Rove was the source of the Plame leak... so it appears

Chrissee wrote:

How many billable hours are you getting per week, Tico?

I suppose that depends on the week. Why are you interested?

Don't you think the CIA was aware of what you are aware of when they recommended her case to be investigated because of the revealing of her identity?

one in the Times building is on the same page when it comes to Judy Miller. The official story the paper is sticking to is that Miller is a heroic martyr, sacrificing her freedom in the name of journalistic integrity.

But a very different scenario is being floated in the halls. Here it is: It's July 6, 2003, and Joe Wilson's now famous op-ed piece appears in the Times, raising the idea that the Bush administration has "manipulate[d]" and "twisted" intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." Miller, who has been pushing this manipulated, twisted, and exaggerated intel in the Times for months, goes ballistic. Someone is using the pages of her own paper to call into question the justification for the war -- and, indirectly, much of her reporting. The idea that intelligence was being fixed goes to the heart of Miller's credibility. So she calls her friends in the intelligence community and asks, Who is this guy? She finds out he's married to a CIA agent. She then passes on the info about Mrs. Wilson to Scooter Libby (Newsday has identified a meeting Miller had on July 8 in Washington with an "unnamed government official"). Maybe Miller tells Rove too -- or Libby does. The White House hatchet men turn around and tell Novak and Cooper. The story gets out.

This is why Miller doesn't want to reveal her "source" at the White House -- because she was the source. Sure, she first got the info from someone else, and the odds are she wasn't the only one who clued in Libby and/or Rove (the State Dept. memo likely played a role too)… but, in this scenario, Miller certainly wasn't an innocent writer caught up in the whirl of history. She had a starring role in it. This also explains why Miller never wrote a story about Plame, because her goal wasn't to write a story, but to get out the story that cast doubts on Wilson's motives. Which Novak did.

This version of events has divided the Times into two camps: those who want to learn everything about this story, and those who want to learn everything as long as it doesn't downgrade the heroic status of their "colleague" Judy Miller. And then there are the schizophrenics. Frank Rich is spending his summer in the second camp, while at the same time writing some of the most powerful and brilliant stuff about the scandal: "This case is about Iraq, not Niger. The real victims are the American people, not the Wilsons. The real culprit… is not Mr. Rove but the gang that sent American sons and daughters to war on trumped up grounds… That's why the stakes are so high: this scandal is about the unmasking of an ill-conceived war."

But this unmasking -- if it is to be complete -- has to include Judy Miller and the part she played in the mess in Iraq. Of course, the division over Miller is nothing new… it predates her transformation into media martyr by many months. For an early look at this riff, check out Howard Kurtz' May 2003 reporting on the way Miller ferociously fought to keep Ahmad Chalabi, her top source on WMD, to herself and the anger it caused at the paper. And also the paper's extraordinary mea culpa from May 2004, in which its editors admitted that the Times' reporting on Iraq "was not as rigorous as it should have been" -- yet steadfastly refused to even mention the less-than-rigorous reporter whose byline appeared on 4 of the 6 stories the editors singled out as being particularly egregious. "It looks," the Times' public admission concluded, "as if we, along with the administration, were taken in." And yet just two month earlier, Times Executive Editor Bill Keller called Miller, who was one of the main reporters "taken in" a "smart, well-sourced, industrious and fearless reporter." Nothing about her less than "rigorous" reporting. Nothing about her reliance on Chalabi being less than "well-sourced."

Any discussion of Miller's actions in the Plame-Rove-Libby-Gonzalez-Card scandal must not leave out the key role she played in cheerleading for the invasion of Iraq and in hyping the WMD threat. Re-reading some of her pre-war reporting today, it's hard not to be disgusted by how inaccurate and pumped up it turned out to be. For chapter and verse, check out Slate's Jack Shafer. For the money quote on her mindset, look to her April 2003 appearance on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, where, following up on her blockbuster front page story about an Iraqi scientist and his claims that Iraq had destroyed all its WMD just before the war started, Miller said the scientist was more than a "smoking gun," he was the "silver bullet" in the hunt for WMD. The "silver bullet" later turned out to be another blank -- and the scientist turned out to be a military intelligence official.

Amazingly, however, even as her reporting has been debunked -- and her sources discredited -- Miller has steadfastly refused to apologize for her role in misleading the public in the lead up to the war. Indeed, in an interview with the author of Bush's Brain, James Moore, she, in the words of Moore, "remained righteously indignant, unwilling to accept that she had goofed in the grandest of fashions", telling him: "I was proved ******* right."

As recently as March 2005, in an appearance at Berkeley, she stubbornly refused to express regret. Indeed, she showed that she shares a key attitude with the Bush administration: an unwillingness to admit mistakes when faced with new realities. She even compared herself to the president, saying that she was getting the same information he was getting… and suggested that since he hadn't apologized, why should she? Maybe she's angling for the Tenet treatment: promote faulty intel, get a Medal of Freedom. Miller also echoed the words of Don Rumsfeld ("You go to war with the Army you have") when she justified her flawed reporting on WMD by saying "You go with what you've got". Really? Wouldn't it be better to wait until what you've got is right?

It's nice that Bill Keller is visiting Judy in jail giving updates about how hard this is for her, having to be away from her family and friends. But it would be even nicer if we'd had some acknowledgement from Miller of her complicity in sending 138,000 American soldiers away from their family and friends. And, unlike Miller, they won't be returning home in October. Indeed, as of today, 1,785 of them won't be returning home at all.

This story gets deeper with every twist and revelation, including the reminder (via Podhoretz) that Fitzgerald had a previous run in with Miller over her actions in a national security case, and the speculation (via Jeralyn at Talk Left) that Fitzgerald is considering seeking to put Miller under criminal contempt, rather than the civil contempt she's now under.

But one thing is inescapable: Miller -- intentionally or unintentionally -- worked hand in glove in helping the White House propaganda machine (for a prime example, check out this Newsweek story on how the aluminum tubes tall tale went from a government source to Miller to page one of the New York Times to Cheney and Rice going on the Sunday shows to confirm the story to Bush pushing that same story at the UN).

So, once again, the question arises (and you can't have it both ways, Frank): when it comes to this scandal, do you want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth or do you want the truth -- except for what Judy Miller wants to keep to herself?

Posted at 08:17 PM | email this post to a friend | permalink | comments
| read all posts by Arianna Huffington

Don't you think the CIA was aware of what you are aware of when they recommended her case to be investigated because of the revealing of her identity?

revel wrote:

Don't you think the CIA was aware of what you are aware of when they recommended her case to be investigated because of the revealing of her identity?

It doesn't really matter, her status was classified, the conspirators can be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. Rove, Luskin and Tico don't get to choose which laws Fitzgerald is going to prosecute.

Ticomaya wrote:

Chrissee wrote:

How many billable hours are you getting per week, Tico?

I suppose that depends on the week. Why are you interested?

You seem to have a lot of time on your hands.

Chrissee wrote:

revel wrote:

Don't you think the CIA was aware of what you are aware of when they recommended her case to be investigated because of the revealing of her identity?

It doesn't really matter, her status was classified, the conspirators can be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. Rove, Luskin and Tico don't get to choose which laws Fitzgerald is going to prosecute.

Tico

Quote:

You sure like to make arguments for me that I've never made.

Huh? I was responding to Revel, I ignore most of your posts.

And Chrissee, next time you want to post some liberal screed to this thread, please check one of the many posts from BBB, because there is a good chance she's already posted it. Perhaps you thought Huffington's words just can't be read enough?

Ticomaya wrote:

And Chrissee, next time you want to post some liberal screed to this thread, please check one of the many posts from BBB, because there is a good chance she's already posted it. Perhaps you thought Huffington's words just can't be read enough?

Hey Chrissee, Is it hard to take admonitions from someone who thinks
Ah-nold is a good symbol for an avatar?

Ticomaya wrote:

Chrissee wrote:

revel wrote:

Don't you think the CIA was aware of what you are aware of when they recommended her case to be investigated because of the revealing of her identity?

It doesn't really matter, her status was classified, the conspirators can be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. Rove, Luskin and Tico don't get to choose which laws Fitzgerald is going to prosecute.

You sure like to make arguments for me that I've never made.

Huh? I was responding to Revel, I ignore most of your posts.

snood wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

And Chrissee, next time you want to post some liberal screed to this thread, please check one of the many posts from BBB, because there is a good chance she's already posted it. Perhaps you thought Huffington's words just can't be read enough?

Hey Chrissee, Is it hard to take admonitions from someone who thinks
Ah-nold is a good symbol for an avatar?

Did you post a private message by mistake?

Ticomaya wrote:

And Chrissee, next time you want to post some liberal screed to this thread, please check one of the many posts from BBB, because there is a good chance she's already posted it. Perhaps you thought Huffington's words just can't be read enough?

Hey Chrissee, Is it hard to take admonitions from someone who thinks
Ah-nold is a good symbol for an avatar?

snood wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

And Chrissee, next time you want to post some liberal screed to this thread, please check one of the many posts from BBB, because there is a good chance she's already posted it. Perhaps you thought Huffington's words just can't be read enough?

Hey Chrissee, Is it hard to take admonitions from someone who thinks
Ah-nold is a good symbol for an avatar?

It is not the Ahnold avatar itself, it is THAT appalling avatar, smug, mean-spirited, smoking a cigar. It speaks volumes that that is the image wants to project.

July 29, 2005, 8:55 a.m.
A Third (or Fourth, or Fifth) Source?
Why is the Plamegate spotlight so narrowly focused on Rove?

parados wrote:

Tico,

There is a large difference between the REASON that the CIA and DoJ started the investigation and the possible reasons that it continues today.

The CIA has stated that it informed the DoJ that a possible crime was committed when the name of a undercover CIA agent was revealed. The DoJ concurred and started the investigation. Fitzgerald may have rejected that by this time because he can't meet the "intent" part of the law but the only probable way to start the investigation is to meet the "covert" status based on what the CIA reported as a possible crime.

At this point, Fitzgerald could be investigating conspiracy, obstruction, lying to Federal investigators etc. But there is no way to make an argument to start the investigation if you can't come close to meeting the covert status of the law.

So Tico if I argue for something does that mean I am against unrelated items? If I question the existence of something would that mean I am really against it when I refuse to address a list of items that show it to exist?

Until you can explain away my list Tico you don't have much of a question there. It is unreasonable because you can't show reason why you think the question has any validity.

As I said originally on page 82, and which has been mentioned several times since then:

Quote:

I have also heard that Plame was "outed" by Aldrich Ames back in 1994, so she was brought back to the States and given a desk job. If that's accurate, that would likely mean she was not sent overseas again.

Quote:

Kristof said the CIA brought Plame back to Washington in 1994 because the agency suspected her undercover security had been compromised by turncoat spy Aldrich Ames.

Quote:

Quote:

The law defines a "covert agent" as someone working undercover overseas, or who has done so in the last five years. Plame had operated under non-official cover, but was outed by CIA traitor Aldrich Ames, and has been manning a desk at CIA headquarters since 1997.

It is a valid question.

Interesting how none of your quotes refer directly to CIA. THe CIA DIRECTLY made the decision to recommend a criminal investigation.

Your argument Tico seems to be that if any Joe Schmoe disputes something we should take their questions seriously. Should we have taken seriously the questions of every war proterster leading up to this war?

Bush almost choked on a pretzel. There were articles written about how he was drinking in order to do that. SHould we take them seriously?

There is a difference between an INFORMED decision like the CIA did and an UNINFORMED question like you are proposing. What evidence do you have of the CIA bringing Plame back because her identity was revealed? It looks like you don't have any other than a statement by a RW pundit that doesn't have access to classified information. The overwhelming information from those that SHOULD know all lead to the same conclusion.