You Won't Even Miss The Funnies

The NY Times lacks a comics section, but makes up for it with stories like this.  Over the weekend the WaPo and the LA Times led with the news that Karl Rove may be the secret source that leaked Valerie Plame's identity; the Times front-pages the news that Ms. Plame went back to work on June 1, and is hoping to get her career back on track.

At this point, the Times has become so separated from reality on this story, I don't know if they can ever find their way home.  My quickie diagnosis - the Times is deeply involved in the Wilson saga, and yet is trying to report on it as if they were detached observers.  Some examples:

On Wednesday, a federal judge is expected to decide whether two reporters, Judith Miller of The Times and Matt Cooper of Time magazine, will go to jail for refusing to cooperate with a grand jury investigation into the leak.  That the leaker appears willing to permit journalists to be incarcerated rather than taking public responsibility for his actions simply shows the leaker's "cravenness and cowardice," Mr. Wilson said.

That the Times fails to mention their official editorial position, which is that "the disclosure of Ms. Plame's identity, while an abuse of power, may not have violated any law" is also a bit craven.

A Jaguar-driving, cigar-smoking, silver-haired former ambassador, Mr. Wilson, 55, interpreted the leak of his wife's C.I.A. connection as an act of vengeance from White House officials for his public accusations of deceit in building a case for the Iraq war. Days before the leak, he had gone public in a New York Times Op-Ed article and television appearances to charge that the administration had covered up his own debunking of reports that Iraq had bought uranium in Africa.

Well.  That gives short shrift to the role played by Times columnist Nick Kristof, who based a couple of columns on phony leaks from Joe Wilson, and helped make him an anonymous star.  Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard followed up, but as best I know, neither Kristof nor the Times public editor have gone back and assessed their role in this.

He has acknowledged he may have misspoken about a few details, like the date he became aware of forged documents purporting to show a uranium sale.

Well, I missed that acknowledgement, although Wilson has said many things, so I don't dispute that he said this.  However, when he was defending himself on this point to Paula Zahn a year ago, his position was that "If they're referring to leaks or sources, unidentified government sources in articles that appeared before my article in "The New York Times" appeared, those are either misquotes or misattributions if they're attributed to me."  Nothing about "I misspoke".

Well, Joe Wilson is not the story.  Even, apparently, in a story about Joe and Valerie Wilson.
 

Comments

[Donald]

The more I learn about this issue, I just gotta believed it was a loose lipped snide Joe Wilson who outed his wife.

[capitano]

That the leaker appears willing to permit journalists to be incarcerated rather than taking public responsibility for his actions simply shows the leaker's "cravenness and cowardice," Mr. Wilson said.

Apparently the NY Times failed to "clue in" Wilson that Karl Rove "signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him." as reported by Newseek's Michael Isakoff in the preceding post below. So I guess that puts the ball back in Judith Miller's court.

C'mon Judith, speak up; Karl says it's o.k. Or do you need to get a waiver from someone else?

[Jessica]

Qando links to a Washington Post article and points out this sentence: "Sources close to the investigation say there is evidence in some instances that some reporters may have told government officials -- not the other way around -- that Wilson was married to Plame, a CIA employee."

It wouldn't surprise me.

[TM]

Good point, Jessica - that is news to me, but not to the world - here is a Nov 2004 WaPo story:

Several reporters have given limited depositions about their conversations with Libby in the days before the Novak column was published. All did so at the urging of Libby, who has told the prosecutor he heard about Wilson's wife's employment from someone in the media, according to lawyers involved in the case. Two news organizations, Time magazine and the New York Times, have gone to the U.S. Court of Appeals to fight subpoenas for reporters' testimony.

In fact, the bonus is from Oct 2004:

Fitzgerald has questioned four reporters about their conversations with I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, and is seeking to question a fifth, New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Fitzgerald has been told by reporters that either the subject of Wilson's wife did not come up in their phone conversations with Libby or it was introduced by the reporters.

Again with the "reporters told me", but this also jibes with a tidbit in today's story - Libby has already identified Miller as a contact, but she still won't talk.

[creepy dude]

"According to the appellate court's opinion, Fitzgerald knows the identity of the person with whom Miller spoke and wants to question her about her contact with that "specified government official" on or about July 6, 2003. Miller never wrote a story on the subject."

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25744-2005Feb15?language=printer)

July 6 is the date Wilson went public.

Per Swopa-the first guy I know to articluate this theory (October 2003)-

"Could Judy Miller have been enough of a "true believer" in the cause of the administration's WMD scare campaign that she passed along Plame's name to one of her Bushite contacts, where it then was funneled along to Rove and others? Anyone who has read Miller's angry defense of her WMD propaganda journalism ("I was proved fucking right") might be inclined to say yes."

See: http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1592

The question remains, however, who told Miller?

[peapies]

this is more of a question for Tom...after reading all the parsing and info on the outing of Plame...and seeing how Miller and Cooper (well not Cooper, because in a somewhat dramatic fashion IS testifying) have protected their source(s) so long, today we have a Washington Post report today indicating that there may be evidence that REPORTERS may have outed Plame to Admin. (the opposite of conventional wisdom) I just wonder if the source could actually be from the other side of the aisle (some Demo opposition) ---hence the strong resistance...especially in light of the Admin. officials releasing the reporter from not talking. Does this make sense? Just wondering what your thoughts are?

[TM]

Well, that is a good job by Swopa, but...

Let me replay and amplify my earlier excerpt:

Fitzgerald has been told by reporters [OTHER THAN MILLER!] that either the subject of Wilson's wife did not come up in their phone conversations with Libby or it was introduced by the reporters.

One might ask which reporters were on the Africa trip - if Bush was there, some White House regulars must have been, and Colin Powell got the fateful memo on that trip.

Of course, since we have modern communications, that would only be suggestive.

[TM]

Bonus comment - when Novak wrote his CYA follow-up, he said this about his second source:

When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it."

Pretty strong. And maybe that second official had heard it from a reporter.

So, legal eagles - if an Admin source tells Judy, who tells another WH source, who tells Novak, who is the criminal?

Presumably, Judy's source could be (if the other elements of the crime were there). Hard to see how Novak's source would be.

And maybe Judy is protecting *two* sources - Fitzgerald has already heard from Libby, but will be as surprised as the rest of us when she reveals the second name to be...

[Jon H]

"The question remains, however, who told Miller?"

Miller has done reporting on WMD issues, which is also Plame's area of expertise. It's not inconceivable that one of Miller's sources has had working contact with Plame.

[SteveMG]

Okay, so the (a?) source gave Cooper explicit approval to testify and break any confidentiality agreement.

He's going to testify.

But Miller is going to jail because she won't reveal the source.

Is that because the (a?) source didn't give her approval. Or is it because she had a different source who likewise has not given her approval to break the agreement?

Or did the source also give Miller the okay to testify but she is still abiding by the agreement?

Only one conclusion: the source is Yuri Nosenko.

SMG

[creepy dude]

What a tangled web we weave...

[capitano]

But Miller is going to jail because she won't reveal the source.

Is that because the (a?) source didn't give her approval. Or is it because she had a different source who likewise has not given her approval to break the agreement?

SteveMG,

According to a snippet on MSNBC an hour ago, Judith Miller essentially dropped the "I'm protecting my source" argument after the judge announced (1) that her source had waived confidentiality, and (2) she wasn't protecting a whistleblower but a potential retaliator.

Miller now claims to be upholding the general principle of generic confidentiality necessary to all journalists to avoid the chilling effect on future whistleblowers, or some such drivel. This was a report from someone ostensibly in the courtroom, but I'd treat it like a NY Times story -- it might well be true but get a second source.

[SteveMG]

"Miller now claims to be upholding the general principle of generic confidentiality necessary to all journalists to avoid the chilling effect on future whistleblowers, or some such drivel"

Thanks.

Then it's Libby.

Libby got the information from reporters and passed the rumors on to Cooper and Miller and Novak (?).

Or Libby passed it to A reporter who repeated it to others.

Was this whote thing directed by Kurosawa?

Boy, the left will be mighty pissed. Bush got away again.

SMG

[Jon H]

According to the Times, at the hearing Miller said: ""The freest and fairest societies are not only those with independent judiciaries," she said, "but those with an independent press that works every day to keep government accountable by publishing what the government might not want the public to know.""

Um, Judy?

You reported exactly what the government wanted the public to know. The aluminum tubes, for example. And all those Iraqi WMDs Ahmad told you about. Which turned out not to exist.

[Jon H]

By the way, it appears that Cooper agreed to testify after meetings between his lawyer, a lawyer for Karl Rove, and Fitzgerald.

[kim]

It seems 2 government agencies had differing opinions about the aluminum tubes.

Iraqi WMD's? Read The Duelfer Report and Claudia Rosett's reporting.

JonH: Remember 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' fallacy may apply to your last point.
=============================

[Mr ken jude]

Dear Buyers
Buy Nokia,N70,N90,N91,6600,6680,8800,9300,9500,Motorola Razr v3
Nextel i930 and manymore At Very Low Price.Ok
For Business enquiries please contact the following:
Mr ken jude
Managing Director
Tel:2348056914271
EMail [email protected]
Thanks And God Bless
Mr ken jude
Director.