The Judy chronicles

are up at NYTimes.com.

I’d say the lead is buried:

She also plans on taking some time off but says she hopes to return to the newsroom.

Place your bets on whether she ever returns for another bylines after this one.

Update on this angle: Raw Story reports that Miller is taking a leave.

“Judy is going to take some time off until we decide what she is doing next,” Times’ spokesperson Catherine Mathis told RAW STORY Saturday afternoon.

RAW STORY spoke with Miller by telephone at the New York Times newsroom in Washington Friday evening. She said that she had not previously been questioned about her plans going forward, and deferred extended comment to her publicist.

Reporters who have flacks? I think matter just met antimatter.

: The other lead from the Times chronicle: Miller wrote down “Valerie Flame” in her notebook but insists she doesn’t remember where or who that came from.

It’s a straightforward piece that speaks frankly. Again, I’ll wait for others who have followed this more closely than I have to give me the better analysis.

The summary of the juicy bits — the nutgrafs, as we say:

Interviews show that the paper’s leadership, in taking what they considered to be a principled stand, ultimately left the major decisions in the case up to Ms. Miller, an intrepid reporter whom editors found hard to control.

“This car had her hand on the wheel because she was the one at risk,” Mr. Sulzberger said.

Once Ms. Miller was jailed, her lawyers were in open conflict about whether she should stay there. She had refused to reopen communications with Mr. Libby for a year, saying she did not want to pressure a source into waiving his confidentiality. But in the end, saying “I owed it to myself” after two months of jail, she had her lawyer reach out to Mr. Libby. This time, hearing directly from her source, she accepted his permission and was set free.

“We have everything to be proud of and nothing to apologize for,” Ms. Miller said in the interview Friday.

Neither The Times nor its cause has emerged unbruised. Three courts, including the Supreme Court, declined to back Ms. Miller. Critics said The Times was protecting not a whistle-blower but an administration campaign intended to squelch dissent. The Times’s coverage of itself was under assault: While the editorial page had crusaded on Ms. Miller’s behalf, the news department had more than once been scooped on the paper’s own story, even including the news of Ms. Miller’s release from jail.

Asked what she regretted about The Times’s handling of the matter, Jill Abramson, a managing editor, said: “The entire thing.”

The story leaves open questions about why Miller would not contact her source, Scooter Libby, to get his blessing for her testimony … and then, after dragging the paper into jail with her, she did. The story also has her admitting that her WMD coverage was wrong, but hiding behind sources she does not name.

The theme I’ve heard echoing out of the newsroom — a theme covered by Jay Rosen — is that Miller had the paper wrapped around her q-a-z- finger:

Inside the newsroom, she was a divisive figure. A few colleagues refused to work with her.

“Judy is a very intelligent, very pushy reporter,” said Stephen Engelberg, who was Ms. Miller’s editor at The Times for six years and is now a managing editor at The Oregonian in Portland. …

In the year after Mr. Engelberg left the paper in 2002, though, Ms. Miller operated with a degree of autonomy rare at The Times.

Douglas Frantz, who succeeded Mr. Engelberg as investigative editor, recalled that Ms. Miller once called herself “Miss Run Amok.”

“I said, ‘What does that mean?’ ” said Mr. Frantz, who was recently appointed managing editor at The Los Angeles Times. “And she said, ‘I can do whatever I want.’ ”

Ms. Miller said she remembered the remark only vaguely but must have meant it as a joke, adding, “I have strong elbows, but I’m not a dope.”

Miller remains clueless about reaction to the tempest around her. Upon her return to The Times:

At a gathering in the newsroom, she made a speech claiming victories for press freedom. Her colleagues responded with restrained applause, seemingly as mystified by the outcome of her case as the public.

“You could see it in people’s faces,” Ms. Miller said later. “I’m a reporter. People were confused and perplexed, and I realized then that The Times and I hadn’t done a very good job of making people understand what has been accomplished.”

She blames her sources for getting WMDs wrong, Libby for going to jail, and her editors — who stood by her at cost to them — for her unheroic welcome. In a phrase: what a case she is.

: REACTION: PowerlineBlog on Miller’s story: “…a low-comedy conclusion to a low-comedy investigation.” Jay Rosen is on the case; expect that wine when it’s time. Blog posts are pouring in.

Kos reaction here.

: Keller’s statement to the paper.

: And for those who don’t know, here’s a link to my full disclosure. I consult for a division of The Times Company.

: Compare and contrast: This from 1115.org:

Judy Miller 2004:

“You know what,” she offered angrily. “I was proved fucking right. That’s what happened. People who disagreed with me were saying, ‘There she goes again.’ But I was proved fucking right.”

Judy Miller 2005:

“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.

: Frederick Ide compares and contrasts two more quotes:

“……at this point in time I do not recall just who said that….” John Dean–Watergate

“…I said I believed the information came from another source, whom I could not recall…..” Judy Miller–Traitorgate

: Arianna’s reaction is up:

The first question raised by the Times’ Judy-Culpa and by Judy Miller’s own account is: Who told Judy about Valerie Plame (or “Flame” as the name appears in Judy’s notes)? According to these two pieces, the name was immaculately conceived. “As I told Mr. Fitzgerald, I simply could not recall where that came from,” Miller writes.

: The Left Coaster:

So now we know that Miller is still hiding her second source from Ftizgerald, and both the paper’s Executive Editor and its publisher were willing to let a single reporter take the paper’s legacy and reputation into the toilet without knowing what for.

: In the having-no-shame department:

Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter recently released from jail after serving 85 days for protecting a confidential source, presented an award Saturday to perhaps the most famous confidential source – the man who was known as “Deep Throat.”

The award presented by the California First Amendment Coalition was accepted by the grandson of former FBI Associate Director W. Mark Felt because the 92-year-old could not make the trip to the conference at California State University, Fullerton.

: Raw Story with more newsroom atmospherics:

Conversations with nearly a dozen Times reporters revealed a scarred landscape of discontent. Few reporters were willing to go on the record, but none who spoke with RAW STORY said they supported Miller. Many voiced worries that the paper’s editor, Bill Keller, was sacrificing his own integrity to protect her.

“I think they’re looking at him in wonderment, and hoping he can figure a way out of this,” one veteran reporter said. “Because he’s in a real bind.”

“Part of the fear is that there’s a sense that he might not know very much, but he’s been forced by circumstance, and possibly by the publisher, to become a cheerleader rather than the newsman.”

“I think that pains him greatly,” the reporter added. “He is a news guy, he’s one of the best, and to be in a circumstance where he’s trapped, and he’s carrying somebody else’s water, and he can’t let the newspaper do what it does best–which is run with a story–has to be agonizing for him.”

: Rosen’s initial reactions are up:

First of all, I give credit to the Times for running the story a few days after they felt the legal clearences were had, for giving readers a look inside the organization, for airing uncomfortable facts–including internal tensions–and for explaining what happened as well as they felt they could. This was a very difficult piece of journalism to do.

: Here’s Howard Kurtz’ story: very straightforward summary of The Times. I await the followups.

: Frank Rich writes about Plame but — o, irony — I can’t get into TimesSelect.

: Uniongrrl whews:

I just want to personally thank my friends who saved me from making a fool of myself by unconditionally supporting Judith Miller when she went to jail “to protect her First Amendment rights.” I mean, I almost bought the T-shirt!

: IN THE MORNING: Joe Gandelman has another good roundup.

: ROSEN’S ESSENCE: Jay boils it down to eight succinct graphs (make no jokes about his long posts; all those led to this):

Maybe the biggest mistake the New York Times made was to turn decision-making for the newspaper over to Judith Miller and her “case.” This happened via the magic medium of a First Amendment struggle, the thing that makes the newspaper business more than just a business to the people prominent in it….

It never seems to have registered with Arthur Sulzberger, Jr.–Miller’s biggest supporter and the publisher of the newspaper–that he was fighting for the right to keep things secret, not for the right to publish what had improperly been kept from us. By taking on Miller’s secret-keeping (uncritically) the Times took on more and more responsibilities not to speak, not to publish, not to report. All this is deadly for a newspaper, and the staff knew it. By the end the readers knew it and they were crying out. Even the armchair critics knew a thing or two.

So did Bill Keller, so did Jill Abramson. But there was nothing they could do. By the time they realized what Miller’s secrets had done to their journalism, Judith Miller–by staging a First Amendment showdown she escaped from–had effectively hijacked the newspaper. Her principles were in the saddle, and rid the Times to disaster, while people of the Times watched….

Read the rest.

I agree with Jay that one of the oddest angles of this story is Miller having secret clearance. So she knew secrets she could not share with her editors or certainly her readers. She thought she was in the business of secrets.

  • Pingback: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » The Judy chronicles

  • http://www.buzzmachine.com Jeff Jarvis

    I just took down a nonsensical comment that was a light year off topic. I think I’ll start doing that.

  • http://www.geniusnow.com Greg Burton

    As I commented on Pressthink, it seems to me the Times reporters came as close as they could to calling her an liar outright. The entire article has a feeling of barely surpressed rage, to me – the clipped sentences, every “she said” rebutted as immediately as possible. Sulzberger and Keller don’t come off a whole lot better.

    If there was ever a reason to doubt the Times, there is even more reason now. I don’t fault the reporters – it appears to be an organizational issue, starting at the top.

  • gfm975

    Those in the know say Judith Miller became to much to close to her sources and there just may be something to that idea.

    Interestingly, Judith Miller displays many of the same traits as that of George W Bush. Traits like clueless, stubborn, arrogance and being totally out of touch with the average person.

  • http://tomwatson.typepad.com Tom

    Judy buried the lead alright, but it has nothing to do with the New York Times (except that even now she seill lacks an editor willing to edit her work) – no, the buried lead is this:

    Before the grand jury, Mr. Fitzgerald asked me questions about Mr. Cheney.

    He’s going after Cheney….

  • http://www.buzzmachine.com Jeff Jarvis

    Yes, there are more leads buried here than there are bodies buried in the Meadowlands.

  • Pingback: Beltway Blogroll

  • http://blog.glennf.com Glenn Fleishman

    I’m glad you said it — I read the NY Times story and some of Miller’s terrible first-person account and thought, wow, she’s out of a job. They stood by her in principle, and now she doesn’t need them any more, it’s pretty clear.

    When Jill Abramson speaks out, you’re toast.

  • Geek, Esq.

    The “Valerie Flame” stuff is a mere distraction–that could have been written in the notebook months AFTER she spoke with Libby.

    Hard fact: According to Miller’s testimony, Scooter outed Valerie Plame to Miller as a CIA employee.

    What people are missing is that it doesn’t matter if Scooter said she was a CIA analyst, a CIA operative, or just a CIA employee.

    Once someone who is covert is identified as being a CIA employee, their cover is blown to bits.

    Also, Scooter is likely in a bit of perjury trouble as well.

    Miller is a disgrace.

  • Simka Schmidt

    There’s only one question now worth asking Judy Miller:
    “Ms Miller, would you lie to protect a source?”

  • Carol Herman

    Well, “she forgot” who told her the Flame/Plame/Blame/Game. So she sat in jail and got Alzheimer’s?

    How come I suspect Colin Powell as her super-duper secret source? Or, George Tenet?

    More interesting, still, is that I had thought the 9/11 Commission was useless. But they took a full 48 pages to debunk Joe Wilson. It’s not as if Fitzgerald can just go and try to “kill the king.” Failure to kill kings leads to much more trouble when you’re a prosecutor. And, you’re swimming with Ronnie Earle. What does a man do when he wants to protect his own reputation?

    And, yes, the Internet is doing a better job covering this story than the Major Marxist Media. Reminds me, did you see the woman in the canoe? Paddling away in ankle-deep water? And, it’s the president whose blamed for soldiers rehearsing how they’d pass the mike to one another, without anyone choking on the chord. Or going blank? Let’s see, Judith Miller (whom I suspect has just been fired) … goes blank in the Jury Room; with shades of Hillary’s “I Don’t Recall” … I guess the dems get a theme song as they exit?

  • David

    >Miller is a disgrace.

    It’ll be very interesting to see how the MSM covers this story compared to how they covered the Jason Blair story. They turned the Blair fiasco into a story about affirmative action painting most african american reporters as incompetent and suggesting they only had their job because of the color of their skin…so now it’ll be nice to see if the likes of Kurtz and Russert will go after a white woman with the same level of contempt. I doubt it.

    >And, it’s the president whose blamed for soldiers rehearsing…

    Nah we just hate the fact that the leader of the free world is such a moron that the only answers he can give are the ones fed to him.

  • http://bamapachyderm.com Beth

    take the paper’s legacy and reputation into the toilet

    It wasn’t already in the toilet? I beg to differ. Not that it has anything to do with the story, but really, Judith Miller isn’t the only reason for the Times’ reputation being in the toilet.

    And, it’s the president whose blamed for soldiers rehearsing how they’d pass the mike to one another, without anyone choking on the chord.(sic)

    I don’t suppose you’ve read a soldier’s account of the teleconference, have you? It wouldn’t fit with your “Bush is evil” view, would it? Bush didn’t “blame” anyone for rehearsing–the whole thing is blameLESS. Anything to bash Bush, regardless of reality, seems to be the only thing you’ve got. Guess I can see who the real “morons” are.

  • http://www.WILLisms.com Will Franklin

    Honestly, this is the most arcane, boring, hard-to-follow story I have ever not been interested in.

  • DJ

    Will Franklin,

    Hear, hear.

  • http://francispage.blogspot.com Chris Francis

    And to think I actually felt sorry for this woman, thought she was taking a principled stand.

    And for what? A name in a notebook and no recollection of who gave it to her. A series of laughable legal games designed to cover asses. A partisan urination contest.

    >>>”Interviews show that the paper’s leaders, in taking what they considered to be a principled stand, ultimately left the major decisions in the case up to Ms. Miller, an intrepid reporter whom editors found hard to control.”

    Well then, somebody should’ve GOTTEN CONTROL. This same paper had to write editors’ notes on her WMD reporting. Guess that wasn’t a big enough hint not to let this person run her own show.

    >>>”Within a few weeks, in one of his first personnel moves, Mr. Keller told Ms. Miller that she could no longer cover Iraq and weapons issues. Even so, Mr. Keller said, “she kept kind of drifting on her own back into the national security realm.”

    Sigh. Again, where was the control?

    >>>”The fact that Ms. Miller’s judgment had been questioned in the past did not affect its stance. “The default position in a case like that is you support the reporter,” Mr. Keller said.

    With a paper’s reputation on the line, maybe the default needs to change.

    >>> “”I didn’t interrogate her about the details of the interview,” Mr. Keller said. “I didn’t ask to see her notes. And I really didn’t feel the need to do that.”"

    I think that’s called putting on the blinders.

    What IS it with Times management? The cluelessness is off the scale. I simply cannot fathom how they allowed a reporter to leave them with egg on their face when a warning sign was clearly there. Management should’ve told Miller to lay all the cards on the table from the get-go. If I was her editor, and my paper’s reputation was on the line, I would want to be damned sure I knew what I was taking a stand for on my editorial page.

    The Times editors need to grow some spine, draw some lines, and quit letting loose cannon reporters take them down. Maybe that means firing people. I don’t know. But this much is true — the system of accountability has broken down at the Times and it’s the hard-working, by the book reporters — and readers — who are suffering for it.

  • Pingback: Dr. Weevil » Hermitic?

  • http://bamapachyderm.com Beth

    Honestly, this is the most arcane, boring, hard-to-follow story I have ever not been interested in.

    zzzzzzzzzzzz…..what? I fell asleep.

    They’re grasping at straws, Will & DJ; trying to create a scandal based on wishful thinking and ignoring those little technicalities called laws, that they only selectively read. I see the Kossacks still are under the delusion that this will be The Story That Gets Bushitler Impeached. ::yawn::

  • David

    >Honestly, this is the most arcane, boring, hard-to-follow story I have ever
    >not been interested in.

    The same can be said about Whitewater but that was used by the rightwingnuts to try to get the Clenis.

  • Ruefulreader

    >It’ll be very interesting to see how the MSM covers this story compared to how they covered the Jason Blair story. They turned the Blair fiasco into a story about affirmative action painting most african american reporters as incompetent and suggesting they only had their job because of the color of their skin…so now it’ll be nice to see if the likes of Kurtz and Russert will go after a white woman with the same level of contempt. I doubt it.

    David, superb connection. I, too, will be very interested.

  • David

    >zzzzzzzzzzzz…..what? I fell asleep.

    You’ll wake up soon enough when Dick is led out of the White House on a Scooter.

  • Naomi

    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. 3rd interview – 07/12/03

    Is this customary journalistic practice – phishing?

  • shark

    You’ll wake up soon enough when Dick is led out of the White House on a Scooter

    *SIGH*’

    You losers keep grasping at straws. You know when Bush and Cheney will leave the Whitehouse? WHEN THEIR TERMS ARE UP.

    In the meantime, you can get all your Joe Wilson confirmed liars, Judy Millers, Ronnie Earles, etc etc and try and wish as hard as you might, but your cherished dreams of the administration frogmarched out of the whitehouse simply isn’t going to happen.

    You moonbats should try to win an election instead of trying to criminalize those you disagree with

  • shark

    By the way Jeff, why do you care what the “facts” of this story are? Don’t you just care about the larger truths here? The lessons?

  • Jim

    Shark sez:
    You moonbats should try to win an election instead of trying to criminalize those you disagree with.
    Democrats did indeed win two elections in 1992 and 1996 and then had to spend most of those eight years fighting off Republican attempts to criminalize the victory (Travelgate, Whitewatergate, Affairgate, etc.) In the end, there was no there there.

  • Fen

    Affairgate? Oh, you mean where women who refused to have oral sex with the Executive were denied promotion, while those who acquiesed were given job interviews at Revlon? Where powerful liberal poster-boys were entitled to “one free grope” by NOW?

    Sexual discrimination, sexual harassment; perjury re, suborning perjury re, tampering with witnessing re… And you call it “affairgate?”. LOL. Thanks for reminding me that the Left was never serious about the Violence Against Women Act, Sexual Harrasment in the Workplace.

  • Fen

    David: “It’ll be very interesting to see how the MSM covers this story compared to how they covered the Jason Blair story”

    They’ll never report any exoneration of Libby, Rove, Delay. The damage is done, the smear is complete. Just like the dropped the Katrina “outrage” after we discovered most of their “facts” about New Orleans we unsubstantiated rumors, the results of the Plame investigation will drop off the radar when it no longer serves their agenda.

    The public will be left with another set of urban legends – of the kind that causes intelligent people to use the term “affairgate” when describing sexual discrimination/harassment 10 years later.

  • PSGInfinity

    Hear, hear, Fen!

    For a nothing affair, Ken Starr sure put a whole flock of Arkansan’s in jail. Or, is it nothing unless it’s a Repub?

    I’ve gotta admit, though, Bubba’s strategy was brilliant. By dragging out the L’Affair BJ, he diverted attention away from trading missile guidance technology to China for campaign contributions…

  • Fen

    …and chasing tang around the Oval Office while Al Queda plotted

  • Fen

    /edit confusing typos

    Just like [they] dropped the Katrina “outrage” after we discovered most of their “facts” about New Orleans [were] unsubstantiated rumors, the results of the Plame investigation will drop off the radar when it no longer serves their agenda.

  • Eileen

    Fen And Shark: Kudos and Bravo.

    The fatal error MSM continues to make is to think we’re all Stupid…malleable…subject to their manipulation and propoganda.

    By the time they wake up to the truth, they’ll be fully covered by their own tar at La Brea. I’ll visit their mummified remains at the museum and laugh.

  • Eileen

    Apologies for my misspelling ‘propaganda’.

    Jeff: I appreciate the fact you haven’t bought one line or the other re Miller. [Maybe - particularly as you're quoting Rosen.]

    But what Have you bought into in the meantime?

    A year ago you were talking about IraqtheModel.

    Today Iraq voted for its Constitution. Did you read IraqtheModel today, Jeff, much less post about it?????????????????????

  • http://uspolitics.about.com/ Kathy Gill

    I’ve thought Miller’s behavior odd from the get-go … but reading her first person account tonight left me speechless. So of course, I hit the keyboard!

    Seriously — from her agreeing to let Libby speak off the record as a “former Hill staffer” to her sloppy notetaking and appalling memory (does anyone really believe she doesn’t remember who she was talking to when she jotted down “Valerie Flame”?) — I kept thinking: this is a veteran New York Times reporter?

    I don’t see how Powerline can be so sanguine about this : assuming the Post got Libby’s testimony right in its story last month – at a minimum he could face a perjury charge (assuming you can perjure yourself in a grand jury situation).

    (disclaimer: NYT owns about.com, where I blog on politics)

  • Fen

    “I kept thinking: this is a veteran New York Times reporter?”

    We’re seeing more and more of this [thanks to the blogosphere]. Consider that Mary Mapes, considered “brilliant” by her peers, still doesn’t understand the evidence that outed her Memo Hoax a year ago [she currently uses the term "peripheral" instead of "proportional"]. Add to this the obvious journalistic incompetence of other names like Nick Coleman, Steve Lovelady, etc. You begin to wonder why you ever considered the media to be a professional class.

    There still are good reporters [Micheal Yon] out there, but I think Watergate elevated most to a position they don’t deserve. Look at how easily and routinely the “amateur” blogs fisk media “professionals”. I’m not trying to damn all reporters or outlets, but they need to start policing themselves better if they expect to regain any credibility.

  • Geek, Esq.

    “They’ll never report any exoneration of Libby, Rove, Delay.”

    Obviously, since there will be no vindication.

  • Fen

    Check the Houston Chronicle – Prosecutor using “fake but accurate” documents to empanel a GJ against Delay.

    And its looking like the “Rove Leak” investigation is centered more around CIA malcontents than Libby. If Rove/Libby get indicted, we’ll have Abu-Ghraib-like headlines carrying the story for another 3 months. If not, the media will dismiss any exoneration story as “tired” and move on to their next smear.

  • http://www.buzzmachine.com Jeff Jarvis

    Skate: Right. If only we had facts or knew what they meant. This doesn’t even get the facts of the Miller circus, let alone the rest. God knows where the truth is.

  • http://www.alevin.com/weblog Adina Levin

    Fen wrote:

    Just like [they] dropped the Katrina “outrage” after we discovered most of their “facts” about New Orleans [were] unsubstantiated rumors, the results of the Plame investigation will drop off the radar when it no longer serves their agenda.

    Fen, the unsubstantiated rumors were of rampant violence (murders, rapes). It is a fact that there were people in New Orleans after the storm who did not have enough food, water, sanitation, and basic medicine. Those facts aren’t in dispute.

    The media outrage wasn’t just about the looting, it was about the appalling conditions, and the speed of delivering basic supplies and rescue.

  • Ravo

    The media outrage wasn’t just about the looting, it was about the appalling conditions, and the speed of delivering basic supplies and rescue..

    But it was not Bush standing in the way of the people getting those supplies. Or Bush’s indecision which prevented the soldiers from being used to allow FEMA to distribute them – soldiers which Bush already had there, ready, willing, able and IDLE – for days.

    It was not Bush who stopped the Red Cross.

    The “media outrage” would have you believe otherwise.

  • Pingback: NussbaumOnDesign

  • Ravo

    Sorry – the italics quote shoud have stopped after “rescue”.

    Please bring back preview!!!!

  • EB

    the link for Howie doesn’t work ! it is blank.
    At least for me, it didn’t work.

    Thanks for all the links though, Jeff, much appreciated.

    (And yeah, I know how to go to the wash post to find the link, I am just mentioning it that’s all.)

  • http://robertdfeinman.com/society Robert Feinman

    Jeff, pay the $3.50 and buy a paper copy of the Times. Frank Rich’s essay is worth this all by itself.

    His point is that the story is about Bush and Chaney not Rove and Libby. The real story is the PR effort called (WHIG) that peddled misinformation before the war.

    It seems to me that the fact that Miller fell for this misinformation is unfortunate, but so, apparently, did 99 senators. So why take it all out on her? I thought the captain was responsible for the direction of the ship of state, not a reporter.

    Bashing the Times plays into the WHIG agenda. Newspapers don’t get every story right, especially on deadline, but deliberate misinformation by a secret whitehouse group is something of international import.

    How about spending a corresponding amount of time on this topic?

  • EB
  • kat

    Yeah, give Judith a break. If she reveals all her secrets, no one will want to buy the book she is sure to write. This Judith crap sells. If the truth comes out, there won’t be a story.

  • http://tomwatson.typepad.com Tom

    Both Reuters and AP waded through the “I am the story” Miller essay to find the real lead – and it’s about national security and the VP’s office.

  • David

    Keller must be kissing his lucky stars that Judy is not black and that he’s not from the south otherwise the MSMedia whores would be calling for his head. How can this guy still have a job while he let Judy run amok in the newsroom. Last time I checked Blair’s reporting didn’t get anyone killed.

  • Laurie

    Check out the website of your local public library. Many public libraries offer full text (including these “select” articles) of the daily NYTimes. All that is required for remote log-in is (usually) a valid library card for that library. For the Frank Rich op-ed articles, I simply log in to the database (in my case through a regional library network, and Newsbank) and put “Frank Rich” in the search box. No need to even know the title of the piece. Hope this works for you!

  • skip

    None of this makes sense yet. There must be more to this story.
    We still don’t know where the Yellowcake documents came from, and now we don’t know who was the primary source for Miller’s original Wilson info?

    Ask yourselves if it is even plausible that Cheney wasn’t in up to his neck in this. Or, in the case of the yellowcake and bad intel, maybe the Israeli intel guys spotted wheeling in and out of the OSP. It must be something very explosive indeed. Eyes are very wide open these days in DC.

    One assume the New Yorker will do a backgrounder on all this. And then Keller will be gone.

  • Sean Fitz

    I have a question (one raised by Jeff when he mentions Rosen’s piece)…

    Rosen says, “It never seems to have registered with Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. … that he was fighting for the right to keep things secret, not for the right to publish what had improperly been kept from us.”

    But isn’t that the case EVERY time a reporter goes to jail to protect a source? If so, when do journalists protect sources? Never?

    Many left of center commentators appear to be saying the following, “Protect your source – unless your co-workers disagree with your source’s politics… then it is okay to burn him.”

  • Sean Fitz

    Skip, actually most of it makes sense:

    1) As for the yellowcake documents, it doesn’t matter. Despite what Joe Wilson said (that he went to Niger and found that the documents were fake) the fact is that the documents came to light 8 months after Wilson went to Niger…one of Wilson’s many lies. The first intelligence service to vouch for the documents were the French…if you are looking for a source of the documents you can look there, but again, it doesn’t matter. The yellowcake documents have nothing to do with Wilson (except that he lied about them).

    2) YOu say, “Ask yourselves if it is even plausible that Cheney wasn’t in up to his neck in this.” Okay, I did. Yes it is possible that he wasn’t “up to his neck”.

  • Florence Schmieg

    Why does anyone listen to Frank Rich? His credentials for commenting as a so-called foreign policy expert are that he was the theatre critic for the NY Times. In fact, why do so many columnists at the Times feel they are experts in any field they feel like editorializing about (for example, Krugman who is an economist is always mouthing off about military affairs, etc).

  • David

    >His credentials for commenting as a so-called foreign policy expert are that
    >he was the theatre critic for the NY Times.

    Two words for you….Entertainment Weekly.

  • http://www.scoopstories.typepad.com Scott Butki

    Friday I was writing – pretending I was her judge and jury – that Miller should be stuck on a committee with Jayson Blair, Richard Cohen and Robert Novak – and taught again how to be a journalist. Lessons can be taught by Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame.

    That’s what I’d like to see happen.
    http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/15/194217.php

    After re-reaing today’s articles my opinion of her dropped still further and now she is sounding more incompetent and more of a liar:

    IF she doesn’t recall the name of her other secret source than how was she going to talk to that person again if she needed to? What if her editors asked the identity of her source other than Libby, which I thought was supposed to be the new practice post-Newsweek Koran scandal?

    Or is she just the journalism version of the guy in Sixth Sense who sees things. “I see sources… I just can’t remember who they are.”

    This is what I wrote up:
    http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/16/084511.php

  • http://www.scoopstories.typepad.com Scott Butki

    Sean, can you point to examples of what you’re suggesting?

    People’s problems with miller aren’t a matter of her sources politics so much as her being a stooge for people regardless of their politics.

    Slate pointed out the problems with her reporting here:

    http://www.slate.com/id/2086110/
    ——————

    Afterthought: Let’s pretend she does have another source whose name gave her Valerie Flame and that source is not Libby or Rove.
    Where does that leave things?
    Does that mean Libby was right to think she was in jail protecting people other than him?

    Is Fitzgerald really going to accept an “I don’t know” on something this big?

  • pilsener

    “The public has a right to know!”

    The public’s right to know obviously didn’t (and still doesn’t) extend to the full version of Judy Miller’s story. The Times’ own reporting today makes clear that Sulzberger, Keller, et.al. were perfectly willing to omit facts, engage in blatant spin, or simply strive for ignorance on what should have been an important story about the journalistic culture in D.C.

  • shark

    The real story is the PR effort called (WHIG) that peddled misinformation before the war

    As opposed to the blatant disinformation Joe “confirmed liar” Wilson was trying to peddle to prevent the war from happening?

    This is absolutely amazing. What we have here is a member of a faction in CIA (along with State) that was actively trying to scuttle the initiatives of the POTUS. By all rights we should be talking about Joe Wilson’s treason trial, not this inanity.

    This man is a liar. The Senate report exposed him as a liar. Why is he being allowed to skate?

  • http://uspolitics.about.com/ Kathy Gill

    Here’s Frank’s column – free of “select”
    http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/101605Z.shtml

  • http://uspolitics.about.com/ Kathy Gill

    Here’s Frank’s column – free of “select”
    http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/101605Z.shtml

    (yeah – you brought back preview!)

  • Pingback: Myopic Zeal :: Snow White and the Seven Gnomes :: October :: 2005

  • Pingback: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » The Judy feed

  • Fen

    Franks collum is rubish – too many fallacies and loaded words for my time right now, but the most glaring is the regurgitation of the Downing Street Memo. The Left pretends that “fixed” has only negative connotations. As a former Marine, I know that “fixed” has other meanings.

    Gee, Websters agrees with me. Note that the Left has to drop down to 7B on the list to enable their alternate reality:

    Main Entry: 1fix
    Pronunciation: ‘fiks
    Function: verb
    Etymology: Middle English, from Latin fixus, past participle of figere to fasten; akin to Lithuanian dygti to sprout, break through
    transitive senses
    1 a : to make firm, stable, or stationary b : to give a permanent or final form to: as (1) : to change into a stable compound or available form (2) : to kill, harden, and preserve for microscopic study (3) : to make the image of (a photographic film) permanent by removing unused salts c : AFFIX, ATTACH
    2 a : to hold or direct steadily b : to capture the attention of
    3 a : to set or place definitely : ESTABLISH b : to make an accurate determination of : DISCOVER c : ASSIGN
    4 : to set in order : ADJUST
    5 : to get ready : PREPARE
    6 a : REPAIR, MEND b : RESTORE, CURE c : SPAY, CASTRATE
    7 a : to get even with b : to influence the actions, outcome, or effect of by improper or illegal methods
    intransitive senses
    1 : to become firm, stable, or fixed
    2 : to get set : be on the verge
    3 : to direct one’s attention or efforts : FOCUS; also : DECIDE, SETTLE — usually used with on
    synonym see FASTEN

  • Ravo

    Judith Miller Exonerates Bush Officials

    http://www.aim.org/special_report/4096_0_8_0_C/