Arianna Huffington (The Huffington Post): The Judy File

[Jack Rabbit]

From the Huffington Post
Dated Monday August 1

The Judy File
By Arianna Huffington

Ever since I started blogging about Judy Miller's role in Plamegate (and in the selling of the war in Iraq), I've been showered with tips and tidbits about the jailed reporter, whom one e-mailer from Sag Harbor ("her summer hometown") archly referred to as "the amazing Ms. Miller, intrepid girl reporter."

And since I spent the weekend in the vicinity of her summer hometown, some of what I heard was delivered by people who know her well. Together all these pieces of information now comprise my newly labeled -- and ever-expanding -- Judy File.

A recurring theme in many of the conversations and e-mails is how Judy, to the dismay of many of her colleagues, never played by the same rules and standards as other reporters. One source e-mailed to give me some examples of this pattern: "In Feb 2003, Judy was in Salahuddin covering the Iraqi opposition conclave. Iraqi National Congress spokesperson Zaab Sethna told a reporter who was also there that Judy was staying with Chalabi's group in Salahuddin (the rest of the reporters had to stay 30 minutes away in crappy hotels in Irbil), and that the I.N.C. had provided her with a car and a translator (Did The New York Times reimburse them?). The I.N.C. offered another reporter the same, but he turned it down. Judy had just arrived in a bus convoy from Turkey, big footing C.J. Chivers, who was also there covering the story for the Times. While everyone else on the buses had to scramble for accommodations, she was staying in a luxurious villa loaned to the I.N.C. by the Kurdish Democratic Party...

Read more.

[jrthin]

1. This is what I feel about

Miller: I think she should be placed in a cell block with mass murderers. They should be told that Ms. Miller is responsible for siding with prosecutors, making their conviction easier (yes, that's a lie, but karma is what it is). Then, we should all stand back and watch nature takes it course. I passionately abhor this woman, and rotting in prison would still be too good for her, but I'll take it.

[Jack Rabbit]

2. I wouldn't be that nasty

However, I do want to see those responsible for propagating the lies that led to Bush's invasion of Iraq prosecuted for war crimes. That would mostly involve people in the executive branch of the Bush regime. However, perhaps no American from the private sector would be more likely to be tried for war crimes than Judy Miller.

The question is whether Ms. Miller was duped by Ahmed Chalabi, or whether she knew or have reason to know that she was being fed a lot of steer manure before she ran with it on the front pages of The New York Times. Talking to Chalabi and then getting confirmation of his story from some neoconservative hack at the Pentagon hardly sounds like independent verification. Of course, I don't have three Pulitzer Prizes, so I wouldn't be expected to know better.

[Peace Patriot]

3. Take a look at this time-line:

May 22, 2003: David Kelly (Brit WMD expert) starts whistleblowing to the BBC on the Brits' "sexed up" intel on Iraq.

July 7, 2003: Blair is informed (after Kelly is identified and interrogated) that Kelly "could say some uncomfortable things" ("COULD say"--not HAD said.)

July 14, 2003: First Plame outing.

July 17, 2003: Kelly emails Judith Miller, stating his concern about the "many dark actors playing games."

July 18, 2003: Kelly found dead, under extremely suspicious circumstances; his office and computers searched.

July 21, 2003; Miller publishes a news article in the NYT on Kelly's death, and fails to disclose her close connections to Kelly.

July 22, 2003: Second Plame outing--of the entire CIA front company, all WMD monitoring projects and contacts disabled (with some contacts probably getting killed).

What do I think that this interesting coincidence of dates adds up to? My guess: There was a plot to PLANT nukes or other WMDs in Iraq--Bush and Blair's most critical political need that summer ('03); Judith Miller would get the "scoop" on the phony WMDs "found" in Iraq (with her special 'embed' contract signed by Donald Rumsfeld, putting her at the scene--even directing the scene, according to reports); David Kelly was killed because he found out about this plot, and maybe foiled it (the "uncomfortable things" that Blair was told Kelly "could say"); and the Bushites did the SECOND Plame outing, of the whole CIA weapons monitoring operation, at much greater risk of treason charges (not needed to "punish" Wilson), because Plame and her network of covert WMD contacts might find out, had found out, or had helped foil it (info found in Kelly's computers).

This scenario explains a number of things, including the Bushites apparent panic in early July--calling at least SIX reporters to get Plame outed--when they first learned WHO was whistleblowing to the BBC (the Brits' almost legendary tough WMD scientist and insider on Iraq intel). It explains why they took the additional risk of treason charges in the outing of the CIA company (after Kelly's computers were searched). It explains WHY the Bushites were making such a big drama out of the weapons--letting Miller run all around Iraq with the troops looking for them--when they all knew there were no weapons there (the UN inspectors had established that). They were going to PLANT them. And it explains what ELSE Kelly knew, that could have got him killed (it wasn't just arguments about "sexed up" into) and also WHY he would whistleblow (insider that he was; he supported the war and wanted Saddam ousted, but started whistleblowing AFTER the invasion).

A bit too neat--more like a novel than like real life--but still, a pretty good working hypothesis. I think that this coincidence of dates in the Plame/Kelly stories is...well, a bit too coincidency. And, lo and behold, there's Judith Miller, laundering a CIA WMD expert's identity to other reporters (to protect the Bushite(s) who told her), on the one hand, and in intimate communication with another WMD expert--and whistleblower--who turns up dead.

Something here. I don't know if I've nailed it. But something....

[Jack Rabbit]

4. Sorry, but that's all a bit far fetched

It would have been interesting to have heard more of what Dr. Kelly could have told us, but it was most likely along the lines of how the the case for war was made up. That would have been embarrassing enough for governments on both sides of the Atlantic. In fact, it has been.

Are the Wilson and Kelly stories coincidence? That depends on how one defines the word. Both Wilson and Kelly had something to contribute to a huge story about how the war was justified on a pack of lies. However, they weren't the same contributions. Neither had to be familiar with the other. After all, almost everything the Bushies said about why we should go to war against Saddam was a lie.

Wilson's contribution to the story is a very small one; he was sent to Niger to investigate one possible uranium deal and reported that it never transpired. He didn't prove that Saddam was not attempting to purchase yellowcake, only that it was unlikely in the case that he investigated. In fact, when Wilson heard the infamous sixteen words in the 2003 SOTU, his first inclination was to assume that Bush was talking about some other deal, perhaps one that actually had a basis in fact. Wilson did not presume that he knew everything.

Dr. Kelly appeared to have been much closer to nerve center of the prevarication of intelligence in London. There should be no doubt he could have said some very uncomfortable things.