Judith Miller on Lou Dobbs...

[headscratcher4]

This is a quote from Judith Miller on CNN's Lou Dobbs' show:

"Well, they wrote lots of postcards, saying I should testify, and why wasn't I testifying? Why was I covering for these people? You know, Lou, I knew and I know they wasn't covering for anybody. I was protecting the confidentiality of the source to whom I had given my word. I was keeping my word. And until I knew that that source genuinely wanted me to testify, and I heard that from him, I was willing to sit in jail. I didn't want to be in jail, but I knew that the principle of confidentiality was so important that I had to, because if people can't trust us to come to us to tell us the things that government and powerful corporations don't want us to know, we're dead in the water. The public won't know."

I am missing something. She says she is protecting my right to know what the government is up to...but, wasn't she "protecting" a source at the very heart of the government, seeking not only to promote the Administration's agenda, but also, specifically, to target an Administration critic?

Lewis Libby isn't a small guy, whistleblower. He is a person of power and influence -- like Carl Rove. Whatever he was telling Miller, it was to get the Administration's point of view out, but to do it covertly (odd, because the Administration has all of the resources to do this overtly). This isn't Watergate and talking to deepthroat, this is Watergate talking to Halderman and Erlichman.

Unless Libby was telling her that the Administration was lying, that Bush and Cheney were part of a conspiracy to specifically mislead the public, what purpose does it serve not to directly quote this source (the NYT's is also very much at fault here). She is promoting form over substance, she is making a mockery, IMO, of confidential sourcing.

In other words, she is giving an Administration propogandist journalistic cover.

Its stinks, I tell you. Wilson was the whistle blower here, even if a crime hasn't been committed. Talking about his wife, even if a crime hasn't been commited, was political pay-back to someone who called the Administration's bluff. How is that worth protecting?

Rant over....

 

[davefoc]

I agree headscratcher4.

But for me the biggest issue is that if she gave some sort of promise not to reveal her source for a national security secret (and I don't think you get much bigger than the identities of spies) she gave a promise that she had no legal right to keep.

I do not believe that any press shield law in existance or any press shield law contemplated would have shielded her from a legal requirement to testify in this case.

She blathers on with her self serving patter, but she fails to address this fundamental point.

She also, has not addressed the self serving nature of her relationship with the Bush administration. She writes articles that pander to the Bush administration and she gets more access to write more articles that pander to the Bush administration. Is she not bright enough to understand the corrupt nature of this relationship?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Its stinks, I tell you. Wilson was the whistle blower here, even if a crime hasn't been committed. Talking about his wife, even if a crime hasn't been commited, was political pay-back to someone who called the Administration's bluff. How is that worth protecting?

According to the interview with her lawyer, she held off from testifying until she was assured that she was only going to be asked about Libby, and not any other potential sources.

Her explanation regarding she and Libby dancing around his waiver when he has already testified before the grand jury and already announced he was a source for her doesn't make much sense - IMO. Even now, she and the NYT haven't come out and released any new information (as other reporters have after testifying).

My personal guess -- and it is just a guess, as we don't have full information and are likely not to get it -- is that she has a different source in addition to Libby, and that source is why she was actually willing to stay in jail. Administration source? Quite possibly -- but as the prosecutor gave her assurances that she would not be aasked about other sources (does that make sense to *anyone*?), we likely won't find out.

 

[headscratcher4]

According to the interview with her lawyer, she held off from testifying until she was assured that she was only going to be asked about Libby, and not any other potential sources.

Her explanation regarding she and Libby dancing around his waiver when he has already testified before the grand jury and already announced he was a source for her doesn't make much sense - IMO. Even now, she and the NYT haven't come out and released any new information (as other reporters have after testifying).

My personal guess -- and it is just a guess, as we don't have full information and are likely not to get it -- is that she has a different source in addition to Libby, and that source is why she was actually willing to stay in jail. Administration source? Quite possibly -- but as the prosecutor gave her assurances that she would not be aasked about other sources (does that make sense to *anyone*?), we likely won't find out.

You are likely correct...it is a noble thing to stay in jail to protect Administration efforts to demonize their opponents. Goebbles would have appreciated her kind of dedication to her professionalism.

 

[davefoc]

My personal guess -- and it is just a guess, as we don't have full information and are likely not to get it -- is that she has a different source in addition to Libby, and that source is why she was actually willing to stay in jail. Administration source? Quite possibly -- but as the prosecutor gave her assurances that she would not be aasked about other sources (does that make sense to *anyone*?), we likely won't find out.

I thought of this also. I hope it's not true. My guess is that Fitzgerald wouldn't have gone for a deal where he thought there was a good chance that Miller would hold something back with regard to the Plame leak.

I think the most likely scenario here is that Fitzgerald made her aware that he was going to prosecute her for obstruction or something similar and she is just creating various self serving justifications for her decision to testify now rather than admit she caved after she came to believe she could face serious jail time.

I don't know what to make of this three stooges non-sense about her not getting a release from Libby. Rove went beyond the blanket release and that was allegedly why Cooper testified. Libby didn't think to do something similar? Or Libby did something similar and she didn't think that was enough? Her lawyer didn't talk to Libby to ask for a release until she'd been in jail for 85 days?

The biggest sham is her claim that Libby gave an unpressured release. How unpressured could a release be given his situation? He doesn't give a release and it becomes known that he's the one keeping her in jail? I doubt very much that Libby gave a truly unpressured release. My suspicion is that if Libby could have kept his name out of this by not allowing a reporter to testify he would have done that but given the fact that enough of the story was already out there to link Libby to this, Libby had little to gain and a lot to lose in terms of personal credibility if he refused to give her the release she wanted.

 

[CBL4]

Some people actually have integrity. When they make a promise they keep it regardless of the personal consequences. Some people feel that integrity of their company or profession is more important than themselves.

CBL

 

[headscratcher4]

Some people actually have integrity. When they make a promise they keep it regardless of the personal consequences. Some people feel that integrity of their company or profession is more important than themselves.

CBL

Some people reported that, beyond a doubt, there were WMDs in Iraq, relied on sources like Chalabi and Lewis, never apologized, excused themselves or looked back.

Some people are bragging about a $1.2 million dollar book deal.

And, some people people feel that the integrity of their company or profession is more important than themselves.

 

[headscratcher4]

ooops...double post...sorry