Reading the New York Times an account of what the paper curiously names "The Miller Case" and Judith Miller's own version, will probably leave most of those who have opted to wait for the Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to wrap up his investigation with more questions.
For her part, Miller does say that Scooter Libby told her about Joe Wilson's wife's CIA position, but did not use her name:
Almost two weeks earlier, in an interview with me on June 23, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, discussed Mr. Wilson's activities and placed blame for intelligence failures on the C.I.A. In later conversations with me, on July 8 and July 12, Mr. Libby, who is Mr. Cheney's top aide, played down the importance of Mr. Wilson's mission and questioned his performance.
My notes indicate that well before Mr. Wilson published his critique, Mr. Libby told me that Mr. Wilson's wife may have worked on unconventional weapons at the C.I.A.
My notes do not show that Mr. Libby identified Mr. Wilson's wife by name. Nor do they show that he described Valerie Wilson as a covert agent or "operative," as the conservative columnist Robert D. Novak first described her in a syndicated column published on July 14, 2003. (Mr. Novak used her maiden name, Valerie Plame.)
It doesn't take all that great an imagination to believe that the White House would try to spin Miller away from Wilson's revelations. But she doesn't tell us how Libby knew this or why he kept bringing her employment up. In fact, she says that she cannot recall why Libby was discussing Plame just six days before Robert Novak made her name public, scooping Miller in the process. Miller also says that she believes she got Plame's name (alternately writing "Valerie Flame" and Victoria Wilson") from another source which she can't remember. How is it that Miller cannot remember who gave her the name, but can say that it wasn't Libby?
Further, Miller states that she wrote in her notebook, "Wife works in bureau?" of which Fitzgerald understandably asks might not mean the FBI. Miller suggests that as Libby was talking about a CIA hedging strategy, this meant a bureau within the CIA. She alludes to Winpac, the CIA office on Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control, not a bureau.
She also hands out a tidbit of how reporters obfuscate for sources:
Mr. Fitzgerald asked about a notation I made on the first page of my notes about this July 8 meeting, "Former Hill staffer."
My recollection, I told him, was that Mr. Libby wanted to modify our prior understanding that I would attribute information from him to a "senior administration official." When the subject turned to Mr. Wilson, Mr. Libby requested that he be identified only as a "former Hill staffer." I agreed to the new ground rules because I knew that Mr. Libby had once worked on Capitol Hill.
Did Mr. Libby explain this request? Mr. Fitzgerald asked. No, I don't recall, I replied. But I said I assumed Mr. Libby did not want the White House to be seen as attacking Mr. Wilson.
Yes, technically, Libby is a former Hill staffer. But is this how The Times normally operates, or is this just another Miller idiosyncrasy? Miller also states that she "might have called others" who knew Plame's name. Was she asked who these "others" were?
She does seem to clear, for now, Vice President Cheney, saying that Libby insisted that the Veep was not aware of Wilson.
The last graf of Miller's Tale is as infuriating as it is cryptic. In response to Fitzgerald's questioning about Libby's letter to Miller which ends rather oddly, ("Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning," Mr. Libby wrote. "They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them.") Miller says she responded this way:
In answer, I told the grand jury about my last encounter with Mr. Libby. It came in August 2003, shortly after I attended a conference on national security issues held in Aspen, Colo. After the conference, I traveled to Jackson Hole, Wyo. At a rodeo one afternoon, a man in jeans, a cowboy hat and sunglasses approached me. He asked me how the Aspen conference had gone. I had no idea who he was.
"Judy," he said. "It's Scooter Libby."
And that's it? I wish I had been in that room to see Fitzgerald's face. Is Miller losing her mind, or is she playing another game? Will we ever find out? Is there any news outlet that would like to give it a try? The New York Times won't.
I'm having one of my moments, I guess. I just don't understand why, if you were going to testify "I do not recall", do you go to jail?
She cut all kinds of bargains about limiting the scope of the questions the prosecutor could ask.
I always thought that in Grand Jury the sitting jury could also ask questions....who would inform them the a particular question was outside the agreed upon parameters?
The Judge (is he in on the deal?), the prosecutor, or Miller's attny.
At first I thought she was doing this "stint" in order to get some damn big bucks book deal.
I am DEFINITELY not getting this.
Posted by: Maggie | October 16, 2005 at 07:35 PM