Heard It Through the Grapevine
Mickey Katz
When John Podhoretz floated the idea that jailed journalist Judith Miller was a source , rather than the recipient, of the Bush White House's knowledge of Valerie Plame's CIA job, I was skeptical. True, I'd "heard that too," as Karl Rove might say. And the notion was entirely plausible, for three reasons: 1) Reporters tell officials information all the time. Why? Because officials tend to take the calls of reporters from whom they learn things! And because reporters and officials are often tacit partners in an idealistic conspiracy--to reform welfare, for example, or to avoid reforming welfare, or to encourage the administration to go to war with Serbia, or with Iraq; 2) Judith Miller is a logical candidate to have been a tacit partner of Bush administration hawks in pursuit of that last goal; 3) Miller had written about WMDs and might well have run into Plame (a WMD expert) in the course of her reporting.
The problem with the Judy-as-source speculation, it has always seemed to me, is that it doesn't explain anything that can't be explained by other, less exotic theories. Why isn't Miller's case just like Matt Cooper's--she's someone whom an official said he (or she) spoke with, or who turned up on a phone log, and from whom the special prosecutor wants the other side of the conversation? Why wasn't Miller's refusal to cut a deal with the prosecutor exactly what she said it was--an act of conscience and a refusal to betray a source--or exactly what the cynics said it was--a First Amendment martyrdom too eagerly pursued? And if, say, Karl Rove or Lewis "Scooter" Libby first learned of Plame's CIA status from a reporter, why didn't they just say that and exculpate themselves?
Well, now both Rove and Libby have done exactly that, as reported in an anonymously-sourced scoop that the New York Times inexplicably treats as hurting the administration. According to the NYT's source, Rove says that when Robert Novak called him he heard Plame's name from Novak, and "had heard parts of the story from other journalists." [Emph. added] As for Libby, Susan Schmidt of the Washington Post already reported back in late 2004 that Libby has told the prosecutor he heard about Wilson's wife's employment from someone in the media, according to lawyers involved in the case. [Emph. added]
What's more, according to Schmidt, Time's Matt Cooper backed Libby up on that question:
Time reporter Matthew Cooper has told prosecutors that he talked to Libby on July 12 and mentioned that he had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, a source knowledgeable about his testimony said. Cooper testified that Libby said he had heard the same thing from the media. [Emph. added]
This reported testimony of Libby and Rove--even though the latter could be coming from a pro-Rove leaker, like his weaselly lawyer--surely makes it more plausible rather than less that "the media did it." And it's prompted the estimable Tom Maguire to join those broaching the Judy-as-source theory.
I'm still skeptical. It's been argued to me that the Judy-as-source theory--or, perhaps more precisely, the Judy-Told-the-White-House Theory--explains why Fitzgerald would pursue her testimony with such ferocity. Perhaps. If Fitzgerald believes Rove when Rove says he heard it from journalists, and if Miller is one of the journalists suspected of telling him, Fitzgerald could be trying to discover where Milller, in turn, got the info that she then passed on. If Fitzgerald disbelieves Rove, he could be trying to catch him out. Still, maybe Fitzgerald is pursuing Miller simply because he pursues everyone listed on a phone log with ferocity.
Likewise, it's possible Miller is protecting the source who originally told her rather than protecting any White House sources such as Rove or Libby. And it's possible she's foolishly trying to prevent what she assumes would be an embarrassing disclosure of her own actions--specifically, perhaps, her adoption og the press' common non-passive, idealistic role in the great conspiratorial Washington scoop-swap. But maybe she's just protecting a White House source after all.
I'm sure I could be missing something, but unless Libby or Rove has named Miller,** or she cracks, I don't see a way to disprove or prove the Judy-told-the-White-House theory. I do know, however, that this theory is what many MSM journalists, who know more about the case than I do, are worried about. ...
**--Of course, if Rove is in fact Miller's ally, and Miller was his source, he might conveniently not recall who his journalist source was.
Update: WaPo reports that "Rove has said he does not recall who the journalist was." ... P.S.: The Post's account is sourced to a "lawyer [who] who has knowledge of the conversations between Rove and prosecutors," which certainly sounds like Rove's lawyer. [Links via JustOneMinute]"
politics.slate.msn.com |
