Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Miller Brouhaha (journalistic history of Judith Miller..must read)
American Journalism Review ^ | August/September 2003 | Charles Layton

Posted on 07/06/2005 5:23:42 PM PDT by YaYa123

As the war in Iraq has turned into a grueling occupation, the question of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction persists. To investigate that question, there would seem to be no better-qualified reporter on Earth than Judith Miller of the New York Times.

Miller is a genuine expert on weapons of mass destruction or, in Washington parlance, WMD. She has written important books about Saddam Hussein and about germ warfare, and she shared a Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for stories about al Qaeda. She has been a Times foreign correspondent based in Cairo, has traveled extensively on assignments, has covered the United Nations' WMD inspection program, and has experience covering the federal government dating back to the 1970s, when she was Washington bureau chief for The Progressive magazine.

(Excerpt) Read more at ajr.org ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: cialeak; judithmiller; miller; prison
Tonight seems the appropriate time to get acquainted with Judith Miller and discover why she's not the MSM favorite that Matt Cooper is.
1 posted on 07/06/2005 5:23:43 PM PDT by YaYa123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

She's certainly painted here as a Bush tool.


2 posted on 07/06/2005 5:37:33 PM PDT by Arkie2 (No, I never voted for Bill Clinton. I don't plan on voting Republican again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

Hmmm, quite a revealing piece. I wonder if she needs anything while in confinement that I might provide. What do you think about this? Matt Cooper is Mandy Gruenwald's husband. He's out and excuses are being made for him all over the place. Miller is off to jail. Is she just being "principled" or is that a "silly me" moment. This Administration's way is not punishment of those who are not on their side, much to the dismay of some, but Miller wouldn't fit the mold of an outright "enemy" anyway. I confess, I'm confused. BTW, our fair haired Craig Crawford was on Hardball with Andrea tonight and did nothing to change my opinion of him as one of the shallowest hacks in the biz. They must think he's useful for the suthrun accent. I'm carrying on too long.


3 posted on 07/06/2005 5:40:03 PM PDT by Bahbah (Something wicked this way comes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

ping for later reading


4 posted on 07/06/2005 5:41:01 PM PDT by Homer1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
She doesn't seem to adopt MSM's agenda so.....if she's not with us then she is against us. How original for MSM.
5 posted on 07/06/2005 5:42:47 PM PDT by ncountylee (Dead terrorists smell like victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

Well, supposedly Cooper's source had given him permission
to testify, perhaps there are TWO sources?


6 posted on 07/06/2005 5:46:33 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ncountylee

What blows me away, and it should give you pause, is that she's a New York Times reporter. Presumably she was preselected not to be friendly towards Republicans yet she either told the truth as far as she knew it about WMD or she's carrying water for the Administration. I find the latter hard to believe.

As for her going to jail, she's either protecting the administration or her source. I find the former hard to believe. This is very interesting to say the least.


7 posted on 07/06/2005 5:51:54 PM PDT by Arkie2 (No, I never voted for Bill Clinton. I don't plan on voting Republican again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Arkie2

"She's certainly painted here as a Bush tool."

It's how the extreme anti-Bushies deal with the "Bush Lied" meme.

The Dems, Wilson in the lead, in Jan. 2003 decided Bush's positives for truthfulness needed to be bloodied. They chose the SOTU's nuclear claim, at that time seemingly the weakest link. Remember, Wilson, all of them thought Iraq had WMD capabilities, just wasn't enough reason for war or that their use was not "imminent."

The "Bush Lied" meme was undermined by the Bipartisan Senate Intel report, showing the WMD suspicions were strong through the government, beliefs held for many years. That was a year ago and now conveniently forgotten.

Miller has a peculiar enchantment for them. All the intel agencies of the world thought Iraq had them, but no matter. What is most important for them is what the MSM says, the limits to their knowledge, and what they react to, is mostly dictated by MSM messages. Miller wrote a lot about the WMDs so she is "guilty" of lying like Bush.


8 posted on 07/06/2005 6:04:04 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

And all she did was have a conversation about the topic.


9 posted on 07/06/2005 6:13:11 PM PDT by SuzanneC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

The thing that fascinates me here is not the Iraqi reporting but her willingness to go to jail rather than give up her source in the Plame affair, especially when the other reporter has already rolled over. Why would she protect a source already outed unless it's a different source? Why would the MSM go to the trouble of tarring her as an administration hack? Something's going on here and it's pretty damn interesting.


10 posted on 07/06/2005 6:15:05 PM PDT by Arkie2 (No, I never voted for Bill Clinton. I don't plan on voting Republican again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
How ironic that Miller's tour of duty in the slammer will earn the mantle of professional martyrdom for her employer, but not for her.

She will be known as "the New York Times reporter who went to jail rather than reveal a source", but her name will be forgotten.

11 posted on 07/06/2005 6:27:31 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
"A large percentage of Americans believe weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, polls show. A large percentage also thinks Saddam conspired with al Qaeda, and even that Saddam played a role in the 9/11 attacks. One could argue that this indicates a failure of American journalism, quite apart from Judith Miller

Yes the msm did fail. They were unable to blind a majority of the American public to the truth.

12 posted on 07/06/2005 6:28:36 PM PDT by Eagles6 (Dig deeper, more ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McGruff; Springman; StarFan; Howlin; Peach; cyncooper; leadpenny

Hang down your head, Matt Cooper.


13 posted on 07/06/2005 6:28:37 PM PDT by YaYa123 (@Judith Miller Is No Girlie Man.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arkie2

Surely, you jest. A bureau chief of the "The Progressive"?


14 posted on 07/06/2005 6:29:45 PM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: expatpat

This woman is an enigma to me. I'm going to have to follow her story a little more closely to find out what's going on.


15 posted on 07/06/2005 6:34:01 PM PDT by Arkie2 (No, I never voted for Bill Clinton. I don't plan on voting Republican again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

Humming along!


16 posted on 07/06/2005 6:55:23 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

What little this article has to do with Miller seems to be criticizing her for writing about weapons of mass destruction. Is that wrong? I mean, that was a news story, whether the weapons later turned up in Iraq or not.


17 posted on 07/06/2005 7:04:54 PM PDT by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

Miller has written brilliantly for years about Saddam, well before 9/11. She wrote a book about Iraq and Saddam in the 80's with Laurie Mylroi.


18 posted on 07/06/2005 7:04:59 PM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Peach

I've been a bit disgusted by the assumptions about Miller on this forum because she is from the NYT by people who are totally unfamiliar with her history.


19 posted on 07/06/2005 7:32:58 PM PDT by Chameleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SuzanneC
The following is from Byron York, posted today in HuffingtonPost.com:

"To Lawrence O'Donnell: How Do You Know?
In your original post on the Plame/Cooper/Miller affair, you wrote that "Time magazine's emails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury."

So, how did you know that? Did someone at Time tell you? Your words suggest that you knew the contents of internal Time emails, which could mean that someone inside Time, which was refusing to give information to a federal grand jury investigating a criminal case, was at the same time sharing that information with people outside Time, namely you.

No judge or prosecutor would look kindly on that. Have you been contacted by the prosecutor or the court? More generally, as it concerns the Plamegate matter, shouldn't everyone in this conversation (except for O'Donnell, who might have inside information) admit that they don't know what they're talking about? Is Robert Novak "skating" through the case, as Alan Dershowitz suggests? Who knows, other than the direct participants? Are Cooper and Miller shielding top administration officials? Who knows, other than the direct participants? So far, it's all a mystery.

And by the way, isn't this an admirable case of grand jury secrecy rules actually working? Isn't this we're-all-in-the-dark situation exactly what Ken Starr's critics wished for back in 1998?"

20 posted on 07/06/2005 7:47:55 PM PDT by YaYa123 (@Byron York Fan.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Arkie2

Maybe she doesn't have a source. She may be faced with lying to a Grand Jury or being exposed. Maybe there was no release from her source because there wasn't one. She just got caught jumping on the wagon because it was just so obvious what had happened. The same resaoning Damn Rat-her used. She does work for the NYT which is known for that kind of stuff.


21 posted on 07/08/2005 7:20:42 AM PDT by right right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: right right

Interesting theory but she's been an administration supporter on the war as far as I can tell. That leads me to believe she's protecting a very high administration source. Just a theory.


22 posted on 07/08/2005 11:54:37 AM PDT by Arkie2 (No, I never voted for Bill Clinton. I don't plan on voting Republican again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Arkie2
She's certainly painted here as a Bush tool.

You are not suggesting she's in jail to protect Karl Rove, are you?..LOL I suspect John Kerry might be nearer the mark.......

23 posted on 07/12/2005 8:09:32 PM PDT by Wil H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

I know that incredibly nasty Neal Gabler hates her.

That's good enough for me.


24 posted on 07/12/2005 8:12:33 PM PDT by altura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

Kinda makes ya wonder if Plame and Miller have ever met. They both share the same interests.


25 posted on 07/12/2005 8:21:55 PM PDT by OkiMusashi (Beware the fury of a patient man. --- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: altura

Here's more on Gabler

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/102504E.shtml

"Karl Rove: America's Mullah
By Neal Gabler
The Los Angeles Times
Sunday 24 October 2004

This election is about Rovism, and the outcome threatens to transform the U.S. into an ironfisted theocracy.
Neal Gabler, a senior fellow at the Norman Lear Center at USC Annenberg, is author of "Life the Movie: How Entertainment Conquered Reality." "


26 posted on 07/12/2005 10:20:00 PM PDT by YaYa123 (@YIKES! ..com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: OkiMusashi; cyncooper
"Kinda makes ya wonder if Plame and Miller have ever met"

OkiMusashi, that's such an interesting question! Miller would no doubt have known WMD specialists in the Pentagon, State Dept, and CIA. But if we are to believe Joe Wilson and his msm comrades, Miller couldn't have known Plame. Remember, Plame worked in deep cover. {snicker, snicker}

cyncooper, do you know how or why Fitzgerald became interested in Judith Miller? It's late, maybe I'm forgetting stuff, but I don't think we've ever read Judith Miller describing her sources as "government officials" or anything else. We don't know anything about the source(s) she's protecting, do we?

Except, we can assume Miller's source is not Karl Rove.

For the last few days I've thought Miller might be protecting another reporter, but that was wishful thinking.

27 posted on 07/12/2005 11:09:35 PM PDT by YaYa123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

A new day, and the first attention grabber for me is:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/12/AR2005071201402.html


",,,,Miller was not protecting a classic whistle-blower bent on exposing wrongdoing, Stone said, but rather officials who were seeking to discredit Wilson. "In this context, you're talking about people who were violating the law and manipulating the press," he said.
Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, said that "with all the reporters who found ways around this, there was the impression that the New York Times was spoiling for a fight." But he added that there is no way to know for sure.

Turley said he found it "strange" that Miller and her attorney have said nothing about seeking a personal waiver from her source or sources. "That seemed to me a step they could have taken," he said....."


28 posted on 07/13/2005 4:47:52 AM PDT by YaYa123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

The following is from Eleanor Clift:

"But for those who have followed Miller’s work, there is poetic justice in her having to defend the same cast of characters who likely fed her all that bogus information about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq"


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8555465/site/newsweek/page/2/


29 posted on 07/13/2005 5:14:08 AM PDT by YaYa123 (@Claws Out.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
cyncooper, do you know how or why Fitzgerald became interested in Judith Miller?

I only know she was subpoened on August 12 and August 14 of 2004. I'll guess the source (identified as a "specified government official") told the grand jury that he spoke with her.

30 posted on 07/13/2005 7:25:44 AM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
Thanks for the Howie Kurtz dreck.

I am sick of the reporters and their "coerced waivers" story.

The media has tried to portray the WH as recalcitrant when the reality is they were open and cooperative and still we get a portrait painted that they are "coercing" their people.

Beam me up.

And this:

Cooper agreed to testify after announcing that his source had personally released him from his promise of anonymity. Miller has steadfastly refused to testify.

More deceit. We learned yesterday that the "personally released" was Cooper having his lawyer call Rove's lawyer (not the other way around) and merely confirming the existing waiver that had been signed over a year before really meant what it said.

Color me disgusted. Today's the day Cooper goes to testify.

31 posted on 07/13/2005 7:43:06 AM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

Miller is protecting Plame. Like, how many WMD experts are there in the country? There can't be THAT many of 'em. If Miller has made the rounds gathering up WMD information from "the experts", then I wouldn't be surprised if she has run into Plame.

It'll be funny if it turns out that Plame spilled the beans about her job at the CIA to a reporter and then her husband, Joe, filled in the blanks by being the first person in the world to announce that she was a covert agent(once upon a time).

This story has great comic potiental.


32 posted on 07/13/2005 12:40:44 PM PDT by OkiMusashi (Beware the fury of a patient man. --- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
There’s an important difference in reportorial style between Miller and her colleagues. Risen and Bergman are diggers, excavating documents and sources hidden deep in the bureaucracy. Miller, on the other hand, relies on her well-placed, carefully tended-to connections to nab her stories. In February, on the public-radio show “The Connection,” she said, “My job was not to collect information and analyze it independently as an intelligence agency; my job was to tell readers of the New York Times, as best as I could figure out, what people inside the governments, who had very high security clearances, who were not supposed to talk to me, were saying to one another about what they thought Iraq had and did not have in the area of weapons of mass destruction.

My emphasis added. Miller-Plame-Wilson connections?

See: http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/index2.html

33 posted on 07/19/2005 3:31:03 PM PDT by SERKIT ("Blazing Saddles" explains it all.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson