A few things pop into mind when looking over her defense narrative. One, she insinuates that her editor had no interest in pursuing a story contradicting Joe Wilson's Niger piece. Miller:
Soon after my breakfast meeting with Libby in July, I did so. I remember asking the editor to let me explore whether what my source had said was true, or whether it was a potential smear of a whistleblower. I don’t recall naming the source of the tip. But I specifically remember saying that because Joe Wilson’s op-ed column had appeared in our paper, we had a particular obligation to pursue this.
We could surmise a couple of things here. Maybe that Abramson didn't want Miller to go after Wilson's story because she knew it had some holes in it. That would suggest, in a conspiratorial kinda way, that editors at the paper might have known what Wilson and Plame were up to, and supported it. They didn't want the pesky Miller pooping all over their get-Bush scandal (and something that could resurrect a dying circulation and reputation).
Or, it might simply suggest Abramson knew Miller's career was riding on the WMD reports and needed to do a hit piece on Wilson herself to save face. I have no idea.
Later Miller mentions her role in searching for WMD in Iraq, and her resulting security status:
No one doubts that I had access to very sensitive information or that I did work out informal arrangements to limit discussion of sensitive intelligence sources and methods to the most senior Times editors.
Did I just read that senior Times editors had access to what she knew about sensitive information regards Iraq? Wonder how common that is. Wonder if they have clearances? Wonder what's so sensitive about that information that it can't be told now? That is, if Judy told them everything.
No comments:
Post a Comment