CIA Leak Scandal: Judy Miller and the Times Speak

posted by David Corn on 10/16/2005 @ 12:16am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (77)

Subscribe Now

Finally, the New York Times and Judith Miller speak, and the paper and reporter leave their readers with as many questions as answers. In Sunday's edition, the Times publishes a lengthy account by three reporters (Don Van Natta Jr., Adam Liptak and Clifford Levy) of what it calls "the Miller case" and a first-person account by Miller. Neither piece explains all.

Miller spent eighty-five days in a federal prison after she refused to cooperate with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who has been investigating the Bush Administration leak that outed undercover CIA officer Valerie Wilson, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of the Bush White House. She was released from jail after she received a personal waiver from a confidential source, Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney's chief of staff, that granted her permission to discuss their conversations with Fitzgerald. With that waiver in hand, she cut a deal with Fitzgerald that limited his questioning only to her discussions with Libby (not other sources) and that compelled Miller to turn over her notes of these conversations with Libby.

The denouement of Miller's legal tussle with Fitzgerald was rather puzzling. Libby's lawyer indicated that Miller could have had the personal waiver a year earlier. And after Miller and the Times had spent months crowing that Miller--unlike other reporters--would stand on principle and not submit to Fitzgerald's zealous pursuits, her final settlement with Fitzgerald (which resembled that of the other reporters) was not in sync with the grand we're-protecting-journalism rhetoric the Times and Miller had hurled. Moreover, there were new and old questions about Miller's involvement in the case. Why had Fitzgerald subpoenaed her? How did it come to happen that she only recently discovered a notebook containing notes of Miller's first conversation with Libby about Joseph (and possibly Valerie) Wilson? What had Libby told her? What sort of relationship did she have with Libby? Was Miller eager to discredit Wilson because her prewar reporting on Iraq's WMDs had overstated and hyped the claim that Saddam Hussein presented a WMD threat?

The Times's double-header does not clear up all the mysteries. Let's start with Miller's article, "My Four Hours Testifying in the Federal Grand Jury Room." Miller does not explain the disappearance and discovery of a notebook that contained notes of a June 23, 2003, conversation she had with Libby. This chat occurred two weeks before Wilson published an op-ed piece for the Times in which he revealed that after being sent to Niger in 2002 by the CIA he had concluded that it was highly unlikely that Iraq had been able to obtain weapons-grade uranium there. For weeks, Wilson had been talking to reporters--off the record--about his trip to Niger, and media stories regarding the trip had appeared without naming Wilson as the former diplomat who had gone on this mission.

Miller's account of the June 23, 2003, discussion with Libby indicates that the White House was already looking to discredit Wilson's account prior to Wilson going public with his story--and that this was part of a White House effort to protect itself from intelligence leaks suggesting that the Bush Administration had played up the prewar intelligence on WMDs in Iraq. This was, of course, occurring at a time when the absence of WMDs in Iraq was becoming a problem for the White House. It is not surprising that Libby tried to peddle to Miller the argument that the White House had not relied on skimpy intelligence to go to war. And in this conversation, according to Miller, Libby told her that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

How did Libby know this? Why did Libby know this? Miller may not possess the answers to these critical questions. But Valerie Wilson's employment status at the CIA was classified information. Wittingly or not, Libby was passing classified information to a reporter whom he obviously hoped would be sympathetic to the White House's cause.

In a second meeting on July 8, 2003--two days after Wilson's op-ed appeared--Libby and Miller again discussed Wilson. Once again, Libby was telling Miller that the White House had based its claim that Iraq had been seeking uranium in Niger on solid intelligence. Miller writes that Libby cited the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq produced in October 2002 and said it had firmly concluded Iraq had been pursuing uranium. (It seems that Libby did not tell Miller that this NIE contained a dissent from the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), which said, "the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious.") At this meeting, Libby again referred to Wilson's wife, apparently telling Miller, according to her notes, that she "works at Winpac," the CIA office on Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control.

Miller says she told Fitzgerald's grand jury that she believes this is the first time she had heard that Wilson's wife worked at Winpac. But she cannot recall--she says--why Libby was discussing Wilson's wife. That seems strange. It's not odd that someone would not recall the details of a conversation that happened two years ago. But six days after this conversation--when Novak outed her--Valerie Wilson was big news. Did Miller--who now says she was annoyed she had been scooped on the Plame/Wilson story by Novak--at that point not recall her six-day-old conversation with Libby on this matter and not develop a deeper impression of the portion of their chat that covered Valerie Wilson?

There's more on this point. In the notebook in which she recorded her notes from this meeting with Libby, Miller wrote the words "Valerie Flame." Clearly, this was a reference to Valerie Plame. Was Libby the source for this name? Miller says she does not think so and that she told Fitzgerald "I believed the information came from another source, whom I could not recall." Again, it might be hard for a reporter to remember who told them what over two years ago. But isn't it difficult to believe that come July 14, 2003--the day the name Valerie Plame became public--Miller would not have recalled who had told her days earlier about this CIA officer? And isn't it hard to believe that she would no longer remember that?

There is something else odd about her July 8, 2003, discussion with Libby. When the subject turned to Wilson, Libby asked Miller that he be identified in any story she would write as a "former Hill staffer." Previously the two had agreed that Miller would refer to Libby as a "senior administration official." Now Miller agreed that she would ID him as a "former Hill staffer." (Libby had once worked on Capitol Hill.) She assumed, she writes, that "Libby did not want the White House to be seen as attacking Mr. Wilson." But this shows the dishonest game that reporters can play. Technically, Libby was a former Hill staffer, but he was talking to Miller--and trying to undermine Wilson's account--as a White House official. Calling Libby a "former Hill staffer" in print would have been highly misleading. (Miller never did write a piece on Wilson.) Is this how the Times plays ball? This small slice of Miller's piece deserves a response from executive editor Bill Keller.

In a notebook that chronicled a third pre-leak conversation with Libby--which transpired on July 12, 2003--Miller scribbled the words "Victoria Wilson." Miller writes, "I told Mr. Fitzgerald I was not sure whether Mr. Libby had used this name or whether I just made a mistake in writing it on my own. Another possibility, I said, is that I gave Mr. Libby the wrong name on purpose to see whether he would correct me and confirm her identity." She says she might have been calling others about Wilson's wife, but she is not sure on this point. There is a lot of don't-know in her account. Can Miller not answer a simple question: Did you know Joseph Wilson's wife was named Valerie Wilson (or Plame) and did counter-WMD work at the CIA before Novak published his column? If so, how did you learn this?

******

Don't forget about DAVID CORN's BLOG at www.davidcorn.com. Read recent postings on Harriet Miers, CNN's love affair with Pat Robertson, Louis Freeh's disingenuous attack on Bill Clinton, the Karl Rove scandal and other in-the-news matters.

*******

Miller's piece, fittingly, ends on a weird and uncertain note. When she was before the grand jury, she recalls, Fitzgerald asked her to read from a letter that Libby sent her last month while she was in jail. The letter encouraged her to testify and said, "The public report of every other reporter's testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity with me." Miller told Fitzgerald that she was surprised by the letter because it might be perceived as an attempt by Libby to encourage her to testify that she had not discussed Valerie Wilson's CIA identity with him even though they had. Fitzgerald asked Miller about the letter's closing lines. "Out West," Libby had written, "where you vacation, the aspens will be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them." What, Fitzgerald wondered, did Miller make of this reference to connected roots? In her Times piece, Miller says she answered Fitzgerald by recalling the last time she had seen Libby. In August 2003, she was at a rodeo in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and a man in jeans, a cowboy hat and sunglasses approached her and asked her about a conference she had just attended in Aspen, Colorado. She had no idea who this fellow was. "Judy," he told her. "It's Scooter Libby." And that was--literally--all Miller wrote.

This may be a nice anecdote for ending an article, but it hardly was responsive to Fitzgerald's question. As for her readers, Miller fails them by not providing a clearer answer. Why did an editor not send this page back to Miller with the query: "Funny bit, but irrelevant; tell reader what you think odd sign-off in Libby letter means"? But given the article Miller has produced, it is, in a way, an appropriate conclusion.

The news story that appears in the Times is less exasperating. But it too leaves one wanting more. It doesn't tell the reader anything else about the missing notebook, the "Valerie Flame" reference, or Miller's dealings with Libby. In a section covering Miller's history at the paper, the story quotes Miller on her WMD stories:

"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."

The paper did not note that there were experts and journalists before the war who were skeptical of the WMD claims. For instance, Mohamed ElBaradeii and the International Atomic Energy Agency said before the war that there was no evidence Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons program. The day after Colin Powell's infamous--and misleading--show at the United Nations, The Washington Post published several articles that quoted technical experts taking issue with his Powell's pronouncements. Miller was not wrong because everybody was wrong. She was wrong because she relied upon sources--administration officials, Iraqi exiles connected to Ahmed Chalabi--who had a reason to hype the WMD threat. But the Times gives her a pass on this, allowing her to spin away.

The triple-bylined article does not advance the story much beyond the account presented in Miller's piece. Regarding who else might have told Miller about "Victoria Wilson," this article has no additional information and only notes, "In an interview, [Miller] would not discuss her sources." Well, thanks for cracking that nut.

The article does dig slightly further into the dispute between Miller's legal camp and Libby's attorney over what happened during their negotiations. According to Miller, her attorney, Floyd Abrams, said that Libby's attorney, Joseph Tate, pressed Abrams to tell him what Miller would say to the grand jury should she testify. Abrams also claimed that Tate said that Libby had already testified that he had not mentioned Valerie Wilson's name or her undercover status to Miller. This raises the possibility that Libby was seeking to shape Miller's testimony, which could be illegal. Tate calls such an interpretation "outrageous." But the Times account does not sort this out as clearly as a reader--or a prosecutor--might like.

The Times story also further undermines Miller's attempt to become the Joan of Arc for modern-day journalists. The article notes that her attorneys had tried early on to arrange a deal under which Miller would testify before the grand jury if Fitzgerald limited the scope of the questions. In public, Miller and the Times management struck an absolutist and noble-sounding stance. But in the suites, they were trying to reach a compromise. The article also chronicles how the Times was constrained in covering the Miller case and Fitzgerald's investigation:

In August, Douglas Jehl and David Johnston, two other Washington reporters, sent a memo to the Washington bureau chief, Mr. [Philip] Taubman, listing ideas for coverage of the case. Mr. Taubman said Mr. Keller did not want them pursued because of the risk of provoking Mr. Fitzgerald or exposing Mr. Libby, while Ms. Miller was in jail.

Mr. Taubman said he felt bad for his reporters, but he added that he and other senior editors felt that they had no choice. "No editor wants to be in the position of keeping information out of the newspaper," Mr. Taubman said.

So much for without fear or favor. This is an awful acknowledgment for the nation's leading paper. Taubman and Jill Abramson, a managing editor, called the situation "Excruciatingly difficult." It was worse. As I've written before, Jayson Blair bamboozled his editors; Judy Miller handcuffed hers. If a deal could have been reached a year earlier, the Times would not be as embarrassed as it is today. No wonder, as the paper reports, when Miller made a post-release speech in the newsroom, claiming a victory for press freedoms, her colleagues "responded with restrained applause."

When the Times reporters interviewed Abramson and asked her what she regretted about the paper's handling of the Miller case, she replied, "The entire thing." That was a refreshing shot of candor. But Miller's account and the paper's extensive take-out do not totally clear the air. They leave the impression that we're still not getting all the news that ought to be fit to print.

Comments (77)

They leave the impression that we're still not getting all the news that ought to be fit to print.

-David Corn

Were you ever?

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/16/2005 @ 12:29am
I have just finished the 18 pages of The Times on the Times. Great gaping holes in the record leaving, itz.

Item. Gap between A. news people and B. opinion people (Safire, ed writers, Schultzburger, Brooks) inside the Times opens up. Tight w/ B is Judy. With A.? hey.

B.'s being, like, the Special Plans people in the Pentagon (or State? � one forgets; it's all neocon Jews anyway: Bolton, Feith, Abrams, Libby�) whose agenda is to get the war for Israel started whatever to the contrary notwithstanding.

I'm getting to Corn's next. Wonder if he Will mention Chalabi.

Posted by jones at 10/16/2005 @ 03:02am
And in this conversation, according to Miller, Libby told her that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

How did Libby know this?

The official source circulating at the time was the June 6 Bureau of Intelligence and Research document identifying Wilson's wife as the one who got him assigned, but reportedly not using her maiden name Plame. However, by this time Wilson himself has given an anonynmous interview with with the Times' Kristof on the Nigerian yellow cake buy, so it could have circulated that way. Miller had miswritten the name "Flame" on the , showing it had passed by word of mouth BEFORE talking to Libby if the 'discovered' notes date that early. The INR memo got aboard Air Force One with the president, Rove, Powell, Rice, Fleisher, others on 7.7. En route over the Atlantic, Rice and Fleisher both call contacts at the Washington Post and the New York Times "to make it clear that they no longer stand behind Mr. Bush's statement" in the SOTU speech,as the Times would report it, the first concession of fact hyping to make war. (From Roger Morris)

Posted by jones at 10/16/2005 @ 03:39am
Even if Rove goes to jail, our problems aren't over. It's not like he was carrying the Republican Party on his back. Every time the Republicans seem to be staggering the year before an election, they are still able to put together a campaign that produces a result like November 2004.

Here's what people have been saying [taxwisdom.org] about The Republican Nemesis, the James Kroeger article that explains what the Republicans have been able to do to us so successfully, time after time, with or without Rove. If you're a Democrat, it's an absolute must-read.

Posted by Linette at 10/16/2005 @ 05:01am
CONNECT ALL THE DOTS... This allows the reader to see the clear role that Zionists/AIPAC/Israel played in pushing the US to do its bidding, to attack Iraq and to prevent all dialogue with Iran. The New York Times was directly involved at the highest levels in creating propaganda AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF US CITIZENS, which is a Federal Crime. They did so on behalf of the country where their loyalties lie, which is not ours.

The Public's Right to Know All About Judith Miller by Ahmed Amr www.dissidentvoice.org October 11, 2005

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Oct05/Amr1011.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A57595-2004Sep2?language=printe r

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/02/politics/02pentagon.html?pagewanted=1

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/9566768.htm?1c

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/472577.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/morris07272005.html

Mr. Bolton was Mrs. Miller's regular partner in Iran & Iraq. Mr. Bill Keller knows of their entire relationship and it is no secret to them.

"Valerie Flame", in the Arabic alphabet 'P' is sounded as an 'F'. The key conversations may indicate the man who won't be named is Bolton and that Chalabi wrote the name since he is arabic (He has no jewish ancestry nor is he from palestine)

Mr. Bolton gets around. He lied flat-faced if he says that he was not involved in the MET operation on Lybia. He also was involved in A.Q. Khan's network most directly through CIA Agent Frederick Fleitz. Mr. Bolton may have strongly opposed anything to do with Brewster Jennings, since he stated Fleitz had found them discouraging the war evidence in relationship to Lybia and possibly Iran, not to mention what we know is proven on Iraq.

The reason this is true is the last part of the story: During a critical period of time in 2002, most likely from May through June, the Administration was planning an agenda to invade other countries directly after Iraq was on the table. Mr. Bush had written in this in memos, most likely at the order of Mr. Cheney. The memos which deal heavily with any investigation of WMD trail back to Downing Street where they were first released in January 2003.

"George Bush told Tony Blair shortly before the invasion of Iraq that he intended to target other countries, including Saudi Arabia, which, he implied, planned to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Mr Bush said he "wanted to go beyond Iraq in dealing with WMD proliferation, mentioning in particular Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan," according to a note of a telephone conversation between the two men on January 30 2003.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1592807,00.html

Therefore the purpose of AIPAC's effort, whatever it had been, was to influence WHIG to create standards for invading these countries before Tony Blair had even decided upon the invasion in Iraq.

With that you can assume Cheney for his meetings in June, had intended to not only dismantle Brewster Jennings but all agents associated in order to allow the MET group headed by Bolton....To find evidence, distribute documents and materials which would fully justify the invasion of each country. Like a game of chess, they moved into position.

First Iraq. Then Iran, Lybia, Pakistan. At one point also Saudi Arabia. And from there Cheney's central target or AIPACs most likely target of Syria.

A world map is a war-game. And the WHIG played along as the Pawns and Bishops.

Posted by plunger at 10/16/2005 @ 08:27am
For a prize-winning journalist and self-proclaimed "expert" on unconventional weapons, Judy Miller sure has a difficult time remembering why she wrote certain notes or who gave her certain information. You would think she would have documented these important details at the time of her conversations with Libby (and others) or immediately after - especially because Joe Wilson undercut Miller's own pre-war reporting, Libby was apparently a frequent source, she presumably deals with details on a regular basis, and she now says she encouraged her editor to pursue a story about the White House trying to discredit critics. Perhaps she will find still another notebook that fills in the gaps (probably around the time she starts writing her book).

Posted by rickjones at 10/16/2005 @ 08:43am
I'm getting a feeling....a great disturbance in the Force.

At this point, I'd say it's 50-50....50% that Rove or Libby gets indicted and 50% neither do and Mr Corn writes a book in 2006 called "Some Dare Call It Treason" about the "unanswered questions" that "still haunt Karl Rove, though the MS Media has given up on the story."

IOW....Rove walks, but is eternally "under a cloud".

Posted by Mask at 10/16/2005 @ 09:17am
Is the New York Times itself perpetuating a lie?

"The nearly 6,000-word Times account says that notes Miller turned over to the prosecutor contain Plame's name, misspelled as "Valerie Flame,"

The New York Times, amid notations about Iraq and nuclear weapons, appear two small words: "Valerie Flame.". Miller should have written Valerie Plame."

What if in fact she had written her notes with the correct spelling as provided to her by the ONLY logical source who actually does spell Valerie's name with an "f"?

Which is most logical, that an award winning reporter misspelled such an important name, or that it was provided to her with exactly this spelling?

Now let's go back to the corporate disinformation being put out by the New York Times (mis)management:

They make the claim that the name was "misspelled."

They make the claim that it "should have been spelled "Plame."

Why are they making these claims?

If the source was Chalabi, and they know this, then their claim that the name was misspelled is a lie...because Chalabi did spell it with an F.

When they state that it "should have been spelled "Plame," they are saying that from the perspective of their own self preservation...meaning if Judith had spelled it "Plame," the evidence would not point directly to Chalabi as the source, and the New York Times as the co-conspirators in a coverup on a matter that led this country into WAR.

Do the RICO statutes apply to this organized crime ring?

Posted by plunger at 10/16/2005 @ 09:28am
That NYT provided such a knucklehead such a long leash is such a pity. What has Miller done to justify any respect, any belief that she is an intelligent reporter? Just give her a pad and pencil and some stuffed animals and let her conduct her own little kaffeeklatsch where she won't hurt anyone. And purge The Times now of anyone who had anything to do with this mess.

Idiots. Cowards.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/16/2005 @ 09:41am
"Out West," Libby had written, "where you vacation, the aspens will be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them."

Scooter Libby's cryptic admission of press manipulation raises additional questions from news consumers that honest journalists covering WDC ought to address for their readers.

Some of my questions are how difficult is it to cultivate new sources of information within the WH and other branches of our government?, how constrained or vulnerable do you feel you are when interviewing a source who is high on the food chain?, and how would not having access to a particular source impact your work? I have several others, but would appreciate a response from you, David, and others in your profession.

IMO, failure of journalists to address Libby's message lets stand a very cynical view of the press. A readership that is better informed is like healthy soil for strong roots to produce even better trees.

Posted by seattlescribe at 10/16/2005 @ 12:02pm
I see the virtual party continues, herewith my toast, the second after Leftofcenter, in the previous blog:

"In this periode of extreme historical mediocrity, of treason and shame, lets not forget to live.

Lets welcome the chaos by confirming with joy, our non participation to this world, in the way some have decided to destroy it.

Lets evolve at the speed of melody, without pleasing anyone, lets love while wispering at the ears of the traitors. Lets stop belonging to our owners, without stoping of cheering their clowns and enjoying their parades.

Lets be as the wind, lets be as the rain, without being afraid to blow away or get wet, It is the moment to live, because believe it or not, (and it is official), we are dying since the moment we are born. Salut

Posted by areyouok at 10/16/2005 @ 12:15pm
Cheesy [bluntedpurpose.blogspot.com] cryptic messages re: aspen trees. What's next, John Denver's plane crash?

Posted by Vic Perry at 10/16/2005 @ 1:16pm
Near as I can tell, the silly bitch is getting everything she deserves for laying down in that nest of vipers who started this war to begin with. That she is still called a journalist is only evidence of how far the standard has slipped in the last few years. LEt us not forget that she vociferously rationalized this war a few years ago. All her trevail is is a falling out among thieves, liars, and mass murderers. Let her burn. When you take a job with the mob, you'd best not be surprised when they make you a set of concrete overshoes.

Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/16/2005 @ 1:56pm
If I was the dictator / prime facilitator (of an open democratic nation,) I think that I would shut down the NYT on principle (at least give them a major time out in the corner to think about what is so wrong with mis-representing current events to give their corporatehood cronies advantage over the people) and set an example for the rest of the media establishment.

Message: No one is untouchable.

Posted by rob.olywa at 10/16/2005 @ 2:01pm
Judith Miller served a sentence protecting sources that never would have protected her. The fact that "Scooter" would have released her one year earlier, should have been made public by Scooter or Miller. Miller should have told all. She served 89 days for nothing.

Martin S. Friedlander, Esq. www.freedompost.typepad.com

Posted by msf31538 at 10/16/2005 @ 2:15pm
Of course, it goes without saying that one must have been careful reading the Times at any moment--today's articles

Am I the alone in having been fantastically naive about the relationship between a reporter and her/his editor? From my contacts with my local paper, I assumed that absolutely nothing was printed that had not passed a rigorous test by the departmental editor, if not, in truly important stories, the editor-in-chief or publisher. How many of the other NYT headliners had the same free reign to present and have printed unsubstantiated articles? It's enought to make me sympathetic to the rightwingers who attack the paper of record.

And given Miller's inability to take clear notes (it seems clear the Miller is schizophrenic), perhaps we should be on the lookout for an administrative mouthpiece whose name might by Scottie Bibby. Or Ludie Liddy. Either of these fellers might have loose lips on the topic of Victoria Wilson.

Might as well just give Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich the front page. At least they are entertaining.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/16/2005 @ 2:44pm
Just forget the words "today's articles". I had to get up to take laundry out of the dryer and neglected to delete them when I returned them to the computer. Let's hope Fitzgerald doesn't quiz me on their meaning.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/16/2005 @ 2:46pm
Question: Who at the CIA ordered an investigation into the leaking of Plame's identity as an agent? It is simply standard protocol, or did someone have to stick out his/her neck? If someone had to set the ball in motion, who was it and what's the story?

Posted by rob.olywa at 10/16/2005 @ 3:15pm
What worries me most is that even if both Rove and Libby are prosecuted it does little to diminish the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) or the White House Iraq Group WHIG's ultimate goal of American hegemony by force of arms across the globe. The first part of the plan was to forge ahead with Iraq, which they pulled off with the much needed help from the corporate media.

What ever their final goal, after reading New York times columnist Frank Rich's latest Op-Ed "It's Bush-Cheney, Not Rove-Libby" and the article below, I'm convinced that in the not too distant future, and in an effort to revive Shrub's anemic poll numbers and to fulfill their plans unabated, George Bush our scripted, card board, bellicose, usurper "n" chief, the PNAC puppet, he will have yet another bull horn moment. Once again, scaring the be-Jesus out of most American people. I do hope I'm wrong.

GIVING DEMOCRACY THE BIRD By Ted Rall Tue Oct 11

Bush Asks Congress for Martial Law

NEW YORK--Soldiers brandishing automatic weapons, a defining characteristic of life in Third World dictatorships, have become commonplace at airports, bus and train stations, government offices and highway checkpoints since 9/11. Now troops are becoming our first responders to situations, such as natural disasters and flu outbreaks, which normally fall under civilian jurisdiction.

Everything's gone topsy-turvy: The National Guard, charged with keeping order here at home and legally under the control of state governors, has been shipped off to Iraq and Afghanistan, shanghaied by the federal government. Here in the U.S., whatever comes up, the Bush Administration's first reaction is to send in the regular army troops who are supposed to be in Iraq. Whether it's a sinister plot against American democracy or the most sustained large-scale foolishness in history, the Bush Administration is tearing down the traditional wall between overseas military action and domestic law enforcement.

Creeping militarism leapt into full view with Bush's October 4 request to Congress to repeal the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits the use of the military in domestic policing except for the purpose of quelling a revolution. Citing the theoretical possibility that Asian avian flu, now only transmittable from bird to human, could mutate into a human-to-human form, Bush said: "If we had an outbreak somewhere in the United States, do we not then quarantine that part of the country? And who best to be able to effect a quarantine? One option is the use of a military that's able to plan and move. I think it's an important debate for Congress to have."

Overturning Posse Comitatus would allow troops to break into houses and apartments and sweep the streets for flu victims, and forcibly contain them in Guant�namo-style camps. They could seal off cities or whole states. These extreme measures could also be deployed against U.S. citizens after hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, or even election disputes--whenever and wherever a president decides they are necessary.

Bush laid the groundwork for his assault on Posse Comitatus on September 26, when he explained his decision to unleash the 82nd Airborne upon Hurricane Katrina-devastated New Orleans: "I want there to be a robust discussion about the best way for the federal government, in certain extreme circumstances, to be able to rally assets for the good of the people." The Louisiana National Guard, meanwhile, was stuck in Iraq.

"The translation of this is martial law in the United States," said Dr. Irwin Redlener, associate dean of Columbia University's School of Public Health and director of its National Center for Disaster Preparedness. Redlener called Bush's proposal to deploy troops on American soil an "extraordinarily Draconian measure." Even Gene Healy, senior editor at the right-wing Cato Institute, said Bush's proposal would undermine "a fundamental principle of American law" that "reflects America's traditional distrust of using standing armies to enforce order at home, a distrust that's well-justified."

All this over avian flu, which to date has killed fewer than 100 people worldwide.

Travel to other countries and you'll find that a society's freedom is inversely related to the number of guys wearing camouflage, brandishing big guns and pulling people over at roadblocks. Blurring the distinction between policing and soldiering, as do the military police in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia and Middle Eastern countries like Syria and Jordan, is a defining characteristic of repressive states.

Civilian cops may be rude or even abusive, but they're not supposed to shoot you without a good reason. You're their boss, or at least they work for the mayor you elected. Not so with soldiers. Military troops are responsible only to their chain of command, which is likely to end thousands of miles away in Washington. They shoot sooner and quicker than cops, and they have much bigger guns. Regimes that use the military to maintain order tell their citizens: do what we tell you, or else. They rely upon violence rather than tacit consensus to stay in charge.

Rule under the point of a gun is not democracy.

James Pinkerton of the New America Foundation argues for efficiency over freedom. "When you absolutely, positively, have to get something done right away," he writes in USA Today, "you call in the military. By their very nature, men and women in uniform are oriented toward getting things done. They are trained to complete their mission, or die trying. And as Hurricane Katrina made clear, the rest of the government doesn't hold to such a high standard. So why not the best?"

Federal agencies muffed Katrina because of inadequate budgets and mismanagement, not because they're intrinsically incompetent. Moreover, there's little evidence that militarizing domestic functions makes the trains run on time. The military controls everything from road construction to trash collection, yet Pakistan remains a nation that suffers from systemic corruption, a staggering drug problem and crippling disparity of wealth--not to mention an endless low-intensity civil war. Most European democracies, by contrast, enjoy a higher standard of living--and more efficient government--than the U.S. And they do it without pointing automatic rifles at flood victims lining up for food and water.

But what if military dictatorship could be proven a more efficient form of government than old-fashioned democracy? What if a standing army could do what a bunch of namby-pamby bureaucrats can't? Would it be worth it?

That's the choice George W. Bush is asking Congress, and thus us, to make. The fact that he hasn't been impeached for daring to ask it highlights the dictatorial tendencies of those who share his contempt for personal liberty.

Posted by Munich at 10/16/2005 @ 6:00pm
I don't fault the Times as much as others do; heavy lies the head that wears a crown. I find it astonishing that the profession of journalism has reached the point where it must analyze itself and then go public. I think that the missing pieces of the story relate to the fact that Miller wrote a series of pieces supporting the presence of WMDs, and she was just as resentful of Joe Wilson as Libby and his boss were. My guess is that Miller and Libby did some joint grumping about Wilson; the protected information is not what Libby said to Miller but what Miller said to Libby.

Posted by had enough at 10/16/2005 @ 7:46pm
Miller says in her piece that she assumed, from what Libby told her, that Plame was a "staffer" at CIA, not a covert agent. Why would she assume that? Why did she imagine that Libby was bringing Wilson's wife into the conversation to begin with? Why did she write ANYTHING down about Wilson's wife if she didn't know that it was going to turn out to be extremely important that this wife worked for the CIA?

Miller is so full of crap. I hope that Fitzgerald does find a way to get her on obstruction of justice, since it is absolutely transparent that she has made every possible attempt to obstruct justice.

Also, if the June 23 notes got lost for a while, or were undiscovered and then discovered, how many other notes are also conveniently forgotten?

I'm wondering if, once the indictments come out and trials begin and Miller now must face a regular jury in a regular trial, with all sorts of testimony coming out and being published as they are uttered, if Miller and others will be as successful as so far in their attempts to cover up.

This dwarfs Watergate in importance.

Posted by lockerh at 10/16/2005 @ 8:09pm
I find it interesting that neither story made my "national issue " of the Times on the West Coast

Posted by hgordon6 at 10/16/2005 @ 8:19pm
The criminalization of conservatives, as William Kristol charges in the National Review, is the result of the criminal activities of the conservatives.

The outing of Ms. Plame by the conservative "Benedict Arnolds" serves as l�se majest� by the Bush Administration; right alongside the lies about Iraq's WMD and the war created based on these lies.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Ms. Miller indicted as well; she probably should be.

c'est le commencement de la fin

Posted by oraibi1952 at 10/16/2005 @ 8:49pm
miller is full of crap is a delicate way of putting it. on the large-idea-front she gets all uppity about protecting her sources as a way of showing her committment to the "independent" 4th estate. all the while being a completely uncritical mouthpiece of bush's lies. eww.

on the gossipy front a friend told me she was having an affair with chalabi. my source on this shall remain nameless, but they are kind of "in the know". i'm wondering if this is old news? anyone else hear anything similar?

Posted by dabar at 10/16/2005 @ 9:42pm
Robert Bennett, Judith Miller's lawyer, assured prosecutor Fitzgerald that Miller had only one source, prompting the agreement that Fitzgerald limit his questions to her before the grand jury. But now, Miller writes that she can't recall the source who gave her the name Valerie Flame. She claims the "Flame" reference is in a different place in the same notebook used during an interview with Libby. The implication is clearly that the source was other than Libby.

Now, either Bennett was not being straight with Fitzgerald on a single source and should be disciplined for doing so, or Miller lied to Bennett. Because Miller now implies that there were additional sources, Fitzgerald should recall her for further clarification. In any case Bennett's and Miller's stories don't jive and they should be pressed by the NY Times to clear up this discrepancy.

Posted by ptboya at 10/16/2005 @ 10:49pm
Judy Miller used her position as a NYT reporter to cheerlead for the impending war, and to promote the war. She was not misled by her sources: She knew exactly what she was doing. If the war had gone well, she would have gotten away with it. Even though the war has gone very badly, she got away with it until very recently. And as David Corn's account makes clear, the NY Times administration protected her for years. Miller has been tied in with the neoconservatives in recent years, as Juan Cole makes clear in a recent essay. The only bright side of the whole miserable affair is that the NY Times has had its reputation seriously damaged, and for very good reason. The upshot is that NYT readers may be skeptical in the future if another NYT reporter discovers WMD in Iran, "according to senior Administration officials".

Posted by NevadaNed at 10/17/2005 @ 12:35am
Would one of you please explain what instant run-off voting means.I just read in an Op Ed piece that passing laws to allow "instant run-off voting" would be the only way to put a spine in the Dems. I'm all for that but don't know what they are talking about with the run-off thing.

Posted by BusyHands at 10/17/2005 @ 01:51am
if Colon Powell is allowed to lie to U.N. to start a war without being subjected to punishment (and he is a high ranking officer,as is Myers )then i can we attempt to punish the likes of Miller (whom i would rank up there as a traitor ,along with the entire administration). Where is the Justice ,We are lucky Ashcroft is not pursuing this fiasco.It is time for a special prosecutor to start the impeachment process on Cheney and Bush.Myers lied about 911 .

Posted by abell at 10/17/2005 @ 06:16am
ABELL

Amen, clear, clean, direct realities, I agree.

Posted by areyouok at 10/17/2005 @ 06:26am
BUSYHANDS,

This should help, clearly explains IRV, with a good example of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_run-off_voting

Posted by Mask at 10/17/2005 @ 06:57am
What became clear to me reading the Sunday NYTimes Miller accounts is that Judy Miller is still carrying Scooter Libby's water, just as she did when she was his voice in the Times for the myth that there were WMD.

The telling clue was that Libby's lawyers, meeting with Miller's lawyers, disclosed that Libby had told the Grand Jury that he did not disclose Valerie Plame's name -- a signal that Judy Miller should not testify to the contrary, and she was willing to go to jail rather than do so.

The fact that she went to jail rather than expose Libby's perjury shows she fears retribution from the Bush/Cheney gang more than she fears Fitzgerald. It took Miller close to 3 months in jail to figure out how to slide around the question without contradicting Libby's perjury. Now she conveniently "is not sure" how she learned about Plame.

Posted by afischer at 10/17/2005 @ 08:03am
PTBOYA, I agree with your 10:49pm post. If Bennett's agreement with Fitzgerald was based on his representation that there was only one source, he should haul Miller back in, and tell Bennett the agreement is no more.

In any event, I agree with Zero. The Times should can her.

Could be an interesting week.

Posted by Hman23 at 10/17/2005 @ 09:27am
Scooter, Rove, the Hammer: Can it be that Bush is now a Plame duck president?

Posted by lockheed99 at 10/17/2005 @ 10:14am
I do not want to be sensationalistic, but maybe Scooter, Rove, Cheney and co are trying to hide a cosnpiration: see this link, but be aware, this is only at the hypotetical stage:

physics911 [physics911.net]

also dont forget Operation Northwoods to consider it would not be the first time the "inner enemy" tried to conspirate, and finally, it seems to me that "Wag the dog" is becoming a reality

Posted by areyouok at 10/17/2005 @ 11:00am
Let's not forget the New York Times is a business and it's fantasy to think they are more interested in the truth than they are in their own survival. When Judy's lies were printed, this country was on its way to war, justified or not, with fervent support from many quarters in the post 9/11 environment. The paper is also based in a city that was recently attacked, and could hardly take a pacifist stand. Add in the scandals and consistent criticism they'd suffered, and you can easily see why they would make it a point to "explain" the hawks' position. It should come as a surprise to no one familiar with the facts that there was no editorial oversight involved, as that position was supported with no hard facts, only a few driplets of spywork and a handful of wacky informants. It was a bunch of innuendo, but it had to be included. What were they going to do, run BUSH ADMINISTRATION LIES (AGAIN!) as their headline once a week for three months? Sometimes the news is not fit to print.

Posted by MyParadigm at 10/17/2005 @ 12:12pm
Comrades! Are we not getting exercised about the unresponsiveness of a horse long known to be dead? The New York Times is a very useful newspaper for many purposes, but it is always grinding one axe or another, whether in search of profits, polishing its oracular self-image, or improving the weltanschauung of its readers.

All the news that's good for us is what they really print, and if some of it is now and again so new it never happens in our lifetimes, well, that's part of the price one has to pay for being a tutelary deity, and the Times will bravely ante up. After which we will be treated to the requisite ponderous soul-searching.

Posted by dmaclknapp at 10/17/2005 @ 12:32pm
MBB:

Probably not as blue as the relatives of the 39 civilians who were killed in yesterday's U.S. bombing in Ramadi. Of, course, only the names are different anyway, right?

The rest of your post is juvenile in its simplicity. Miller was a part of the propaganda machine. Whether anyone in the heartland read the NYT or not, her reporting was sourced in countless other papers and news stories across the country. Nobody thinks that Wilson's piece alone would have stopped the war, or that Miller was solely responsible. And nobody is hoping for failure in Iraq. That sort of argument is made all the time by you guys and is ridiculous. If your favorite team's coach makes a blunder in a game, you criticize the move, but you do not hope your team loses so you look right in the end. Same thing here.

Posted by Hman23 at 10/17/2005 @ 1:36pm
MARYBRETBRAD's quote from a Wall Street Journal columnist includes the words "after Saturday's successful constitutional referendum in Iraq." I guess the fact that they're still counting votes doesn't work against this fellow's idea of a "successful" democratic process.

If this kind of logic is how "success in Iraq" is judged, we have already failed.

The preliminary results, reported with astonishing speed by our Secretary of State, indicate that the constitution will be approved. I wonder if Dr. Rice actually waited for any word from Iraq. It would nearly impossible for approval to fail, since the document is weighted against Sunnis, rejection requires a two thirds majority in three provinces, and Sunnis only have that kind of majority in two.

We may eventually see something resembling democracy in Iraq. After a civil war.

Posted by MyParadigm at 10/17/2005 @ 2:30pm
Myparadigm: Marybretbrad is a Typical right wing phony. If there's a vote in say, Cuba, then it's a vote at gunpoint (and this from a country that has never removed its own military base Guatanamo from a sovereign nation). Cuba has statist problems to be sure, but any vote taken outside of another nation's oversight is more legitimate than anything imposed upon that country by an outside party.

But here comes the United States conservative phonys, tens of thousands of troops on the soil of another country, positively dripping with the blood of its population, thousands of its own children dead or maimed in the course of its fraudulent effort, talking about democracy. The earliest thinkers of democracy 2500 ago would never have been as phony as these bastards we live under now, the Greeks knew they were an empire, and though often guilty of defending the needs of that empire and its elite from the "excesses of democratic practice", would never have pretended something other was going on. That's how backwards these bastards who run us are, they're not even as advanced as Socrates or Plato. That's how far back they've taken this country. They lie, they steal, they kill, and they call it democracy. Well, as CLR James once warned us, it's useless to call them fascist, because the truth is they're getting ready to show us that Hitler and Stalin had nothing on our new bastards. Anyone who doubts needs to remember the callous triaging of New Orleans, just weeks ago.

Fuck their staged Iraqi vote. In another month, nay, another week, all the numbers in staged voting will be purely academic. Then they'll offer us some other Christmas morning for us all to wait for. The hard, cold truth is, no vote taken in a country occupied by a murderous superpower is worth shit. And they know it.

Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/17/2005 @ 2:48pm
It appears the NY Times is allowing Judith Miller to take it down, just as America has allowed the Bush administration to take the country down. I'm not as interested in the subtleties of her obvious collusion with WHIG. I'm more interested in who at the Times is allowing this type of collusion and why.

Posted by firstbeach at 10/17/2005 @ 3:21pm
"Why" is a pretty juicy question. People who do as Miller and her editors chose to do in connection with the Iraq atrocity don't think they're going to take the NYTimes down, but they do have the arrogance of the professional classes. Very often in times of national duress, they often assume that a totalitarian juggernaut will go just so far, and no further. W. Churchill, dumb as he is in other areas, was quite correct to call this mentality "little Eischmanns", after Hannah Arendt (and Arendt would have known, having witnessed M. Heidegger's own decay in that regard during the Hitler years). Often those in the privileged classes believe they can hem it in, and Miller was no exception to the rule, nor were her editors. Hell, they've done this sort of thing around the Palestine question for years, why should more of the same around Iraq be any different? Well, it blew up in their faces, and now we're expected to weep for their stupidity, which is rooted in arrogance. I say it serves them right.

Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/17/2005 @ 3:38pm
MaryBretBrad--Would you support your description of Wilson's NYT op-ed as disingenuous, preferably without quoting "someone" you heard say that Wilson was the most dishonest person in Washington? Also I hope that your response doesn't focus on saying that he claimed he was personally send by Cheney, which is clearly not what Wilson says in his op-ed. I'm just curious what your justification for attacking Wilson is.

And with regard to the amount of truth in the two paragraphs you quote, my answer is "about as much in Judy Miller's WMD reporting". But the again, I'm no more of a soothsayer than your Taranto, so why should I have any more claim to know the future than he?

Matthew

Posted by matthewg at 10/17/2005 @ 4:12pm
FRANKGRITS:

The Bush junta will recover from this, or they will invoke martial law. It almost happened as a result of the Iran-Contra affair (funny how the same people are involved), and frankly I am surprised it didn't.

Posted by jorcheim at 10/17/2005 @ 9:30pm
FRANKGRITS:

If the Lynndie England trial is any indication, not nearly enough.

Posted by jorcheim at 10/17/2005 @ 9:51pm
FRANKGRITS:

I agree, it is substantially bigger. All the more reason I believe this will be handled on their part with unrepentant truculence.

Posted by jorcheim at 10/17/2005 @ 10:03pm
FRANKGRITS:

I would relish such a day. It will never happen. Hate to piss on your parade.

Posted by jorcheim at 10/17/2005 @ 10:13pm
Still something like 85% of Republicans think Bush is doing a good job. And they're still the ones in power. Really creepy, isn't it? Isn't this the type of situation that leads to revolution?

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/17/2005 @ 10:23pm
TJBEHRENS1:

Agreed. Hence my comment to OKSG on one of the other boards.

Posted by jorcheim at 10/17/2005 @ 10:28pm
FRANK, stop pulling punches. What do you really think?

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/18/2005 @ 01:33am
You're wrong, and you're wrong. Death in Iraq and as a result of Islamic Extremism and lack of democracy, war was inevitable.

Strange how these factors haven't force war to be "inevitable" in other countries, for instance, Pakistan.

It seems likely to me that you misrepresent yourself. I doubt you're a physics student. I've known quite a few, and none as clueless as you.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/18/2005 @ 01:37am
http://www.sobran.com/fearofjews.shtml

On Judith Miller - Does the New York Times have a Conservative Bias? 2003-05-12 16:30:29

By Paul K. MacDonald (Casus Belli) May 4, 2003 A fascinating new article by Daniel Forbes highlights the links between Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter who received notoriety for her shocking scoop on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program entitled "Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert", and the Middle East Forum, a conservative think tank run by Daniel Pipes. Miller is listed as one of the Forum's "Experts on Islam, Islamism and the Middle East" and has spoken at events sponsored by the Forum. Pipes, of course, is a controversial Middle East commentator, who was recently nominated to the board of the United States Institute of Peace despite the objections of many Muslim American advocacy groups.

When it was originally published, Miller's article was criticized, notably by Jack Shafer of Slate, for not being forthcoming about the nature of her cooperation with military officials and the reliability of her sources.

Conspiracy theorists will see the obvious linkage -- Miller shares Pipes conservative opinions on the Middle East, and therefore she wrote a biased piece that claimed to have new a scoop about Iraqi WMD even though her information was incomplete and unsubstantiated. That would be a serious claim, one that would require more research both into Miller's reporting techniques and the nature of the connections between Miller and the Middle East Forum....

*****/

Answer to above question: yes. Except it isn't "conservative", its "neoconservative." They've hi-jacked the name along with everything else. See National Review editor Ramesh Pornuru's "Why Conservativers Are Divided" on Monday's Times Op-ed piece 10.17. �05. Neocon Zionist factions in editor's waterclosets across the nation.

The only force that doesn't seem to be afraid of the Jews is God. Here comes Wilma. Until the lying and denying what was behind the "get Joe Wilson" shtick ("not good for the Jews, what he's saying") stops the destruction of America will continue. Who got blacks to riot against neo-Nazis in Holy Toledo I wonder?

Libby's letter to jailed Judy was clear: "blame it on Rove, and you can come back into the neocon fold and get work. He's not one of us, and everybody hates him anyway." Well, she didn't. Now they're stuck.

Posted by jones at 10/18/2005 @ 06:26am
I gotta say the NY Times may be as "neutral" a medium as I've ever heard of...why?

Well, the Hard Right seems to hate it (Limbaugh, Hannity, etc still refer to it as a "house organ for the Democratic Party")...and the Hard Left seems to hate it (as it's "covering up the 'Plame-gate' story").

So, if one end of the political spectrum thinks it's biased...and the OTHER end thinks it's biased...wouldn't that be a good indicator that it's NOT biased?

Posted by Mask at 10/18/2005 @ 07:13am
mask, why it's so simple

what a talent you have to make everything come out alright

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/18/2005 @ 09:26am
MBB,

I could be confusing your post with that of someone else, but I think you have made these same points before, had them shot down, bided your time, and now returned. Wilson, at this point, is not the issue. If he's guilty of lying, then let him be indicted. The issue is that the President's men were apparently incapable of addressing Wilson's "lies" with their own "facts". Instead, they sought (I like the word) to undermine him like little school girls spreading the word that so-and-so has cooties. Criminal behavior--who knows at this point. But it's just a little embarrassing.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/18/2005 @ 12:29pm
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

"I did not intend to disclose classified information"

If you're affected by what Rove said, you're probably part of the national security apparatus of the United States of America.

If you're affected by what Clinton said, you're just a pervert who's way too interested in what other guys are doing with their pants down.

This is why we discriminate between "lies" and "damned lies". Clinton is a liar, fine. But Bush and his gang are damned liars.

Posted by MyParadigm at 10/18/2005 @ 12:41pm
The administration you support, Marybretbrad, is conducting an illegal war on the other side of the world, and has used the most backwards machiavellian techniques to achieve its ends. A government made up of pathetic liars and losers, it stands in the tradition of all the great liars and losers of history: George the Third, Napoleon the First, Nicholas the Second, and now Junior Bushleague. Clinton was ridiculous, but the only thing more ridiculous is those among us who insist on regulating the genitals and freeing up the robber barons. I'd tell you to get a life, but the fact of the matter is that you and your friends have made life awfully expensive, so I can understand why so many of you don't have one.

Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/18/2005 @ 1:10pm
MBB:

Why don't you save your breath. You do not know all of the facts. What facts we do know you have often misstated, or ignored others. You do not know who is going to be charged, if anyone. You do not know what the charges will be. One of two things can happen. One, nobody gets indicted. Yes, you will most likely gloat on that limited aspect of good fortune. However, for many, an indictment and conviction is not the threshhold that should have been adhered to. That is the bar people like you (and now Bush) have tried to set. Two, indictments are handed down. At that point, we will begin to see what the alleged facts are, and maybe we will all have a debate about the case, which you will likely zealously advocate for the defense. Given your stance on Clinton, if the charges are obstruction or perjury, we do not expect any more of your bullshit, unless of course, you are a hypocrite.

Posted by Hman23 at 10/18/2005 @ 1:30pm
The game was as follows:

Create a set of circumstances around which a story could be spun (usually through false intelligence created by Cheney's little shop of whores, especially Chalibi). Feed it to Miller, who ran it by her boss to let him know that this one was "for the team."

Write the story. Get it "approved" by Rove and Libby. Get her Times Boss to approve it as the above-the-fold lead, and then coordinate the timing of the story with the White house so that Carl was standing at the ready to put it to maximum use.

Their photo-ops, and too cute quotes were always magically available, at the ready, as soon as the Times broke the news. Cheney and others had their talking points written before the stories even hit the paper.

Cheney's team would feed this phony stuff to the Times, then turn right back around and quote them as the reliable source for the story that he had fed to them himself.

This goes all the way to the top of The New York Times, and every other Mainstream Media company.

Investigate them all. CNN's Wolf Blitzer in particular.

The Master Strategist has to have been Rove throughout. Remember how Bush described him at his acceptance speech...simply stated:

"The Architect."

Just think how wealthy you could make all of your friends if you knew tomorrow's news - today. When you are in the news creation business, and every headline has a dramatic ability to move oil prices and markets, a well oiled conspiracy could make billions.

Could anyone be defined as more "well oiled" than Cheney?

Watch for an increasing number of distractions to hit the news in the coming days, as these manipulators strive to keep the public from learning of their transgressions by flooding the news cycle with all manner of "bad news."

Queensborough Bridge on fire. Baltimore Tunnel Closed. New England Dam set to break. Hurricane pending.

Life is good in the "change the subject" business today.

Posted by plunger at 10/18/2005 @ 1:33pm
MBB:

In addition, you state that "The White House claimed Iraq sought uranium." This is patently untrue. For example, look at Nichols' latest blog for one example from Cheney: "We know Saddam Hussein's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

A little more there than "sought." I am sure there are others relating to the whole "mushroom cloud" b.s. that we were sold.

Posted by Hman23 at 10/18/2005 @ 1:37pm
MBB - Stop with the "undisputed fact" bullshit. The only undisputed fact is that you are completely up the ass of this administration and will go to any length to willfully misunderstand, ignore, or trivialize any criticism while engaged in desperate CPR to keep various pro-administration arguments and justifications alive.

Posted by Fishbite at 10/18/2005 @ 1:48pm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/ Central_Asia_watch/ Is_Iran_Next.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/green02282004.html

The Neocon Timeline:

http://litbmueller.blogspot.com/ 2005/ 05/ lawrence-franklin-case-possible.html

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/The_thwarted_Iraqi_110303.htm

A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm

http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/cheney.htm

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/cheney_s_secrets.html

What Do We Learn about Fred Fleitz from the Bolton Testimony?

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/ the_next_hurrah/ 2005/ 09/ what_do_we_lear.html#more

Posted by plunger at 10/18/2005 @ 2:00pm
Miller did what her employers wanted her to do...take us into war and discredit any who might stand in the way of the mission. Her employers included the Ownership of the New York Times, and the White House Neocon (Zionist/AIPAC) cabal that worked directly for Cheney to manufacture false intelligence upon which to justify an invasion of Iraq.

Remember the letter from Libby to Miller which clearly included a coded message about the clusters of aspen trees being connected by their roots?

Think about the most popular use of the word "Roots" in the United States. It was a movie, called "Roots" and it was about "ethnic heritage."

It cracks me up to watch the likes of Chris Matthews and all of his guests dancing all around this issue without any of them having the nerve to dare mention that the common heritage of these individuals is that they are Jewish.

Why is this such a forbidden topic? The owner of the times is Jewish and most of the Neocons who faked the intelligence that led us into war are Jewish. AIPAC, which is presently being investigated for espionage in the Larry Franklin spy scandal is an Israeli organization.

IS THERE AN ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM?

C'mon people, this is America. Can we not discuss the obvious without fear of reprisal?

I was booted off Congressman Conyers web site merely for insisting that he and his Administrator define "anti-Semitism" since I was in fact being accused of it merely for stating the obvious.

The roots that connect them is their Zionist Neocon agenda. What is a neocon? Who are they? Look at the signatories to the PNAC Agreement. What country do they act on behalf of?

Define a neocon - and you will see that there was a conspiracy between the interests of big oil and the interests of Zionists to take America to war.

This is just blatantly obvious - yet everyone is compelled to politely dance around the issue.

Speaking of dancing... Google:

Posted by plunger at 10/18/2005 @ 2:04pm
You're right about Wilson. He committed no crime. So you'd rather waste your time on someone who did not commit a crime as a distraction from those who might have. If the White House wanted to discredit Wilson, they could have addressed his "lies". You seem to believe that this would be no problem since there is no greater liar currently operating in the District, right? Also, they could have had the CIA say that he was working beyond the parameters of their investigation and that the results of his findings had no official stamp of approval. But what they apparently chose to do was what they so often do: attack him personally, in this case, emmasculate him. Point to the Mrs. and say that Joey could have done nothing without her position.

There is no one-hand-other-hand thing. Yes they should check for facts, but if those facts turn out to be classified, well, whaddaya think? But they can't resist spreading the poop. They're addicted to the stuff.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/18/2005 @ 3:48pm
Indisputable Fact: Joe Wilson is a discredited liar.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 10/18/2005 @ 12:08am

```````````````````````````````````````````

Sweet Jesus! Spare the world your asinine, dishonest drivel! The Bush White House has committed murderous treason against our great country and they deserve to pay the price. They are guilty! What outcome other than treason could be expected from something spawned by the repulsively dishonest, self-serving "Republican Party"? The only thing you're able to come up with to counter that growing realization is childish whining about Democrats who are guilty of littering, cursing, and jaywalking. Another sad end for the Republicans but they will only get what they deserve for their reprehensible criminality.

Posted by fromredbird at 10/18/2005 @ 6:14pm
I have just been watching Chris Mathews with David Gergen and Pat Buchannan as well as the Washington Post and they have said some things that just are not true. Valerie Plame, nor the CIA for that matter did not send Joe Wilson to Niger. Wilson was not in the CIA but was a diplomat. If he was sent he had to have been sent by the State Department, or the President or Vice President, He says he was sent by Dick Cheney and there is no reason to not believe this. Obviously, at that time, Dick Cheney believed that Saddam was getting yellowcake. Wilson knew before he left that this was not the case but he went anyway. When he returned he realized that this false information was going to be used to validate an illegal war of aggression and quit. Joe Wilson was a contributer to The Republican Party and was in no way a radical until his wife was outed in retaliation for his not turning in a false report. Also it is not conceivable that Bush did not know about the attack on Valerie Plame and acceded to it.

Both Arthur Sulzberger and Judith Miller were tight with the neo-cons in the administration and The New York Times was one of the advocates for war against Iraq. I do not believe that Judith was protecting any leaker, I believe that she went to jail for Arthur Sulzberger. His protective attitude was the reason for his elevation of Judy to the status of a defender of the right to not name a source. With the investigation coming up Judy was safer in Jail, and so was Arthur. I have no inside information, but do have an inquisitive mind that sent me Googling for information on the net. Judy has been a funnel for the administration leak machine for a long time, and both she and Sulzberger are definitly neo-cons. There are other neo-cons in Congress, both Barbara Feinstein and Leiberman are Democratic sleepers for the Israelis. Feinstein's husband is Blum, the founder of the Carlyle Groups and the largest stockholder in the militay industrial complex business.

John H. St.John 8810 Delrose Ave. Spring Valley California 91977 ph 619-589-6433 st.johnj@cox.net

Posted by Gramps at 10/18/2005 @ 6:27pm
Last Gasp Before the Indictments? Miller's Confession By MIKE WHITNEY

If you plan to read Judy Miller's long and circuitous apology in the New York Times Sunday edition, bring your hip-waders. The obfuscating manure is knee-deep and bound to stymie even the most curious reader.

Miller's a slippery customer, but a picture is slowly developing of someone who was deeply involved in White House maneuverings to discredit Joseph Wilson.

It's clear now that Dick Cheney's right-hand man, Scooter Libby provided Miller with the name of ex-CIA agent Valerie Plame. Plame's name appears at least twice in the notebook Miller used when she interviewed Libby although she pretends that she cannot remember whether or not he furnished the name.

It's also clear that Libby tried to coerce Miller into silence by dispatching his lawyer, Joseph Tate, to tell Miller that she "was free to testify" but that Libby "had not told Ms. Miller the name or undercover status of Mr. Wilson's wife." In other words, Libby lied to the Grand Jury and was signaling to Miller to shut up. If Miller told the truth she knew that Libby would go to jail and the administration would be exposed as plotting to disgrace Joseph Wilson.

Fortunately, Miller got tired of her role as 1st amendment martyr and decided to testify. That prompted Libby to send her a frantic letter which stated that "the public report of every other reporter's testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity with me." Libby was informing Miller as clearly as possible that she was the key figure in the investigation and advising her not to spill the beans.

Miller had a problem though, she had no way of knowing what the other reporters had said to the Grand Jury and she also had to weigh the possibilities of being indicted on perjury or obstruction charges. So she did what most people would do in her situation; she tip-toed through the questioning "denying and forgetting" as much as possible.

It's beginning to look like Miller is the pivotal figure in investigation and her role could be the undoing of the Bush regime. In one telling comment, Millers notes that (2 days before Robert Novak's article appeared in the Washington Post exposing CIA agent Valerie Plame) "I MIGHT HAVE CALLED OTHERS ABOUT MR WILSON'S WIFE".

Really? Two days before Novak's earth-shaking article Miller was giving out Plame's name?!?

This suggests that Miller may have been the ONLY reporter who got Plame's name from Libby and then spread it around to everyone else. No wonder Libby's so worried. That puts Miller at the very center of the Bush administration's biggest nightmare. Miller already admitted that Libby had told her that Plame "worked at Winpac. Winpac stood for Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation, and Arms Control, the name of a unit within the CIA that, among other things, analyses the spread of unconventional weapons." (NY Times)

That's an odd thing to confide in a reporter if it's not intended to start a "leak". Remember, Miller never even wrote a story about anything she gathered from these private interviews with Libby.

So, what was her role? Were they just friends having a casual conversation or was she a mule for the information that the White House wanted to disseminate about Wilson?

Libby also asked Miller to have the Times refer to him as a "former Hill staffer" rather than "a senior administration official" in stories written about Wilson. He obviously didn't want it to seem like the administration was carrying out a personal vendetta against Wilson.

No problem. The administration makes a request and the New York Times carries it out forthwith. One hand washes the other.

The question remains, though, why the cover-up? Why would Libby care what the papers call him if, as he claims, he wasn't doing anything wrong?

The larger question is, however, where did Libby get Valerie Plame's name? The only person who would have had access to classified CIA information like that would have been his boss, Dick Cheney.

Ah-ha!

Cheney presided over a secret group of administration hawks known as the White House Iraq Group (WHIG). Their mission was to promote the danger of Saddam's WMD and discredit those who tried to mitigate the danger. The biggest part of their strategy was to exaggerate the threat of Saddam's imaginary nuclear weapons program. The administration knew through their own polling data that the American people would support a preemptive war if it appeared as though Saddam had nuclear weapons. So, it was incumbent on them to make the case.

Wilson's op-ed piece in the New York Times, challenged the administration's conclusions about Niger yellow-cake uranium, and undermined the claims about Saddam's nuclear capacity. So, Wilson had to be destroyed.

Miller, who had served as the conduit for most of the administration's phony stories about biological weapons sites, mobile-weapons labs, and aluminum tubes for nukes; was the logical choice to start the smear campaign against Wilson. Her role was to spread the "classified information" to her sources in the media who would, in turn, discredit Wilson.

Libby has done his best to protect Cheney from being implicated, saying that the VP didn't know anything about Wilson, but the claim is absurd. As Jason Leopold notes in Raw Story, "Cheney was present at several of the WHIG's meetings. They say Cheney personally discussed with individuals in attendance at least two interviews in May and June of 2003 Wilson gave to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof and Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus, in which he claimed the administration "twisted" prewar intelligence and what the response from the administration should be." ("Vice President's Role in outing of CIA agent under Examination", Jason Leopold)

Leopold's article also points out the cozy relationship between the Miller and the members of WHIG prior to the Iraq war. After Miller had written her damning article about aluminum tubes in Iraq that could be used as centrifuges in nuclear weapons (a story that was later discredited); Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush and Rice swung into high-gear, flooding the Sunday talk-shows and citing the story as proof that Saddam's nukes would ultimately engulf America in a "mushroom cloud".

The media's disinformation-campaign must have been coordinated with Miller and key members of the Bush administration. The plan worked flawlessly. Clearly, both Miller and NY Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger were intimately involved in manufacturing the fraudulent evidence that dragged the nation to war. Neither has ever expressed any regret over the role they played.

Libby's Caveat

Ironically, Libby's cryptic comments to Miller may turn out to be the best summary of the ongoing investigation. He said, "Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them."

Yes, and if Libby goes down, so will Cheney, Rove, Card, Rice, and perhaps even Bush, because "their roots connect them".

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com

PS Miller is a natural-born liar. She met Libby at a rodeo in Jackson Hole, a few miles from Cheney's home while Cheney was on vacation. What a coincidence!!

PPS As to the discrepancy between Libby's purported account to Miller and the facts, Miller was again lying about believing that Plame was only an analyst. She knew damn well that she was a WMD covert agent and passed that info on to Robert Novak who outed Valerie Plame as a CIA Operative while Miller crawled back under her rock.

Posted by cdifrances at 10/18/2005 @ 9:08pm
Good post Gramps.It really is amazing what you can learn surfing.Someone on here said they don't know why king george and his merry men haven't been impeached.They own the whole ball of wax that's why.If we had a balanced congress it would be a possibility. MASK THANK YOU FOR LINK TO RUN-OFF VOTING.Lots to read there.

Posted by BusyHands at 10/19/2005 @ 03:58am
BUSY,

Happy to help

Posted by Mask at 10/19/2005 @ 07:10am
I cannot understand why the MSM has NOT brought up the name of Chalabi in this whole mess. Chalabi is one of the key players because he gave information to the WH (Cheney) and Pentagon regarding WMD and that is why we went to war. Judith Miller is also complicit because she dealt with Chalabi when embedded in Iraq with our military and that is why the name "Flame" appears in her notes because that is how Chalabi pronounces it.

The only mention of the Chalabi connection so far in the MSM was on 60 Minutes with Lelie Stahl. According to the transcript Chalabi is to visit Washington this month which was approved by the White House. Is this timing of the Chalabi visit just coincidence? Sure looks like it because Fitzgerald will end his investigation very soon.

The fact that Chalabi is now Deputy Prime Minister and Oil Minister stinks to high heaven - the neocons have accomplished their mission.

Posted by osprey at 10/19/2005 @ 10:09am
OSPREY:

"the neocons have accomplished their mission"

Yes, the world is doomed.

Posted by USAPRIDE at 10/19/2005 @ 10:27am
CDIFRANCES wrote:

"Miller is a natural-born liar. She met Libby at a rodeo in Jackson Hole, a few miles from Cheney's home while Cheney was on vacation. What a coincidence!!"

This is the impression I had as well. However, last eve (oct18) on PBS's "Charlie Rose", Robert Bennett (J Miller's attorney) stated that it was Dick Cheney she met at the rodeo. Did he misspeak, or was it actually Cheney Miller met at Jackson Hole?

Posted by erichwwk at 10/19/2005 @ 11:01am
Karl Rove is a man of integrity. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Today we're at war with Eastasia. We've always been at war with Eastasia. Westasia is our ally. Tomorrow we're at war with Westasia. We've always been at war with Westasia. Eastasia is our ally. Ignorance is strength.

Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/19/2005 @ 11:10am
Osprey they haven't accomplished their mission (control of oil) yet.The surrounding countries won't give up that easily and I don't think the Iraqiis will either.Most of them know that oil was the only reason for the war.It's only the brain washed right wing of America that falls for the "noble cause" bullshit.The right politicians know the truth it's just their followers who have to have that idealistic noble cause.How else could they justify the mass slaughter that's been going on?

Posted by BusyHands at 10/19/2005 @ 3:24pm
Correction:Not only the right politicians--ALL the politicians who voted to go to war KNEW they were invading for oil.If they would have put that much money and energy into developing alternatives to oil we would have no fuel problems and all those dead kids would be home with their families living their dreams.

Posted by BusyHands at 10/19/2005 @ 3:29pm
Mary you really need to read something besides your conservative propaganda news pieces.I've heard that the Times is pretty neutral.I say that because the right says it's a left paper and the left claims it to be a right paper so it must be in the middle,right? Anyway try something besides straight "right wing" publishers for some info on the Plame case.You might be surprised.Why you would protect someone like Rove I can't figure out.Isn't he the one responsible for the lies about Senator McCain? McCain's a good man but was smeared with some ridiculous lies during the primaries in 2000 by Rove.

Posted by BusyHands at 10/19/2005 @ 3:36pm
I know we went there for the OIL why else would we be building permanent bases. Chalabi is installed as Oil Minister that proves it to me. The neo cons won what they set out to do

From the Oct 2, 60 Minutes Transcript Regarding Chalabi

"And now the Americans, recognizing his clout, are embracing him again. The White House has even approved his going to Washington for consultations later this month"

Posted by osprey at 10/19/2005 @ 3:45pm
CDIFRANCES wrote:

This is the impression I had as well. However, last eve (oct18) on PBS's "Charlie Rose", Robert Bennett (J Miller's attorney) stated that it was Dick Cheney she met at the rodeo. Did he misspeak, or was it actually Cheney Miller met at Jackson Hole?Posted by ERICHWWK 10/19/2005 @ 11:01am

Perhaps not. I'd say they were all on a day trip from Cheney's mansion. Libby spends lots of time there and Cheney likes to entertain his friends.

Posted by cdifrances at 10/21/2005 @ 05:57am

David Corn

Washington--a city of denials, spin, and political calculations. They may speak English there, but most citizens still need an interpreter to understand its ways and meanings. DAVID CORN, the Washington editor of The Nation magazine, has spent years analyzing the policies and pursuing the lies that spew out of the nation's capital. He is a novelist, biographer, and television and radio commentator who is able to both decipher and scrutinize Washington.

In his dispatches, he takes on the day-by-day political and policy battles under way in the Capitol, the White House, the think tanks, and the television studios. With an informed, unconventional perspective, he holds the politicians, policymakers and pundits accountable and reports the important facts and views that go uncovered elsewhere.

Check out David Corn's latest book, (co-written with Michael Isikoff and now available in paperback), Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown Publishers). For information, visit his personal blog at davidcorn.com.

Photo Credit: Michael Lorenzini

CIA Leak Scandal: Judy Miller and the Times Speak

posted by David Corn on 10/16/2005 @ 12:16am

David Corn

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation

CIA Leak Scandal: Judy Miller and the Times Speak

posted by David Corn on 10/16/2005 @ 12:16am

Share this article

David Corn

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation