.
Posted by: hopping madbunny | Oct 17 2005 10:41 utc | 9
I’ll be willing to bet the farm, that before or during the Fitz-bang, we will have a bio-chem attack on US soil.
Antrax – did work the last time it was needed and those who did it are still available.
—
How must the reporters of the NYT feel when just two days after Miller came late with her piece and they didn´t had even the time to check it out they get scooped again.
Miller talks to the WSJ while the NYT folks again have to report about her collection of lies and falsehood without getting an additional word from her.
Meanwhile their boss, Keller,is flying around somewhere in Asia instead of herding his sheeples.
The NYT will loose a lot of good reporters over this embarressment.
Something odd.
Where is Rumsfeld in all of this?
You know he is part of the very inner circle, but sofar his name did not come up. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove, Hadley, Libby, Fleisher, Tenet and dozens other folks have talked to Fitzgerald. No word on Rumsfeld?
Well he may have given Judy that security clearance which in itself might be an act of wrongdoing, but I bet he is much deeper into this.
Any ideas?
I could be wrong, it very well could be Wilma , who puts the kabosh on the Fitz-bang.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 17 2005 11:26 utc | 12
“i, for one, didn’t even give this a second thought. it’s just a nick name she chose for her.
I agree with you, annie. Karen Hughes referred to her as Valerie Plume on Meet the Press (I think). It’s just a way of showing that you don’t care, diss the subject, it’s an Archie Bunker. “Whatever…”
I have since called her Karen Huge.
Posted by: beq | Oct 17 2005 11:31 utc | 13
New Pravda?
How about Nepravda?
It’s more fitting. It takes less letters to write, and only a few Neocons would get it!
Posted by: Diogenes | Oct 17 2005 11:37 utc | 14
Ahhh…. Procol Harum!!! Good title indeed! I can nearly make as much sense of the Plame-Miller story as I can the meaning of lyrics of Whiter Shade of Pale! LOL
Posted by: Soandso | Oct 17 2005 13:25 utc | 15
Miller’s story, on the other hand, may be duplicitous, but it’s still useful, if only because it tells us some of the questions she was asked in front of the grand jury . . .
The delicious irony is that, despite all the bluster about protecting sources, Miller and the Times now find themselves publicly divulging more ‘privileged’ information than the rest of other the subpeonaed reporters combined.
Even the Washington Post hasn’t felt the need to publish a tell all about Matt Cooper’s testimony. And the Post was the paper that first published the column outing Plame.
Miller’s unprincipled ‘stand’ simply created a circus that ultimately led to this embarrassment. If Judy really wanted to do the Administration a favor, she should have testified when first called without all the subsequent theatrics.
Posted by: Night Owl | Oct 17 2005 16:22 utc | 16
b:
Rumsfeld was not part of the WHIG and is probably in the clear on this one. At the time, he was preparing to commit the crime the WHIG was trying to justify. Also, there was that little dust-up in Afghanistan he was still managing. He was just too busy to be part of the ad campaign for the new product. There are other crimes with which he can be charged though I doubt we’ll ever see that happen.
Posted by: lonesomeG | Oct 17 2005 16:54 utc | 17
Analyzing this in the context of Miller as a reporter is the mistake. Per Abramson, she wasn’t working on a story. What she was doing was working with WHIG to discredit Wilson and frighten off any future critics of the admin., while protecting her own inaccurate Bolton/Chalabi fed stories on wmd and retaining her access to the higher ups in the admin. (security clearance or otherwise). If Libby didn’t tell her about Plame then why all the furor about protecting her “source” and alleged concern over the scope of Libby’s waiver? Maybe it’s difficult to claim “confidential source” when you are the source. Let’s hope Fitzgerald clears this up soon.
In terms of the NYT, there’s not much left to stay. Their own coverage has sunk them. Letting Miller run amok; squashing stories on wmd/Plame while continuing to tout Miller’s heroism in their editorials. They should have put her on leave and either investigated independently or publicly announced that they were too close to cover the story and therefore wouldn’t do so; and they should have kept the editorial page (notice how all the pieces were by the ed. board rather than any contributor) out of it.
Posted by: Stone | Oct 17 2005 17:44 utc | 18
Likewise, some of Miller’s explanations for her own notes don’t make a lick of sense — like when she speculates that she may have intentionally used the name “Victoria Wilson” with Scooter in their third (and final) conversation, in hopes that he would correct and thus confirm the correct name. But her own notes show she already had the correct name (i.e. Valerie instead of Victoria.)
Methinks you’re a little offbase here Billmon. Her claim is that she might have deliberately misstated the name, to see if she could get Libby to correct her–that would act as (inadvertent) confirmation. A reportorial trick. The fact that she already knew the correct name is a given in that scenario.
Sandso–I hope we can presume the reference is to the original “Miller’s Tale” from which Procol Harum borrowed the title. Chaucer’s Miller’s Tale is a baudy tale about a promiscuous wife, her stodgy older husband, and a “handy” young clerk. Described as “the most sublime dirty story ever told.” A little more apt to Judy’s tale. Minus the “sublime” part of course.
Posted by: DrBB | Oct 17 2005 18:07 utc | 19
@Uncle$-
You are right on target about the bio attack. Tularemia during the rally was the dry run.
Notice that whenever they try any of their tricks there is always a legitimate cover–during 9-11, london, and just recently in Washington, there were “coincidental” simulation games going on to protect against the very event. That this was not the case in Madrid proves that the initiators of these events did not let the government in on their tricks or that it was a real terrorist attack and scared the shit out of the gov’t.
However you are wrong on Wilma–evenif it ia as big as Katrina and Rita all rolled into one, this stuff is bigger.
My question is who will end up on top when the smoke clears? Will Cheney be deposed and Jeb brought in? Your thoughts….
Another part of the Miller story
Over the last year or so, Judith Miller also wrote a series of damaging reports on the “oil for food” scandal at the United Nations — in particular, personally damaging to Secretary General Kofi Annan because the reports were frequently based on half-truths or hearsay peddled on Capitol Hill by people determined to force Annan out of office. At the UN, this was interpreted as payback for the UN’s refusal to back the US war in Iraq. As a former NYT UN bureau chief [now retired] I have been asked repeatedly by diplomats, former US government officials, journalists still reporting from the organization and others why Times editors did not step in to question some of this reporting — a lot of it proved wrong by the recent report by Paul Volcker — or why the paper seemed to be on a vendetta against the UN. The Times answered that question Sunday in its page one report on the Miller affair. Ms. Run Amok had at least one very highly placed friend at the paper, and many Timespeople were afraid to tangle with her because of that. Note also, that Ambassador John Bolton, a severe critic of the UN and a figure so controversial he could not face a confirmation hearing in the Senate, was one of the administration officials who took time to visit Miller in jail.
“As for wild speculation, I’ll up you one annie, (no punn intended ), I’ll be willing to bet the farm, that before or during the Fitz-bang, we will have a bio-chem attack on US soil. Hows that for creative imagination? Any takers? I know some of you think it too. I just can’t not say it.”
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 17, 2005 6:24:00 AM | #
The bird flu panic-demic is raging on CNN right now. That and the beginning of the Hussein ‘show’ should just about cover the diversion.
Even the Fitz inquiries themselves are a diversion from the continuing crimes against humanity currently being waged against the people of Iraq by Bush and his Republican Guards.
Posted by: pb | Oct 17 2005 20:26 utc | 22
Analyzing this in the context of Miller as a reporter is the mistake. Per Abramson, she wasn’t working on a story. What she was doing was working with WHIG to discredit Wilson and frighten off any future critics of the admin., while protecting her own inaccurate Bolton/Chalabi fed stories on wmd and retaining her access to the higher ups in the admin
spot on stone.
Justin Raimondo stuffs alot of links into his stories but don’t miss ” It came in August 2003, shortly after I attended a conference “
Libby’s macabre sense of drama has a certain Halloweenish quality to it: there he is, all gussied up in red-state drag as a cowboy, inexplicably showing up at a rodeo in rural Wyoming. A week or two earlier – July 24 – the CIA had indicated to the Department of Justice that it was time to start looking into possible security breaches in the Plame affair, and by July 30 it had formalized this request in a letter to DoJ’s Criminal Division.
The jig was up. It was time for Libby and his band of liars to start covering their tracks.
What did Libby and Miller talk about, as they watched horses buck and kick, furiously trying to throw off rough-and-ready riders amid clouds of obfuscating dust?
Just a few miles west of Jackson Hole, Cheney’s Teton Pines home provides him with a refuge aside from the usual undisclosed location. So I guess Scooter just happened to be in the neighborhood and also coincidentally popped up at this rodeo, like a jack-in-the-box, so unrecognizable to Miller – who had interviewed him for hours at a time – that he had to identify himself.
Posted by: annie | Oct 17 2005 21:00 utc | 23
Well, whether Stone’s post is “spot on”, or not seems to be the crux of the matter. Information similar to this IS what is anticipated, or needed, from Fitz’ sniffing around.
Any day now!
Posted by: Soandso | Oct 17 2005 21:19 utc | 24
Fitzgerald, 45[?], has also questioned administration officials about any knowledge Bush may have had of the campaign against Wilson. Yet most administration observers have noted that on Iraq, as with most matters, it’s Cheney who has played the more hands-on role.
Gotta love this slipping out. What the hell does George do all day?
Posted by: PeeDee | Oct 17 2005 21:58 utc | 25
What the hell does George do all day?
avoid “hard work” and just try to get on w/ his life, of course
Posted by: b real | Oct 17 2005 23:04 utc | 26
Soandso:
Yes, as noted we can only hope that Fitz clears this up one way or the other. Irrespective of what he feels he can prove and therefore charge in an indictment, however, I believe the situation described in my post or some modified variation of it is what happened.
Posted by: Stone | Oct 17 2005 23:52 utc | 27
(which is why we now know that Fitzgerald has his harpoon gun trained on Moby Dick Cheney)
Billmon, that’s good. I don’t know if you use your gift for words in your work, but I can’t imagine any job beyond one with Comedy Central that would give you the opportunities to use words in the way that your blog does.
Posted by: janeboatler | Oct 18 2005 1:34 utc | 28
I heard an interview w/Philip Agee today. (The law under which outing Plame is illegal is the Agee-Wolff Act, basically. Phil showed Wolff how to do analysis of State Dept. documents to figure out who was CIA, during the 70’s when CIA running torture regimes throughout Latin America. Lew Wolff was a pacifist Quaker.) He said it wasn’t immediately apparent that Bu$hCo guilty of violating the Act ‘cuz it Requires a Pattern of Illegal Activity, not just outing one person. Wolff(sp?) published mag (Covert Action Information Bulletin) w/column “Naming Names”, in which he regularly named agents. Act passed specifically to end this behavior.
Which may account for all the rumors of Conspiracy, etc.
Posted by: jj | Oct 18 2005 3:05 utc | 29
@Pat, and everyone else who might be interested…
Turns out JM may not have had a security clearance after all…Or maybe Pat can translate this into English for us…
Officials from the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon say they have no idea what New York Times reporter Judith Miller was talking about when she claimed to have been given a “security clearance” while she was embedded with a U.S. Army unit in Iraq in 2003.
In a first-person account of her recent testimony before a federal grand jury, published in the newspaper on Sunday, Miller wrote the Pentagon had given her “clearance to see secret information as part of my assignment ’embedded’ with a special military unit hunting for unconventional weapons.” Officials unaware of reporter’s special status
Posted by: jj | Oct 18 2005 6:07 utc | 30
Senior Democrats call for explanation of reporter’s ‘WMD clearance’
Article includes a full copy of the Senators letter sent to Rumsfeld … simply beautiful …
@jj
In brief any ‘Clearance’ must be for an approved ‘official’ purpose/role … formal paperwork must be submitted and processed by ‘vetters’ who specialize in researching and ultimately recommeding (or not) the subject for approval to a particular cearance level … an authorized ‘Officer’ must then execute executive authority to grant or deny the clearance … the higher the clearance level and or compartmentalised briefing the more intrusive and extensive the investigation of the subject (in some cases taking more than 6 months to complete …), including detailed classfied interviews of both nominated and unomminated ‘referees’ re the subject going back a minimum of ten years of the subjects life … every aspect re suitability for issuance of a clearance is investigated, sexual preference, politicial views, financial history/status, mental health and history, ‘character’ etc … it is all documented and must be retained on record for future reviews/upgrades/downgrades/breaches etc.
Did Rummy just use his executive authority to grant it unilaterally (Illegaly? Undue process ?) ?
Seems thats what the senators are sniffing about after … contrary to the press reports there are provisions for a limited waiver re clearance or the issuance of a temporrary clearance primarily at the Secret and below levels, very rarely at Top Secret (non-briefed) levels, however a relevant authority (individual) must personally grant it and effectively accept responsibility for the actions of the subject re classified material ….
Posted by: Outraged | Oct 18 2005 7:40 utc | 31