October 1, 2005
After
Judith Miller finally decided to testify before a Grand Jury
investigating the Plame scandal, her paper narrated the story in a
report that can easily induce a coma.
The
agreement that led to Miller's release followed intense negotiations
among her; her lawyer, Robert Bennett; Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate; and
Fitzgerald. The talks began with a telephone call from Bennett to Tate
in late August. Miller spoke with Libby by telephone this month as
their lawyers listened. It was then that Libby told Miller that she had
his personal and voluntary waiver. The discussions were at times
strained, with Libby and Tate's asserting that they communicated their
voluntary waiver to another lawyer for Miller, Floyd Abrams, more than
year ago. Other people involved in the case have said Miller did not
understand that the waiver had been freely given and did not accept it
until she had heard from Libby directly. On Thursday, Abrams wrote to
Tate disputing parts of Tate's account. His letter said although Tate
had said the waiver was voluntary; Tate had also said any waiver sought
as a condition of employment was inherently coercive. Tate said in an
interview on Thursday, "Her lawyers were provided with a waiver that we
said was voluntary more than a year ago." Abrams would not discuss the
question in a brief telephone conversation on Thursday." (Douglas Jehl,
NYT, 9/30/2005)
If you’re still
awake, here is a brief translation: Miller believed Libby was coerced
into giving her a waiver to testify about his role in the Plame case.
That’s why she spent 12 weeks rotting in jail until she was certain
that he meant it from the bottom of his heart. A whole bunch of lawyers
were engaged to determine Libby’s sincerity.
That’s
the best the sorry lads on 43rd street could come up with. It gets
better. Libby and his lawyer now claim to be astonished that he was the
source Miller claimed to be protecting. Apparently, after a year of
legal maneuvering behind a cadre of high powered lawyers, Libby
realized "it was all about moi."
After
shedding her prison garments, Miller wasted no time in holding a press
conference. She let it be known that she had negotiated with Fitzgerald
to make certain that her testimony "could be limited to the
communications with the source for whom I received that personal and
voluntary waiver." Needless to say, even more lawyers were involved in
these negotiations to make Libby the sole focus of her testimony. That
means she still maintains the privilege of covering up for other
conspirators.
Why have so many
lawyers spent so much time working on a precise script that would allow
Miller to testify against Libby – a high powered lawyer who is no
stranger to back room deals? You might recall that Libby was the clever
guy who convinced Clinton to grant a last minute pardon to Mark Rich
after securing good conduct affidavits from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud
Barak and the Mossad. And we don’t need to be reminded that both Miller
and Libby collaborated for months on manufacturing the bogus WMD hoax.
They were indispensable players on the neo-con 'A’ team tasked with
marketing the war in Iraq. So, it’s safe to conclude that when Joseph
Wilson exposed the 'yellow cake’ uranium scam, both Miller and Libby
had equal incentives to retaliate against the ambassador and his CIA
wife.
One of the major neo-con
players in the WMD hoax was Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher of the New
York Times. His stake in this game compelled him to take Judith
Miller’s case to the Supreme Court. It’s small wonder that he has been
so adamant in his attempt to keep Miller from revealing her role in the
Plame games. The role of the Times in launching weapons of mass
deception has already eroded the credibility of his media empire to
such an extent that he was recently obliged to lay off 500 employees.
In the search for untarnished news, readers are defecting by the
thousands from the 'paper of record.’
Within
the Bush Administration, the designated WMD hit man was Dick Cheney,
Libby’s immediate boss. In my estimate, both Libby and Miller have now
consented to embrace in a carefully choreographed dance to prevent
further revelations about the massive coordinated campaign to deceive
the American people and pave the path to war. Aside from protecting
themselves and their ideological fellow travelers in the neo-con cabal,
they are determined to cover up for Sulzberger, Cheney and Karl Rove.
This might explain why Miller insisted on limiting her testimony to
Libby’s role in outing Valerie Plame as a CIA agent.
Far
from being a reporter, Miller is a power player. She didn’t get
together with Libby to ask a few innocent questions about Ambassador
Joseph Wilson or Valerie Plame. Rather, she was plotting with Libby to
contain the damage from Wilson’s accusations. Keep in mind that Wilson
didn’t just throw water on the bogus 'yellow uranium’ scam; he also
questioned whether intelligence was being deliberately corrupted. He
let it be known that there was no 'intelligence failure’. Rather, there
was an elaborate conspiracy to manufacture WMD fiction to justify a war
against Iraq. Wilson can be credited with blowing the whistle long
before the Downing Street memos.
Given
Miller’s intimate relationships with the neo-con intelligence
manufacturing operations at the Pentagon Office of Special Plans,
chances are she knew more about Valerie Plame than Lewis Libby or Karl
Rove. Her supporters constantly bring up the fact that she never wrote
a story on Wilson or Plame. Why would she? She was very likely the
source of the story. It was part of her contribution to the mission to
smear Wilson – which was apparently conducted from the office of the
Vice President.
One of the few
positive side effects of the war in Iraq has been the exposure of the
New York Times as an instrument of state propaganda. Sulzberger is a
war monger – a descendant of William Hurst and a purveyor of putrid
yellow journalism. The new poster child of media empire is Judith
Miller – who makes Jayson Blair look like Edward R. Murrow. Every
subscriber to the 'paper of record’ is a willing enabler of a breed of
'journalists’ who are willing to use their pens to spill the blood of
other people’s children.
In a
land that cherishes free speech, what can be done about a publisher who
has no scruples about marketing war and mayhem? As citizens, we don’t
have the luxury of voting the bastard out of his exalted office. But we
can and we must economically bleed his media empire. If you want to
muzzle the sounds of Sulzberger’s war drums, stop buying his paper. Let
him pay the price of the blood he spills in red ink. If you want news
that’s fit to print, boycott the New York Times and hold your peace
demonstrations in Times Square.
____________________
Ahmed Amr is the editor of NileMedia.com