Judith Miller's biography

[Domitan]

http://provost.syr.edu/lectures/miller.asp

(Those eyes *shudder*)

Please take a look at her biography, especially in light of recent developments (e.g., Arianna Huffington's post on Judith Miller). What stands out for you that suggests that she is more than just a pushy news reporter? Anything that makes you think she has many connections in very high places (beyond the chief editor in NYT and other media places she worked in)? Anything that serves as clues to her being a CIA (or other type of secret) agent...or hired propagandist?

[AtomicKitten]

1. She turned to the dark side

and printed Chalabi's BS almost verbatim.

I think some people had an emotional response to 9/11 and perhaps hers manifested in over-dramatization of the fear of WMD. However, if she is a specialist in the field as her bio indicates, she should have been aware of the dissent in the intelligence community. War was taken too lightly with this crowd and they weren't swayed by not being sure; in fact, they doctored the evidence to promote their already intended invasion.

Ms. Miller flushed her journalistic career down the toilet throwing in with this crowd. I don't think she should be in jail for the CIA leak since she didn't write anything, however, it is karmic punishment of enabling this adminstrations's fraudulent rush to war.

I just wish the crux of this case - the CIA leak - wasn't muddled with her particular situation. This has nothing to do with whistleblowers but rather enablers of the WH intending retribution for someone having the audacity to expose their lies. Judith Miller is no hero.

[tblue37]

19. She isn't in jail for the CIA leak at all. She is in jail for refusing

to testify before the grand jury. Even reporters have to testify if they are called to do so, but since she didn't even write a story about it, she isn't really shielding a journalistic source. She is just shielding someone who almost certainly committed a crime.

[ken_g]

2. I thought so too

After reading a recent article (memory fails me where) about her past in Lebanon and Egypt during the 80's. Same M.O., Poindexter and the like feeding her info on Kadafi, etc. REALLy seams like an asset to me, if not a direct covert employee. WH feeds Judith... Judith reports in NYtimes...WH uses the NYtimes as an affirmation from the podium. It just smells.
-Ken

[newyawker99]

21. Hi ken_g!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[newswolf56]

3. Her background looks pretty typical to me. She's obviously...

a member of the oligarchy, but Caucasians seldom get hired by major media unless they come from unimpeachably aristocratic backgrounds (in Miller's case a background proven by her Barnard College and European university degrees -- something forever beyond the financial reach of non-aristocratic families). Moreover, her NPR/Progressive connections suggest very strongly she is yet another Leftist (or at least Liberal) who was understandably blinded by fury at 9/11 -- and then ruthlessly exploited by the Bush Administration's lie-mongers.

(I have never understood the hatred against her so often spewed on this site. But then I'm a journalist myself -- one who has been deliberately misled by sources a couple of times too.)

[ken_g]

7. huh???

exploited by the Bush administration lie-mongers?? She was a team player. She'd been in this game before and knew the rules. There's strong evidence out there that she was just as angry at Joe Wilson as the WH.

[newswolf56]

8. Respectfully -- this is NOT a flaming sneer or jeer -- I have never...

seen such evidence. In fact it seems to me Miller is even more despised by the Right (condemned merely for her connection to The New York Times) -- at least based on what I have seen on the one Rightist site I sometimes visit. Which of course brings to mind a standard adage of journalists: "when both sides despise you, it means you're doing your job."

The few "Miller-as-insider" accounts I've read make it sound to me as if she was pretty much another beat reporter doing the schmoozing that's so often necessary to cover your beat. And -- yes -- it's one of the difficult truths of journalism that during such schmoozing the distinction between player and reporter sometimes becomes obscured. (I never worked on such levels as Miller for such rarefied publications as The Times, but I have surely seen episodes when policy discussions with state legislators or city and county government people crossed the observer/participant line.)

That said, if you have any especially damning links -- again I say this with absolute respect -- please provide them.

[ken_g]

4. Some stuff from dailykos on her 80's work

<http://hoyapaul.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/8/16033/61733>

[newswolf56]

17. Interesting -- and thank you. While I still get the impression...

of a talented journalist savagely backstabbed by some of her colleagues for not being sufficiently politically correct -- that "E.C." business is far more damning of its perpetrators than of Miller herself -- it also appears there is good reason to believe she may have been too easily duped. But I also remember the '80s (and the horrors of Reaganism) -- and there was no question, after terrorists in the service of the Libyan dictator blew up an airliner over Scotland -- of the reality of the threat: just because the threat analysis comes from Republicans does not automatically mean it is a lie. I would criticize Miller not as a willing propagandist so much as an unwitting tool. (And as a journalist who has myself been duped by politicians of both parties, it is hard for me to hurl any denunciatory stones at all, whether first, last or in between.)

Moreover, I think a significant danger here is for our justified outrage at the Bush Administration and its lies to minimize the very real magnitude of the Jihadist menace. The Jihadist threat is indeed real: not just 9/11 or the the past 30 years but the entire history of Islam proves it. We should be careful not lose sight of that fact just because the dire threat to constitutional governance presented by the Bush Administration is also very real. In my opinion, Bush is not a "bungler" at all: with his Christofascist allies he is in fact the most maliciously despotic president in U.S. history -- concealing his tyrannical intent by manipulating the real emergency inflicted by Jihadist terror into an opportunistic cover for his own unspeakably malevolent corporatist/theocratic schemes. The finger Bush gave to America via the press corps yesterday is, I fear, an accurate reflection of his views toward anyone and everyone who is not part of the oligarchy.

Which is precisely what makes this such a dread time on our own history: as never before, we are beset by two formidable enemies, one without, the other within. Frankly I do not think the Republic will survive, though that is another issue.

[Divernan]

5. Official bios are PR puff pieces - why on earth would it

contain names of highly placed connections who are her sources? It doesn't tell us what her political party registration is or how she voted either.

[scarletwoman]

6. Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International

Affairs.

Wonder if that was where she was "recruited"?

She has a close relationship with Daniel Pipes' Mideast Forum, is a member of the American Enterprise Institute, and has lots of close associations with the neocons and pro-Israel organizations.

I don't think she's CIA, I think she's part of the Feith/Franklin/Likud shadow intelligence group. Sort of like the Italian P2.

There's lots of interesting info about Miller here -- lots to read, but worth it:
http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?p=10298

sw

[wishlist]

9. Her masters from Woodrow Wilson School is definitely a possible clue

This school has always had an express purpose of training people for government service. Certainly successful students of their masters programs are recruited by various high level government agencies involved in influencing international policy.

"Woodrow Wilson School graduates pursue challenging careers as policymakers, administrators, and managers in government at all levels and in non-governmental organizations, multilateral organizations, foundations, policy and research institutes, and other organizations—both in the United States and abroad."

http://www.black-collegian.com/graduateschool/profiles/princeton_wws901.shtml

[Disturbed]

10. She is in Club Fed because..

she in in Civil Contempt of a Court Order to testify in a Federal Investigation. I hope that she gets charged Criminal Contempt and has a trial. She is a willing propagandist and possibly a co-conspirator in a Capital Crime.

[scarletwoman]

13. Please see my latest post, below.

I came across the link I posted there after my initial post in this thread. I think it reveals quite a bit...

sw

[Domitan]

22. That's what I find interesting

Woodrow Wilson is considered by some observers to be one of the "patron saints" for the neocon philosophy today.

I have to admit that Judith Miller getting the DuPont award raised my eyebrows. Nothing meaningful there itself...but just knowing that DuPont is one of the most shameless corporations out there (e.g., trading with Nazis and putting business interests ahead of national interests) just made it interesting for me ;)

[Burried News]

14. Yes, I suspect that.

There is a Miller Institute and I believe these are her relatives.
Appropriately there is a mathematical knot named for them.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MillerInstituteKnot.html
Judith also is an expert on antique furniture and the author or coauthor of "Antique Hunter's Guide to Europe".

It is an unusual resume - sort of James Bond like?
Bright, cosmopolitan, self assured, in the Media.
I am also thinking Robert Maxwell.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0786710780/104-2854176-9046338?v=glance

[TacticalPeek]

11. The topic/timing of a couple of her books is interesting.

Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf, which she co-authored with Laurie Mylroie (!?! crazy person), came out in October, 1990 - and we invaded Kuwait and Iraq the next February.

Germs: Biological Weapons and America's Secret War, which she co-authored with two other NYT reporters, was published in October, 2002 - and we invaded Iraq the next March.

Background research for books about WMD and Saddam might conceivably have led Miller to the same orbits that Plame tracks. Conceivably.

?

[scarletwoman]

12. Here's a link you MUST read! If you wanna know about Miller...

(From another Miller thread that got locked)

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

This article (long, but well worth reading!) describes in great detail her rise as a reporter in NYT, and the contacts she cultivated along the way. Truly a must-read, if you want to know what makes Miller tick.

None of it contradicts the assertions in my earlier post on this thread, btw.

sw

[Burried News]

16. Another list of colleagues.

www.benadorassociates.com
She is not listered as a member but she coauthors with Mylroie who is.
All circumstantial but unusual.

[newswolf56]

18. Thank you for posting this. It very much confirms my impression...

(#17 above) that Miller was an unwitting tool -- but with the additional, ironic and infinitely damning characteristic of being a tool who was dulled and blunted entirely by her own overriding ego.

[scarletwoman]

20. You're welcome. However, I very much disagree with your conclusion

that she's "an unwitting tool". I think she is QUITE "witting". I think she very purposefully set out to make herself a player.

Please read the link in my very first post on this thread.

In any case, I'm glad that you've found this latest link I've posted useful.

sw

[Jara sang]

15. She is a freakin' Neocon...

[wishlist]

23. Amen, anyone who collaborated with neocon Laurie Mylroei is one too

Mylroei has also been proven to be totally wrong in her neocon theories and allegations that promoted the Iraq war.

[ken_g]

24. I'm still bothered though...

as to why the NYtimes editors seem so complicit as well. I mean, every reporter has to answer to their editor. Why were her sources (Chilabi) not vetted more thoroughly. And when the Times did their apology, why were they so shy about naming the reporter that wrote 4 of the 6 "most egregious" articles leading up to the war? I remember reading at that time other articles discussing skepticism in the intelligence community. Why were the Times editors so willing to publish her stuff without a little more investigation?