Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Will any Times reporters have the courage to dig deeper into Judith Miller and Scooter Libby's you-scratch-my-byline and I'll-scratch-your-policy relationship?

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Judy's Liaison Dangereuse

By Arianna Huffington, AlterNet. Posted October 5, 2005.


Will any Times reporters have the courage to dig deeper into Judith Miller and Scooter Libby's you-scratch-my-byline and I'll-scratch-your-policy relationship?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Arianna Huffington

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Judy Miller returned to the New York Times newsroom on Monday, and modestly told her colleagues: "I am very, very proud to be able to say that I got things that no other journalist has ever gotten out of a process like this."

Things like what? A jailhouse visit from John Bolton? Or from Simon & Schuster super-editor Alice Mayhew? Did she really think this grandstanding was a good way to curry favor among her fellow journalists?

But despite the fact that she sloughed off Scooter Libby's assurance that he had given her a waiver a year ago as White House "spin," the curious whodunit release of the Libby-Miller letters [PDF] may yet prove to be the tipping point among those of Miller's colleagues who are still on the fence about her. As one source put it: "The Scooter-Judy liaison dangereuse exposes how, during happier times between them, the darkest heart of the Bush administration was able to beat freely on the front page of the world's most important paper, with no hard questions asked."

Like O.J. promising to hunt down the real killers of Ron and Nicole, the Times once upon a time (a year and five months ago, to be exact) promised "to continue aggressive reporting aimed at setting the record straight" about the paper's miserable coverage of the Iraq WMD story.

The question is, will any courageous Times reporters take up that challenge and dig deeper into Miller and Libby's you-scratch-my-byline-and-I'll-scratch-your-policy relationship? Even if it means leaving the Times?

Here are a couple of places they may want to start digging:

The aluminum tubes story. Clearly Libby was not the only source on this Miller-promoted distortion of science and intelligence, but it would be good to know if he was one of the anonymous "Bush administration officials" she cited in her Sept 8, 2002 story "U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts," which contained the memorable line (from one of those aforementioned administration officials): "The first sign of a 'smoking gun,' they argue, may be a mushroom cloud." Or is it just a coincidence that on the very day that story appeared, Dick Cheney, Libby's boss, went on Meet the Press and brought up the Miller story -- which conveniently allowed him to talk about information that otherwise would have been too classified for him to mention? "There's a story in the New York Times this morning," the Vice President said, "it's now public that, in fact, [Saddam] has been seeking to acquire...the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge."

The Soviet Smallpox story. Remember this one? It was Dec. 3, 2002. In it Miller pushed the story about "an informant's accusation that Iraq obtained a particularly virulent strain of smallpox from a Russian scientist." The scary story, which cited a number of "senior American officials," was based on information given to the CIA by a single, unnamed informant. It later turned out that there was absolutely no basis for the informant's story. It's interesting to note that at the time this Judy special appeared in the Times, Cheney and Libby were deeply involved in a struggle with the administration's public health officials. The Vice President wanted to expand the nation's smallpox vaccination program. Miller never mentioned whether her administration sources had a dog in the smallpox fight. How key a source was Libby on this story? Doesn't this deserve some of the Times' promised aggressive reporting?

No wonder Libby wrote in his letter to Judy: "Your reporting, and you, are missed."

P.S. Oh, she also told the Times that "she was uncertain whether she would write her own account, either in the newspaper or in a book." Two questions: (1) Does she really, really, think anybody will believe that? (2) If she intended to maintain her completely selfless pose a little longer, she simply should have refrained from talking to her friends about her $1.2 million book deal because, as she herself proved last week, people talk.

Digg!

Read more Arianna at the Huffington Post.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
"you-scratch-my-byline-and-I'll-scratch-your-policy relationship?"
Posted by: WhatNow? on Oct 5, 2005 4:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Arianna, I'd love to scratch your byline if you'd scratch my policy. :-)

Some people consider this whore a hero? Dan Rather lost any prominence he had over a mistake yet some are trying to portray judy as something good. Rather made a stupid error and paid the cost. judy intentionally has been misleading people and the korporate news has the gall to try to proclaim she has done something honorable by trying to withhold a confidential informant.

I despise judy and her ilk that are supposed to be journalists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Still missing the real story
Posted by: Thxs1138 on Oct 6, 2005 12:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sadly all this talk of Miller misses the real Plame issue. During war time someone within the White House leaked the identity of a CIA operative.

This act of treason resulted in the closing down of 20+ year CIA covert operation that investigated WMDs and gathered intelligence and monitored WMD related activities aroudn the world.

Through this sanctioned disclosure a CIA front company was exposed and shut down and the world learned some of how the CIA operates. The world also learned, friends and enemies alike, just who might be a CIA operative.

This "someone", best described as an enemy agent and at the very least a spy, is still in the White House and still has access to the most sensitive information.

How many US soldiers have died because this person is still passing classified information? How many other CIA operatives have not only been outed but killed in the field because of this person? There is a spy working in the White House RIGHT NOW and he has the full support of the President. Does anything about Judy Miller matter in light of this very real story?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

adp3d
Posted by: adp3d on Oct 6, 2005 3:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe I'm just underinformed, but Arianna is the first journalist that I know of that holds Ms. Miller in the same low regard as I do. Just this past Sunday Bob Schaffer(sp?), gushed about the principles she was upholding, blah, blah...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Its the Principle, Stupid!
Posted by: nosylae on Oct 6, 2005 8:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Principles. Does anyone remember what they are? Even if they are used for the dark side, it is still the principle that she and everyone defending her, is standing up for.

The good principle of free speech allows hate groups like the KKK to hold public rallies and parades.

Who can pick and choose the situation a principle is applied to? That's the main problem of liberals - they want it all with no sacrifices, no give and take.

Either stand up for something or sit down and shut up - oh wait, you've been doing that for the past 10 years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No it isn't. Posted by: brunowe
» Yes, it's the Principle ... Posted by: AdamSelene11726
Time for a new principle
Posted by: chaoslegs on Oct 6, 2005 9:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There should be a new journalistic principle. If your anynomous source has been proven wrong, then you get to name them. That allows you to transfer the egg from your face to theirs and will discourage (I know just dreaming) the manipulation of the press by the power people.

To use the right wing's own language, it is about accountability, you lie, we expose your for the liar you are, just plain and simple.

Of course another big problem is that there needs to be real investigative journalism to help expose the lies, but start with this simple principle and it could make a nice change in the media.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Time for a new principle Posted by: Thxs1138
Journalists always forget they are citizens first
Posted by: expatjourno on Oct 6, 2005 10:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What surprises me is how it's not just Judy Miller who thinks she's some kind of Joan of Arc, it's the consensus of the mainstream journalistic community. They've all forgotten they are citizens first and that the leakers of Valerie Plame's identity have directly made us all materially less safe from weapons of mass destruction, have made it more difficult for intelligence services to recruit qualified people and, since the cover of every one of Plame's sources was blown, have made sources less willing to help us. Why risk a bullet in the back of the head by talking to someone like Valerie Plame when your secret could be blown as political payback?

We will never, ever know the damage that this leak cost -- intelligence agencies never reveal this sort of thing because it would further compromise national security. And Judy Miller and her colleagues, by not coming forward, helped the leakers not only get away with this but helped them stay in power for another four years, during which it can be assumed they will treat national security in a similarly cavalier fashion.

It's a pretty simple equation: which hurts the country most, revealing the identity of Valerie Plame or revealing the identities of the people who betrayed her, thereby possibly keeping them from doing something like it again? Too bad there isn't a single news organization in the country and very few reporters that can make this basic calculation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fitzgerald charges...
Posted by: Thxs1138 on Oct 6, 2005 8:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...Miller and Cooper under Chapter 37 of the Espionage and Censorship Law. But no charges for White House staffers and none for Robert Novak. That's my prediction. Its just a feeling but to be sure Libby and Rove will dogde charges in this case.

When Sun Tsu said "...keep your enemies closer" I don't think he meant put them in the White House. He knew what happens when you put foxes in charge of the hen house.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Judy is just one of pro-Izraeli activists
Posted by: transatlantyk on Oct 12, 2005 10:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
J. Miller is just one of countless activists. It is not a coincidence that the most active and vicious Iraq - bashers were Jewish: from Wolfowitz, Feith and Perle to Adelman, Brooks, Miller and Kristol, to name just a few. If scratching your head why we are in this Iraqi/terrorism mess, consider that majority of informed people around the world have little doubt about that: Israeli partisans control American foreign policy and mass media. Power of this lobby shuts down any debate about the main (and stated by terrorists) cause of 9/11, which is occupation of the West Bank with US money and arms. 9/11 in turn was grabbed by the Lobby as an opportunity to destroy the most dangerous enemy of Israel - Saddam's Iraq. This fifth column must be exposed to prevent further damage to our treasure and life. Manipulation of intelligence and public opinion that went into this Iraqi enterprise is nothing short of treason of historical proportions.. Sure there were others involved: primarily imperium-builders/oil securing corporate types and political opportunists like our puppet Head. For the mass media overwhelmingly owned and staffed by the Lobby a nice bonus was economic value of the reality show entitled War. And if somebody wonders how could have seemingly civilized Germans attempted the Final Solution - just look how anti-Semitism is born in front of our eyes. To paraphrase: Never in the history of the mankind, so many across the world did not suffer so much for so few (fanatic settlers) to gain so little (land and water of the West Bank). Sure, there will be still plenty to deal with, but you cannot make any progress in "war on terror" without decisively addressing that glaring injustice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]