E&P: The Case of the Missing Notebook (Judith Miller's)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001263179

The latest twist in the Plame Affair only deepens the mystery: What's in the suddenly uncovered notebook that documents the previously unknown Judith Miller/Scooter Libby chat of June 25, 2003? Who told the prosecutor about it? And why, exactly, does he want to talk to Miller again?

By Greg Mitchell

(October 09, 2005) -- If its recent track record is any guide, The New York Times, later today or tomorrow, will get around to confirming Michael Isikoff’s Newsweek revelation late Saturday that the missing notes Judith Miller suddenly found and turned over to the federal prosecutor on Friday in the Plame case were located in a notebook in the newspaper’s Washington, D.C. bureau. The prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, has now scheduled another meeting with Miller on Tuesday.

Besides the ongoing mystery of why the Times is always a step or two behind its competition in reporting on its own reporter, this latest twist raises several tantalizing issues. If anyone at the Times objects to raising the following questions: It’s your own fault for not disclosing more about this case yourself.

Before getting to The Case of the Missing Notebook: What’s with the Times, which long supported Miller going to jail for 85 days, purportedly to stand up for a journalistic principle (protecting a source), now willingly turning over a reporter’s notes to the prosecutor? And did Miller turn over the notes herself, or did the Times locate them and do the honors?

[longship]

1. Kick

:kick:

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. So many questions, so little time

Miller is in this thing up to her pointy little ears.

Maybe Judy isn't so noble after all?

[Wordie]

18. Funny how it almost seems *personal* about Miller. I remember all those tv

segments, broadcast from Iraq, with her guiding the viewers all around what were supposed to be Saddam's WMD factories, and pontificating about the subject. Now we all know, of course, that it was all a sham, but don't forget, in the run-up to the war she was being heralded as an "expert" on biological and chemical WMDs. And I believed it! (I don't remember now which news channel this was on; it may have been more than one.)

I feel duped, and I guess that's what makes it feel so personal. Why does the NYT continue to support her?

[DoYouEverWonder]

20. Yes, she was a favorite on shows like the News Hour

and the Sunday morning circuit. At the time, she seemed very credible.

However, the more I heard about her, the more I realize what a witch this woman is. I hope she gets to go back for a real stint in jail. Without a get out of jail free card in her purse.

[Wordie]

25. To me, she was credible BECAUSE she wrote for the NYT.

And now, where are they in all this mess?

[Peace Patriot]

22. Yes, and do you think the Bushites, having set her up there in Iraq,

running around with the U.S. troops hunting WMDs--on a special "embed" contract signed by Donald Rumsfeld himself--and having primed the public for a "find" of WMDs in Iraq (that being the whole justification for the war at the time) were just sitting around HOPING she would find some?

I don't think so.

I think they were trying to plant WMDs in Iraq, and that's what this whole Treasongate thing is about, trying to head off Plame from finding out, or, if she knew, scare her into silence, or, if she had a hand in foiling their dirty scheme, punish her and her network of covert agents for doing so. And what got me to thinking along these lines (besides the logic of it) was the highly suspicious death of the Brits chief weapons expert David Kelly (who was whistleblowing to the BBC) four days after Plame was outed. That's just a bit too much of a coincidence, it seems to me. Then I found out that, on July 7, 2003, a week before the Plame outing, Tony Blair was informed that David Kelly "could say some uncomfortable things" (not had said; COULD say). Hm-m-m, I thought, what could that have been--something Kelly had not already said, but COULD say, that the Brits, in their typical understated way, might deem "uncomfortable," followed, 11 days later by Kelly's sudden death (official version--suicide; investigation gaping with holes and unlikelihoods).

There were a couple of credible sounding reports, in March 2003, of covert U.S. arms shipments that were suspected of being a planting of WMDs op. (Iranian and Pakistani press.) Kelly was well connected in Iraq and could have found out about them, and investigated them. This could have soured him on the war (a rather surprising turnabout--he had wanted Saddam overthrown, then, after it happened, turned against it, with statements about the "sexed up" intel the Brits had used, and passed on to Bush, to justify the invasion.)

Interestingly, Judith Miller had cultivated David Kelly as a WMD expert, and had used him as a major source for her book "Germs" (about germ warfare, circa '01, just after 9/11). And it was to Miller that Kelly wrote his last email (later released not by Miller, but by his family), in which he makes several forward-looking statements, but also warns about the "many dark actors playing games." The day he died. (She wrote an obit on him for the NYT, 7/21/03, in which she fails to disclose her close connections to Kelly, and has HIM criticizing U.S. troops for not looking hard enough for the WMDs in Iraq--not a very likely sentiment for an Iraq war whistleblower; but one that does serve Miller's interests.)

I think the Bushites were in panic about Kelly, and behaved in a rushed, panicky way in their outing of Plame, contacting at least SIX reporters, circulating the Plame memo on AF-1, and putting many top Bushites at high risk of treason charges. What was the hurry? Why involve so many journalist witnesses to treason? Why not just quietly destroy Wilson's bank credit, or something? And why, then, after outing Plame on July 14, did they go on to out Brewster Jennings (the entire CIA covert WMD op, 20 years in the making), on July 22? (--4 days after after Kelly's death, and after his office and computers were searched.)

I don't know. This is just a theory--but (like the theory of evolution) odd pieces keep fitting into it (for instance, the Wilson interview in which he reveals that Rice actually baited him to write the article--meaning, they knew it was coming--so, why put so many Bushites at risk in a hasty, scattershot outing?). Haste, panic, that's what I feel in this sorry tale--with a big motivator, something big they were trying to cover up, quickly; not just newspaper lies, "sexed up" intel, and all that. Something concrete; something that could bring down their governments sooner rather than later. Something that would prompt somebody to say, "Get her outed NOW! Immediately. Find somebody to do it THIS WEEK. And don't worry about treason charges. We'll cover your back."

[Wordie]

24. There was a time when I would have immediately dismissed what you wrote as

"tinfoil hat" stuff. Now I'm not so sure, and I find that very scary.

[EuroObserver]

30. "Haste, panic, that's what I feel

in this sorry tale--with a big motivator, something big they were trying to cover up, quickly; not just newspaper lies, "sexed up" intel, and all that. Something concrete; something that could bring down their governments sooner rather than later."

Yep. That's what I observed at the time. BLiar was close to resigning, you know, they said...

Let us not lose sight of the 'coalition' (& security council) factor in all this.

...so, eventually they decied to drop the (planted) WMD justification, any relaqtion with reality at all, really, and just rely on their control of the mainline media and the 'what the hell, whatever, factor' to maniplate at will our dumbed-down electorates...

Dr. David Kelly, it seems, certainly COULD have said a hell of a lot more (as could, to this day, many others...)

[femrap]

26. She was on ALL the shows....even the morning shows...

She had published a book. She was touting it...and I kept thinking, 'Gee what a coincidence to have written a book on biological warfare and now Saddam is accused of have those weapons.' Well, we all know there are no coincidences.

[MADem]

3. Jesus Christ on a bike, I asked this question here yesterday

Amazing how people are "finding" notebooks and emails all of a sudden, kinda like those white looters who "found" food after the hurricane.

Crack that whip, tighten that noose!!!!

[cassiepriam]

15. Maybe she put the notes in her purse, mine is a worm hole.

I put something in it, it disappears, then it appears weeks later.
Or is it a black hole? At least Judy won't have to worry about it
once she is back in prison.

[Pithy Cherub]

4. Judy does a Judas on her employers AFTER

demonstrating an ability to be duplicitous with her employers by advocating a war. The NYT then defends the reporter who had really bad WMD information before the Iraq War started, given to her by the Iranian Iraqi Chalabi who had defrauded Jordan, the PNAC con artists and the CIA to the tune of millions of dollars. And the NYT stood beside Judy in her time of deshabille and denouement of the American people by trumpeting a false war in Iraq....:freak:


My pity button is oh so broken for Judy:nuke:or the NYT. The warranty ran out before 1944 Americans and countless thousands of Iraqi people lost there lives for this crap!

[janx]

5. It sounds as if Fitzgerald knows how to get information.

;-)

Who told him about it?

[RamboLiberal]

9. Wonder as E&P speculate if her coworkers did

Wonder how many friends she has there after being such a toady to Perle and fellow neocons and Chalabi!

[Pithy Cherub]

10. The delicious irony would be if it's her co-worker,

The Pulitzer Prize winning Nicholas Kristof that whispered in Fitzgerald's ear.

It sad to realize that my grand enjoyment is now coming from this reality show/soap opera, however on with tomorrow's episode...:popcorn:

[tavalon]

12. It is quite the soap opera, isn't it

but instead of Luke and Laura, there's Judy and Scooter (and Karl, everyone's bastard son). Sounds like a comedy with those names. But, while amusing to watch them squirm, it is no comedy.

[JNelson6563]

6. Nominated. Juicy story!

:toast:

[lovuian]

7. Is it me or is the Times worried about being charged with

obstruction of justice!!!

[janx]

8. Well, editors at the Times would likely be responsible for

some of this, surely.

I'm enjoying this. A lot of journalists and pundits look a bit serious when they discuss this on the tube.

As I've stated before, I'd be happy to finally see the lid blown off of the incestuous relationship between the * administration and mass media.

[EuroObserver]

29. An editor I spoke to recently at a wedding party

(editor: NYT Group; location: Heart of England; time: late night/early morning; quality/quantity of wine: not bad - enough clues?) had his defense ready, it seemed to me:

1. My first responsibility is to the adverteasers;

2. Once they're satisfied, I find I have a few blank spaces in the day's paper to fill, and not much time left in which to fill them;

3. So I rely on A). newswires; B). writers I hope I can trust (from experience) to fill that space (without alienating the advertisers;

4. If I have time, I actually sometimes read what the writers write (wires are easier to scan);

5. Usually, I don't have the time.

OK, I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist of it.

Oh, and the other gist, zeitgeist or whatever, sniffed, picked up, intuited: they're very aware, and very nervous, about the burgeoning power of the FREE PRESS (aka, de momento, internet).

[tavalon]

13. Can a corporation be charged with obstruction?

Hell, they ought to be able to, they've stolen all the other rights of individuals.

[cassiepriam]

14. corporations have no laws, pay no taxes, act with impunity.

[mmonk]

28. My thoughts as well.

If they would be charged with anything, you might see the whole propaganda apparatus in this country begin to unravel.

[dchill]

11. Nominated:

Kick

[Straight Shooter]

16. Poltergeist. Yeah, that's the ticket. The poltergeist did it.

The NYT cannot salvage its reputation now.

:nopity:

[madaboutharry]

17. "The Case of The Missing Notebook"

It sounds just like a Nancy Drew mystery, no? Little Judy would never slip through the hands of Nancy, George, and Bess. I could just see Nancy giving the Prosecutor all of his needed clues! Bess spies Judy through the keyhole of the office door as Judy looks desperately for a way to.....Oh, wait, this is the real world. Forgive my indulgence.

[savemefromdumbya]

19. this will make a great movie

better than All the Presidents' Men!

[Oilwellian]

21. This blog has an interesting theory

Fitz knew all along that somebody had tried to write a story identifying Joe Wilson in late June 2003. Where did he find that out? Wilson probably told him about it. Or, Fitz, like me, read Wilson's book. In any case, well before Judy's testimony, Fitz probably asked Wilson who he got the tip from in June that someone was writing a story on him. Wilson said, "Kristof" or "Shipley." And Fitz, being the thorough guy he is just made a quick call to get some details. Like who was going to write that story. And how the NYT convinced that person not to write it.

Then, in Judy's interview last Thursday (which was sworn testimony, so Judy couldn't change her mind overnight, so Fitz would know what he was getting before he let her go, and just in case Abramoff's friends got to her overnight), he asked some open-ended questions to which she should have responded with details about her earlier attempt to write a Wilson story. But she didn't. She probably, at that time, mentioned one detail that made Fitz take notice, but did not change the basic fact that she had just committed perjury.

Fitz called Wilson just to clarify the little detail. Which Wilson did easily, apparently over the phone. Fitz did it just so he made sure he had that detail straightened out before Judy's grand jury tesimony (so he was sure precisely what the outlines of her perjury were going to be).

Or, as the LA Times describes:

However, there was an additional sign that Fitzgerald continued to investigate aggressively. He phoned Wilson on Sept. 29, the same day Miller, the New York Times reporter jailed for refusing to divulge her confidential source, was released from jail after agreeing to testify in the case.

The next day, just as Fitz expected, Judy committed perjury by burying details of her earlier reporting. Fitz likely asked her a question specifically tailored around Wilson's answer the previous night. Like, "Did you have any conversations with Nicholas Kristof that might have told you about Joe Wilson?" "Nicholas Kristof," Judy said, "Isn't he that screaming liberal who pisses off Safire so much?"

Just long enough after Judy finished, after she had gone home, made a martini, gloated with Sulzberger about how many concessions she had gotten, hugged her dog, Fitz contacted Judy and said, "Um, there's one little detail you seem to have forgotten. Well, let's make that one gigantic detail. Oh, and is Art there? Can I talk to him? Because that little--I mean gigantic--detail affects the testimony he gave us as well. What's that? You'd like to add some to your testimony. Well, do you have anything concrete to give me? Such as your notes from June. Yeah, that's right, your notes detailing ALL of your sources. Yeah, I understand we agreed you could limit your testimony to your conversations with Libby about Plame. But you promised you would tell the truth, remember? And ... well ... you didn't do that."

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2005/10/sweet_judy_blew.html#more

[Disturbed]

23. NYT sticks up for Ms Miller because...

they are complicit in hyping the false WMDs. Ms Miller's sexy pixie smile has many fooled that she is a nice, honest person. She should be charged with Perjury and Obstruction of Justice. I believe that she is a traitor to America but that charge may be more difficult to legally prove.

[Delphinus]

27. Cool story.

I hope 99.9% of it comes true! Down they go!