TUESDAY'S LETTERS: Miller's Security Clearance Raises Eyebrows

By: Jay DeFoore Readers pose a lot of interesting questions on the Miller/Plamegate story in today's letters, plus a few have fun with a contest we launched yesterday to name Judith Miller's next book. All indications are that the prosecutor investigating the Plame leak could announce his decision to indict (or not) as early as Wednesday. Until then, enjoy a few letters, or e-mail us with your own thoughts.

***

Times Survived Blair. Can it Survive Miller and Plamegate?

Re: 'Hidden Scandal' in Miller Story, Charges Former CBS Newsman:

I commend you for speaking out on this issue. I would, however, disagree with your description that it's the "flip side of the Jayson Blair scandal." The Jayson Blair scandal pales woefully when measured against the Miller scandal. In the case of Blair, his crime and that of the NY Times had to do (substantially) with laziness (the simple lack of fact checking and editorial oversight). As you correctly imply, Miller's crime has to do with, (among other sins known and unknown) not reporting certain facts under the guise of a "security clearance."

In the case of Miller, I would go a step further, however; her crime(s) is that her blind ambition and perhaps her political views resulted in her becoming a shill, a mouthpiece for the Bush Administration. To that extent, she compromised everything she touched, especially the reputation of the NY Times, its veracity as an objective journalistic venture. I would argue that there is a gulf of difference between incompetent journalism and editing versus being a propaganda piece for the U.S. government to further one's career -- especially for a Pulitzer Prize-caliber journalist. Greg Palast accurately called Millers arrangement with the government, "the Access to Evil."

What if Miller is found to be the source of the leak or had a deal (i.e. security clearance) to not divulge it, or to decline to write a story that (perhaps Libby shared with her) that Libby was the source of the Plamegate leak? Or did Miller divulge Plame's status to government officials over cocktails at some hoity toidy soir?e? Libby's letter to Miller (...the aspens are turning...) reeks of a "wink and nod" arrangement by even those who are nonconspiratorial in their outlook.

Sadly, Miller's "security clearance" will always be her shield against full disclosure. A sinister practiced repeated throughout this Administration as you correctly note. Miller's self-imposed martyrdom reeks of the same arrogance that is projected throughout her persona and dealings with the government.

Miller has become an albatross. The NY Times should do itself a favor and can Miller. I'm sure she'll find a prosperous career at Fox. Sadly, however, the Times is stuck in one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenarios, because it is complicit in Miller's sin, plus Miller knows where the skeletons are buried. "Outing" Miller could be the first significant step in the demise of a once great paper, which likely explains the Times equivocation. Blair was a hack writing nothing of national import or significance, not a Pulitzer Prize journalist. Times survived Blair. Can it survive Miller and "Plamegate?"

Louis Starks

***

Here are some potential book titles for Judy Miller's impending tome:

"Clusters Last Stand"

"The Flame Gave me Fitz"

"My Kingdom for a Source"

"For Whom the Aspen Turns"

"Total Lack of Recall"

"Of Humane Bondage: How I Spent my Summer Vacation"

"You, Me, and WMD"

"Fitz of Forgetfulness"

"(One) Woman's Libby-ration"

"Don't Ask. Don't Tell. Don't Remember."

'If Failed Memory Serves. . ."

"Cheney of Command"

Here's hoping I get to plump those Plamed pillows at St. Regis. . . ;)

Anne Price
Ohio

***

One thing about New York Times reporter Judy Miller?s account of her grand-jury testimony bothers me.

OK, several things bother me.

But here?s one.

She reportedly met three times with I. Lewis ?Scooter? Libby, the vice President?s chief of staff, once in June and twice in July, to discuss the search for weapons of mass destruction. At each of these meetings, talk turned to Joseph Wilson, former ambassador to Iraq, a man criticizing the administration?s claims that Iraq sought uranium in Niger.

At the July 23 meeting, according to Miller, Libby stated that ?Mr. Cheney did know of Mr. Wilson, much less know that Mr. Wilson had traveled to Niger, in West Africa, to verify reports that Iraq was seeking to acquire uranium for a weapons program.?

She also states that when she and Libby met again on July 8, Libby ?asserted that George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, HAD NEVER EVEN HEARD OF (emphasis mine) Mr. Wilson.?

Perhaps Libby really did say that. Only he and Miller know for certain, and God knows I can?t refute it.

But the claim rings false. And it strikes me as odd that she offers no context to help readers assess Libby?s statements. (Or what she recalls as Libby?s statements.)

From 1988 to 1991, Wilson served in Iraq as the United State?s Deputy Chief of Mission in Baghdad, Iraq. According to his biography, he was acting ambassador during Operation Desert Storm and he defied former Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein?s demands that he turn over any foreigners.

He reportedly was the last U.S. diplomat to speak with Saddam Hussein, and his performance under pressure turned heads at home.

From an Oct. 1, 2003, profile in the Washington Post: ?This toughness impressed President George H.W. Bush, who called Wilson a ?truly inspiring? diplomat who exhibited ?courageous leadership? by facing down Hussein and helping to gain freedom for the Americans before the 1991 war began.?

During the first Gulf War, Cheney was secretary of defense. That meant he was overseeing the planning of all military activities in that part of the world. Ostensibly, one would assume that planning and oversight would include knowing whether all American civilians had been evacuated from Iraq.

At the same time, George Tenet was working as staff director for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, where he stayed until 1993. It seems, at
best, unlikely that someone in that position during the war would not have heard of Wilson, particularly after Wilson told Saddam to go to hell.

Moreover, it seems implausible that Tenet never read any reports detailing intelligence debriefings of Wilson by the U.S. intelligence community, if not during the first Gulf conflict, then sometime after that. Maybe they
never met face to face or spoke to one another. But Tenet never heard of Wilson? That just seems unlikely.

There?s also Wilson and Tenet?s post-war government service to consider. Between 1995 and 1997, Joseph Wilson serves as political adviser to the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces in Europe, stationed in Germany.

At the same time, Tenet was rising through the ranks first on the National Security Council and then as deputy director and later director of the Central Intelligence Agency, a position he held until 2003. Again, between the United States? ongoing conflict with Iraq and the impending Kosovo conflict, it seems odd that Tenet never would have heard of Wilson.

Maybe Libby is telling the truth, but his claims seem suspect.

Tim Tresslar
Dayton, Ohio

***

I just read "After 'NY Times' Probe: Keller Should Fire Miller -- and Apologize to Readers" and couldn't agree more.

Any chance you can write some on this outrage from the Society of Professional Journalists: "Miller, who also will receive a First Amendment Award, will then join a panel discussion titled "The Reporter's Privilege Under Siege." Joining Miller on the panel is Associated Press reporter Josef Hebert, Patricia Hurtado of Newsday, and Bruce Sanford of Baker and Hostetler law firm." (From www.spj.org/) Whatever happened to the SPJ's work to "stimulat(e) high standards of ethical behavior?" If anyone doesn't deserve a First Amendment Award, it's Judith Miller. I find this charade disgusting. And, it certainly helps to illuminate why so many people today don't trust those in the media.

Mary Anne Crecelius

***

There certainly are many unanswered questions in the aftermath of Judith Miller's "definitive" statement on her role in the Valerie Plame saga, but I have yet to hear mention of this: If I. Lewis Libby was not a source for information on Valerie Plame for Miller, why does she need a release from him to talk about her source before the Grand Jury?

Lindsey Siegle

***

Mr. Mitchell: Amen! You hit the nail(s) on the head, and I heartily congratulate you. The entire "Plamegate" affair reeks to high heaven, and, through its management's own cowardice and complicity, is giving The New York Times a black eye from which it may never fully recover. As for Judith Miller, why should she comment now on things she could reveal and benefit by, bit by bit, on talk shows, in books, and, perhaps, in an HBO biopic? She's probably already short-listed potential actresses, or maybe she'll cast herself!

Cathy Siegner
Editor & Publisher, Queen City News
Helena, Mont.

***

Of course Sulzi wants everyone to "move on" and "forget" the Miller case... it was the most egregious case of not just shoddy reporting, but shoddy editing and shoddy leadership from the editorial board and publisher.

The board should demand Miller's, Keller's, and Pinch's resignations, really print the story behind the story, come clean about everything that happened. Let's face facts: Sunday's "mea culpa" (snort) raised more questions and showed how utterly ridiculous this crowd sounds and how utterly stupid and ignorant they believe their readership is. The Times should admit they -- along with the rest of the "free press" -- were duped by the propagandists within the Bush Administration on the Iraq issue. They were cheerleaders and not observers and critics.

You can't get a little bit pregnant and Miller and the Times, along with the rest of America's press, hopped into bed with this administration to help sell the war. Now that their credibility is gone, they want us to do what the politicians always ask: "let's move on -- we have work to do." Sorry, but we can't move on because right now, we can't trust you -- and that includes the NYTimes as well as this administration.

Viele Gr?sse

***

Flawless analysis, perfect focus on the essentials, just sentencing -- albeit I see Sulzberger as the eminent party, the man is running amok in all departments.

And I really don't have a newspaper anymore...

Marino Zullich
Brooklyn, New York


***

Re: Knowing What You Can't Know

You say, "This was obviously to deflect attention from the Cheney office's effort to hurt Wilson." You are in no position to know anyone's motive and so asserting them only serves to show your rooting interests. Time and again reporters on this story have made similar claims that they are in no position to know. Ultimately it subverts their trustworthiness. When the special prosecutor reports facts contrary to your opinions how will you report that? My guess is you'll ignore it just as you've done with the fabrications of Mr. Wilson as revealed in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Bob Holmgren
Menlo Park, Calif.

***

Fire Keller While You're At It

Loved your piece on Miller and Keller's destruction of the NYT reputation for integrity. Just one question: Why not also fire Keller who was just as responsible for journalistic malfeasance as Miller?

Yigal Joseph

***

Milleresque

I'm completely speechless.

And you know, it just doesn't matter which "side" of the issue I'm on.

Dementia at the Times.

Ray Evans
Dallas, Texas

***

More Book Title Suggestions

"I Can't Recall" by Judith Whatshername

"how to baffle 'em (my editors and readers) with Bullsh*t" by J. Miller

"Spin, Spin, Spin, The Art of Denial" by J. Miller, Foreword by Scooter Libby

But my favorite would be..

"Id, Super-Ego and Judith, A Primer on how to be Vainglorious" by Judith - The Greatest Reporter of all Time - Miller

Samir Srivastava
Z?rich, Switzerland

***

"It's My House and I'll Burn It Down If I Want To" by Mistress Run Amok, as told to Judith Miller

Jim Emerson

***

"Treachery in the Bush"

Judith Feldman
Marina del Rey, Calif