Miller Quits 'Times,' Says She Already Has Other Offers

By: Jay DeFoore Former New York Times reporter Judith Miller said Wednesday, hours after leaving the paper, that she had already received several offers "of all kinds" for employment, but would not specify what they were, according to an article in the Times.

Miller also told her old paper that she was "very satisfied" with the severance agreement and described herself as a "free woman," no longer bound to what she called the "convent of The New York Times, a convent with its own theology and its own catechism."

Times Executive Editor Bill Keller had announced Wednesday afternoon in a staff memo that the paper had reached an agreement for the reporter to retire, effective immediately.

Under the terms of the separation, Miller would be allowed to write a farewell letter to the editor, which was posted on the newspaper's Web site tonight--hours after she had put it up at her own site.

Another condition of the split required Keller to share a letter with the paper's staff clarifying his controversial remarks about her involvement with I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former White House official indicted in the CIA leak investigation. Keller admitted that his use of the words "entanglement" and "engagement" were not meant to suggest an "improper relationship."

"In her 28 years at The Times, Judy participated in some great, prize-winning journalism," Keller wrote to the staff. "She displayed fierce determination and personal courage both in pursuit of the news and in resisting assaults on the freedom of news organizations to report. We wish her well in the next phase of her career."

"We are grateful to Judy for her significant personal sacrifice to defend an important journalistic principle, Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., said in a statement. "I respect her decision to retire from The Times and wish her well."

Miller's lawyers and the paper had been negotiating a severance package for the last two weeks, although they had declined to discuss specifics of the deal.

An article posted on the Times' Web site Wednesday afternoon outlined the broad terms: "Under the agreement, Ms. Miller will retire from the newspaper, and The Times will print a letter she wrote to the editor explaining her position," wrote Katharine Q. Seelye. "Ms. Miller originally demanded that she be able to write an essay for the paper's Op-Ed page refuting the allegations against her, the lawyers said. The Times refused that demand -- Gail Collins, editor of the editorial page, said, 'We don't use the Op-Ed page for back and forth between one part of the paper and another' -- but agreed to let her to write the letter."

The letter runs under the headline, "Judith Miller's Farewell," and in it Miller explains that her departure was due to the fact that "some of her colleagues disagreed with her decision to testify in the C.I.A. leak case."

But mainly, "I have chosen to resign because over the last few months, I have become the news, something a New York Times reporter never wants to be."

Miller, 57, was one of the Times' most distinguished investigative and national security correspondents for the past two decades. She was part of a team of journalists who won a Pulitzer Prize for explanatory journalism in 2002 for reporting, prior to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, on the growing threat of al Qaeda.

But Miller was widely criticized for a series of reports during the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 that many felt carried dubious administration claims of Iraq's potential and intent of developing WMDs. The paper later expressed misgivings about its pre-war reporting, including several stories that carried Miller's byline. Sulzberger recently admitted the paper was too slow in correcting its WMD reporting, but said it was an "institutional failure," rather than "Judy's failure alone."

When Miller was served a subpoena from the special prosecutor investigating who leaked the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Wilson, Miller and the Times resisted on the grounds that journalists should not identify confidential sources without a personal waiver from the source. After other journalists testified in the case based on a blanket waiver, Miller again refused and eventually went to jail on a contempt of court order. The Times, including Keller and Sulzberger, backed their reporter's decision.

After 85 days in jail, Miller finally got what she considered a personal waiver from Libby, and subsequently testified twice before the grand jury that eventually indicted Libby on perjury, make false statements, and obstruction of justice charges.

A recent editorial in the Times reaffirmed the paper's decision to back Miller, despite other comments, including a controversial memo from Keller, indicating that the paper may have mishandled her case from the beginning.

"We have no reservations about the obligation of this paper to stand behind our reporter while she was in jail," the Oct. 29, 2005 editorial stated. "We also think Ms. Miller was right on the central point, that the original blanket White House waiver [Libby] was coerced."

In his staff memo announcing Miller's departure, Keller ended with this key P.S.: "Judy asked that I share with you a letter I sent regarding my recent memo to the staff. It follows, and speaks for itself." The text of that letter reads as follows, according to Keller:

"I know you've been distressed by the memo I sent to the staff about things I wish I'd done differently in the course of this ordeal. Let me be clear on two points you've raised.

"First, you are upset with me that I used the words 'entanglement'' and 'engagement' in reference to your relationship with Scooter Libby. Those words were not intended to suggest an improper relationship. I was referring only to the series of interviews through which you -- and the paper -- became caught up in an epic legal controversy.

"Second, you dispute my assertion that 'Judy seems to have misled' Phil Taubman when he asked whether you were one of the reporters to whom the White House reached out with the Wilson story. I continue to be troubled by that episode. But you are right that Phil himself does not contend that you misled him; and, of course, I was not a participant in the conversation between you and Phil.

"I wish you all the best for the future."