Judith Miller's Story of Truth

BrewerBob said:

I agree. The thing is main stream "journalists" are more worried about maintaining access. Say something bad about the POTUS and all of a sudden you are cut off. No more fancy White House dinners. It shouldn't be that way. You can argue it is worse under Obama but it was the case before him as well. It needs to stop.

Politicians should fear the media.

Click to expand...

Not the other way around.

Click to expand...

But they don't because they know the ones who either chose journalism for the wrong reasons or were hired by those who have.
You should never know a journalist's predilections but I can't think of m(any) for which that's true.

Grim17 said:

So what did she actually report, that contradicted what the intelligence community was saying at the time?

Click to expand...

It's doesn't really matter, the NY Times and the media were lapdogs to the Bush administration. Phil Donahue had a show on MSNBC and it was canceled because he was against war, he had ratings higher than Chris Matthews.

JasperL said:

I don't think you even read my post. If so, do it again. And pay attention to, e.g. "Should anyone celebrate that she accurately quoted people who made false claims? You don't have to call them "lies" just statements that were proved by events wrong" and the example of the tubes.

Click to expand...

That was the belief within the intelligence community... What in your opinion should she have done?

Grim17 said:

That was the belief within the intelligence community... What in your opinion should she have done?

Click to expand...

I've addressed that: "All of it off the record, no way to evaluate the competing claims, no apparent interest in which of the competing claims is backed by the evidence, we don't even get a clue on what basis there are competing claims. But she does dutifully and anonymously quote "senior officials" like a good little stenographer!!"

But to take it the next obvious step, as a REPORTER, her JOB is to provide readers some way to evaluate those competing claims, in this case whether the tubes were for centrifuges and nuclear weapons manufacture OR not. Instead she just blindly and anonymously quotes a bunch of "senior officials" who reassure readers that the FALSE claim that the tubes are suitable for making a nuclear bomb is correct. "He" said, "she" said, but "he" is 'more senior isn't good reporting. And when "He" is a government official supporting a war effort and what "He" tells you is repeatedly proved wrong and/or way exaggerated, but you continually quoted "He" uncritically in many stories, well that's the breaks and don't whine that you didn't do your job and critically challenge all those claims you dutifully reported in the NYT like you are "He's" stenographer.

Grim17 said:

You won't find many people, at least honest ones, who will disagree with you about how for the last 6 years the media has carried water for the Obama administration. There have been a few exception, but very few... That's because unflattering stories about Obama come at a price. Just ask Sheryl Adkisson.

Click to expand...

Yes they treated Obama with tender loving care.
But do not forget how they were literally cheerleaders for the Iraq War.

JasperL said:

I've addressed that: "All of it off the record, no way to evaluate the competing claims, no apparent interest in which of the competing claims is backed by the evidence, we don't even get a clue on what basis there are competing claims. But she does dutifully and anonymously quote "senior officials" like a good little stenographer!!"

Click to expand...

Competing claims... What competing claims? What she published was what the intelligence community believed, along with what several foreign intelligence agencies believed. It would have been different if there had been a split among intelligence agencies over the evidence, but there wasn't.

It seems to me, the reason you are upset because she reported what those "evil bastards" at the Bush Administration said and whether or not the story was accurate, is irrelevant.

But to take it the next obvious step, as a REPORTER, her JOB is to provide readers some way to evaluate those competing claims, in this case whether the tubes were for centrifuges and nuclear weapons manufacture OR not. Instead she just blindly and anonymously quotes a bunch of "senior officials" who reassure readers that the FALSE claim that the tubes are suitable for making a nuclear bomb is correct.

Click to expand...

What "competing claims"? There was only 1 agency that ended up disputing the claim and it was mentioned in her story. How could she report on a viewpoint that was largely non-existent?

What she reported, ended up being exactly what both democrats and republicans believed true, along with the intelligence community, the administration and several foreign agencies.

"He" said, "she" said, but "he" is 'more senior isn't good reporting. And when "He" is a government official supporting a war effort and what "He" tells you is repeatedly proved wrong and/or way exaggerated, but you continually quoted "He" uncritically in many stories, well that's the breaks and don't whine that you didn't do your job and critically challenge all those claims you dutifully reported in the NYT like you are "He's" stenographer.

Click to expand...

You have no basis for that statement I highlighted? The story was written in September of 2002.

You are just irritated that the New York Times allowed a story that quoted those evil bastards at the Bush Administration, instead of trashing them like any good liberal media outlet should.

JANFU said:

Yes they treated Obama with tender loving care.
But do not forget how they were literally cheerleaders for the Iraq War.

Click to expand...

Exactly what was the "other side" of the story on the Iraq war?

Please list all the evidence that Saddam wasn't a threat, that the media failed to report on?

Grim17 said:

Exactly what was the "other side" of the story on the Iraq war?

Please list all the evidence that Saddam wasn't a threat, that the media failed to report on?

Click to expand...

The other side was the former UN weapons Inspector Scott Ritter who said the stories about WMD were bogus.

Grim17 said:

Competing claims... What competing claims? What she published was what the intelligence community believed, along with what several foreign intelligence agencies believed. It would have been different if there had been a split among intelligence agencies over the evidence, but there wasn't.

It seems to me, the reason you are upset because she reported what those "evil bastards" at the Bush Administration said and whether or not the story was accurate, is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

What she published is what SOME in the "intelligence community believed." Others in the Bush administration including the nuclear experts "believed" something else - i.e. the tubes weren't suitable for nuclear weapons manufacture, but were more consistent with conventional weapons. And I already said the problem was she reported claims like a faithful stenographer, always making sure to quote "senior officials" and "other, more senior, officials" anonymously, so no one has a clue who is making what claim or any basis to evaluate the competing claims. As I said, "He said, she said, and He is more senior" is not good journalism.

If you think she did a good job, great. Go buy her book. I will pass.

What "competing claims"? There was only 1 agency that ended up disputing the claim and it was mentioned in her story. How could she report on a viewpoint that was largely non-existent?

Click to expand...

US Department of Energy (DOE), the IAEA, and the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) are three that disputed the claims. It's widely reported - here's one reference.

What she reported, ended up being exactly what both democrats and republicans believed true, along with the intelligence community, the administration and several foreign agencies.

Click to expand...

Too bad they were wrong.... And she did little but dutifully repeat those sources. That's the point. If you read the link above, the author indicates he had long discussions about how and why the "intelligence" assessment might be wrong. Read her article and let me know the basis of their objections.... You cannot. The most damning is the tubes perfectly matched KNOWN Iraqi rocket dimensions, but didn't match KNOWN Iraqi centrifuge dimensions. Is that in the story? No. And much more was left out as well. But her JOB is to report the story, not to be a stenographer.

You have no basis for that statement I highlighted? The story was written in September of 2002.

You are just irritated that the New York Times allowed a story that quoted those evil bastards at the Bush Administration, instead of trashing them like any good liberal media outlet should.

Click to expand...

See above. And quit making up my rationale for condemning Judith Miller. If you don't like my stated reasons, that's fine, but it's BS to make up my position so you can condemn your own straw man.

FWIW, I've already said and I'll say it again, this kind of government stenography isn't limited to Judith Miller. Right or wrong she was hung out to dry because of what she and 100s more like her, including a slew of them at the NYT and WAPO, do every damn day, which is get a call from a government official, put it in a story, and quote 'senior officials' without any challenge at all. Someone earlier posted a graph showing the decline in the trust in the MSM - I can't speak for anyone else, but that's my reason not to trust them. If Bush and Obama don't despise the press covering them, the press isn't doing it's damn job. Which means that about 99% of them we see on TV in those press conferences aren't doing their job, right or left. It's worse on TV than in print - I quit watching Sunday shows long ago - if I want to hear the latest talking points from the Administration or the RNC or DNC, I can read them at my leisure - no sense in watching some parrot go on a show and repeat them without any real pushback from the hosts.

pbrauer said:

The other side was the former UN weapons Inspector Scott Ritter who said the stories about WMD were bogus.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to rehash Iraq, but you are talking about someone who was last in Iraq in 1998, 3 years prior to Miller's story, and even when he was there as a weapons inspector, their efforts were always hampered by Saddam and they never got Iraq's full cooperation.

That falls into the category of speculation, and not very reliable speculation at that.

What I'm looking for is any reliable, credible information that was available to Miller that questioned what the intelligence community's beliefs were about Iraq... Basically Pete, there wasn't any, so I really don't understand what you or anyone else thought Miller should have reported?

Grim17 said:

I'm not going to rehash Iraq, but you are talking about someone who was last in Iraq in 1998, 3 years prior to Miller's story, and even when he was there as a weapons inspector, their efforts were always hampered by Saddam and they never got Iraq's full cooperation.

That falls into the category of speculation, and not very reliable speculation at that.

What I'm looking for is any reliable, credible information that was available to Miller that questioned what the intelligence community's beliefs were about Iraq... Basically Pete, there wasn't any, so I really don't understand what you or anyone else thought Miller should have reported?

Click to expand...

Read the link above - she failed to report a great deal of information available to her about the tubes.

pbrauer said:

The other side was the former UN weapons Inspector Scott Ritter who said the stories about WMD were bogus.

Click to expand...

Backed by the facts on the ground during and after the invasion. Something like 500 items in total were found, all dating back to the First Gulf War and beyond.

Jack Hays said:

Judith Miller's new book reminds us of the unhinged hysteria that gripped the left and some of the media during the GWB years. Sadly, the New York Times seems to have been among the unhinged. Miller has begun the work of setting the record straight, but a full accounting will take a long time.


Judith Miller's "Story": Setting the Record Straight - Peter Berkowitz, RCP

". . . Miller’s account of her life and times includes good friends; remarkable colleagues; the thrill of the scoop; and the glamor, hardship, and danger of the foreign correspondent’s life. Her tale leaves little doubt that, as her critics charged, she could be ambitious, headstrong, and abrasive. It also illustrates the risks run by reporters who rely heavily on sources who, unless they can speak on background or off the record, will not share what they know, or think they know. Most of all, “The Story” displays Judith Miller's devotion to journalism—a devotion that, despite the many disappointments and betrayals, endures. . . . "

Click to expand...

Fitzgerald and a compliant federal judge jailed Miller for 85 days in pursuit of evidence against, among others, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. It was Libby, Fitzgerald would subsequently allege, who “threw sand in the eyes of the grand jury and the FBI investigators” looking into the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity. In a remarkable epilogue, Miller offers reasons to conclude that Fitzgerald misled her into giving what she now understands to have been erroneous testimony that helped Fitzgerald in 2007 secure a conviction of Libby for obstruction of justice, making a false statement, and perjury.

Click to expand...

The life of a journalist in America.

This shows exactly how the left operates. Don't like the message? Destroy the reputation of the messenger.

JasperL said:

What she published is what SOME in the "intelligence community believed." Others in the Bush administration including the nuclear experts "believed" something else - i.e. the tubes weren't suitable for nuclear weapons manufacture, but were more consistent with conventional weapons...

If you think she did a good job, great. Go buy her book. I will pass.

Click to expand...

Let me quote the article in question:


As you can plainly see, she did cover that aspect, so again, I don't understand what your beef is here?

US Department of Energy (DOE), the IAEA, and the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) are three that disputed the claims. It's widely reported - here's one reference.

Click to expand...

As I already showed you, she reported that dispute.... I find it very interesting how you use a December 2003 publication, to argue a September 2002 article.

Too bad they were wrong.... And she did little but dutifully repeat those sources. That's the point. If you read the link above, the author indicates he had long discussions about how and why the "intelligence" assessment might be wrong. Read her article and let me know the basis of their objections.... You cannot. The most damning is the tubes perfectly matched KNOWN Iraqi rocket dimensions, but didn't match KNOWN Iraqi centrifuge dimensions. Is that in the story? No. And much more was left out as well. But her JOB is to report the story, not to be a stenographer.

Click to expand...

Yes, the intelligence did turn out to be wrong, but based on what was believed at the time, there was nothing else Miller could have reported.

See above. And quit making up my rationale for condemning Judith Miller...

Click to expand...

What else could it be? You are basing your opinion not on what facts and views were available in 2002, but based on what was learned several months to years later.

FWIW, I've already said and I'll say it again, this kind of government stenography isn't limited to Judith Miller. Right or wrong she was hung out to dry because of what she and 100s more like her, including a slew of them at the NYT and WAPO, do every damn day, which is get a call from a government official, put it in a story, and quote 'senior officials' without any challenge at all. Someone earlier posted a graph showing the decline in the trust in the MSM - I can't speak for anyone else, but that's my reason not to trust them. If Bush and Obama don't despise the press covering them, the press isn't doing it's damn job. Which means that about 99% of them we see on TV in those press conferences aren't doing their job, right or left. It's worse on TV than in print - I quit watching Sunday shows long ago - if I want to hear the latest talking points from the Administration or the RNC or DNC, I can read them at my leisure - no sense in watching some parrot go on a show and repeat them without any real pushback from the hosts.

Click to expand...

And I'll say this again... Credible opposition to the views of the CIA and the Intelligence Community about Iraq and their weapons capabilities was nearly non-existent. What little there was, was in the extreme minority, but never the lees was mentioned by Miller in that piece.

People like you use what we know now, to condemn Miller and others in the media for reporting on what was known and believed to be true back then. You pretend that somehow they should have known better, or should have published articles that raised questions about the intelligence, when they simply had no credible sources or evidence that would have supported such articles.

You can continue to argue this until you're blue in the face, but it will not change the reality that existed back in 2002.

Lets not forget that she was thrown in jail by the federal govt for exercising her freedom of the press in that pointless Valarie Plame incident.

JasperL said:

Read the link above - she failed to report a great deal of information available to her about the tubes.

Click to expand...

She reported what was known, including the State Department objections... She could not have published the details, because those details were classified at the time. In fact, nobody from the State Department even mentioned publicly that their assessment differed from the consensus reached in the 2002 NIE until late December 2002/early January 2003, several months AFTER Miller's article.

Again, I have to question your motives here, because your condemnation of Miller makes absolutely no sense.

Grim17 said:

Let me quote the article in question:

Although the C.I.A. position appears to be the dominant view, officials said some experts had questioned whether Iraq might not be seeking the tubes for other purposes, specifically, to build multiple-launch rocket systems.

Specifically, Washington officials said, some experts in the State Department and the Energy Department were said to have raised that question. But other, more senior, officials insisted last night that this was a minority view among intelligence experts and that the C.I.A. had wide support, particularly among the government's top technical experts and nuclear scientists.​

As you can plainly see, she did cover that aspect, so again, I don't understand what your beef is here?

Click to expand...

OK, the CIA didn't have wide support with the three agencies I mentioned. Miller knew this, and reported something else. She also quoted no one so we have no idea who these people are making competing claims. We have no way in hell to evaluate the claims except for "MORE senior official" versus "senior official" and some BS majority vote system, where the CIA is equivalently in expertise to nuclear experts with a working knowledge of Iraqi's centrifuges, and who said these don't fit their designs, are horribly inefficient, that Iraq had designs far more efficient, that none of the parts needed to go with those tubes were ordered, that the tubes perfectly matched existing weapons Iraq had used in war, etc....

As I already showed you, she reported that dispute.... I find it very interesting how you use a December 2003 publication, to argue a September 2002 article.

Click to expand...

He talked about his discussions with Miller. Read it if you're interested, but I don't think you are because what is does is show there was IMMENSE disagreement, and Miller knew it at the time, and if she wanted to do actual reporting, she would have given readers more than "He said, she said, and He is more senior than she." That's not reporting - it's stenography.

Yes, the intelligence did turn out to be wrong, but based on what was believed at the time, there was nothing else Miller could have reported.

Click to expand...

Yes, there was. See above.

What else could it be? You are basing your opinion not on what facts and views were available in 2002, but based on what was learned several months to years later.

Click to expand...

Wrong again. See above.

And I'll say this again... Credible opposition to the views of the CIA and the Intelligence Community about Iraq and their weapons capabilities was nearly non-existent. What little there was, was in the extreme minority, but never the lees was mentioned by Miller in that piece.

Click to expand...

Wrong again. And the most qualified experts in nuclear weapons manufacture might technically be in the "extreme minority" because of their rare specialty, but when those folks disagree with CIA their opposition cannot be characterized as "nearly non existent." They were THE EXPERTS, and many of them vehemently objected to CIA's (aka ignoramuses on this subject) conclusions.

People like you use what we know now, to condemn Miller and others in the media for reporting on what was known and believed to be true back then. You pretend that somehow they should have known better, or should have published articles that raised questions about the intelligence, when they simply had no credible sources or evidence that would have supported such articles.

You can continue to argue this until you're blue in the face, but it will not change the reality that existed back in 2002.

Click to expand...

What I've given is just one link that illustrates what was known at that time, and that knowledge that called into question (e.g.) the nuclear ambitions of Iraq was simply buried, with a big assist by Government Stenographers like Judith Miller and the New York Times. It wasn't just her. She's getting the blame, which might be unfair, but not to her - it's unfair to the public that others who served the same role as unquestioning and unidentified government spokesmen and women haven't been thrown under the bus with her.

Grim17 said:

I'm not going to rehash Iraq, but you are talking about someone who was last in Iraq in 1998, 3 years prior to Miller's story, and even when he was there as a weapons inspector, their efforts were always hampered by Saddam and they never got Iraq's full cooperation.

That falls into the category of speculation, and not very reliable speculation at that.

What I'm looking for is any reliable, credible information that was available to Miller that questioned what the intelligence community's beliefs were about Iraq... Basically Pete, there wasn't any, so I really don't understand what you or anyone else thought Miller should have reported?

Click to expand...

The NY Times acted as a stenographer for the Bush administration, Scooter Libby fed information to Miller and it was printed on the front page. That's not the way the Fourth Estate should be, they should be questioning everything government was saying about war. Saddam Hussian was not a threat to anyone, even Colin Powell and Condi Rice said so.There werev members of the CIA that knew the stories were false.

eohrnberger said:

Always kinda rough on people when their ideology driven illusions and delusions are shattered by facts.



No surprise when it happens, they react like as you describe. Of course this has it's own just rewards, falling readership and subscription rates (money) and
Trust in Mass Media Returns to All-Time Low

Hardly a surprise that they coincide so precisely.



As it should be. But then, in case you've not realized, Bush had far more class than this Obama thug.

Click to expand...

Superior post. Thank you.:thumbs::bravo:

Grim17 said:

Exactly what was the "other side" of the story on the Iraq war?

Please list all the evidence that Saddam wasn't a threat, that the media failed to report on?

Click to expand...

Iraqis -Saddam's connection to Al Qaeda is one
1 Iraq was not a threat and the Whitehouse knew that.
2 That Iraq has WMD's that could be used against the US.
3- The Uranium hoax.

JANFU said:

Iraqis -Saddam's connection to Al Qaeda is one
1 Iraq was not a threat and the Whitehouse knew that.
2 That Iraq has WMD's that could be used against the US.
3- The Uranium hoax.

Click to expand...

The claim of an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection was no part of the case for war.
No one knew Iraq was not a threat.
Any WMD can be used against anyone if unconventional delivery is factored in.
There was no uranium hoax. The false documents were identified as such immediately. The uranium reference in GWB's speech drew on an entirely different reporting stream which the British regard as accurate and true to this day. Please see the UK's Butler Report.

Jack Hays said:

The claim of an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection was no part of the case for war.
No one knew Iraq was not a threat.
Any WMD can be used against anyone if unconventional delivery is factored in.
There was no uranium hoax. The false documents were identified as such immediately. The uranium reference in GWB's speech drew on an entirely different reporting stream which the British regard as accurate and true to this day. Please see the UK's Butler Report.

Click to expand...

LOL.... The connection was a BIG part of the case for war. Not the official case, but the propaganda case. Here's one of dozens of quotes asserting that link. Darth Cheney:

"We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaida sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaida organization. We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in '93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of '93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven."

Click to expand...

More here: pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

I'm not sure who you think you're fooling, but the Admin made a concerted effort to link Iraq and AQ and they succeeded - even after the war was well in progress, in 2004, nearly a majority of Americans believed ""clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda HAS BEEN FOUND" That link also has more direct quotes from Admin including Cheney about this non-existent link actually...existing. Propaganda works!

JasperL said:

OK, the CIA didn't have wide support with the three agencies I mentioned. Miller knew this, and reported something else. She also quoted no one so we have no idea who these people are making competing claims. We have no way in hell to evaluate the claims except for "MORE senior official" versus "senior official" and some BS majority vote system, where the CIA is equivalently in expertise to nuclear experts with a working knowledge of Iraqi's centrifuges, and who said these don't fit their designs, are horribly inefficient, that Iraq had designs far more efficient, that none of the parts needed to go with those tubes were ordered, that the tubes perfectly matched existing weapons Iraq had used in war, etc....

Click to expand...

How in the hell would Miller have known that?

Explain exactly how she would have known that classified information a month before the NIE was even published? Provide links to what you apparently believe was public information back in September 2002?

He talked about his discussions with Miller. Read it if you're interested, but I don't think you are because what is does is show there was IMMENSE disagreement, and Miller knew it at the time, and if she wanted to do actual reporting, she would have given readers more than "He said, she said, and He is more senior than she." That's not reporting - it's stenography.

Click to expand...

I read it, but it doesn't change a damned thing.

1. You are basing your opinion on hindsight, not on what was known and believed at the time of that story. The guy who wrote that isis piece was not an employee of any of the intelligence agencies and could hardly be viewed as someone who trumped the CIA and the over-all view of the intelligence community.

2. What Miller wrote matched the conclusions of the Intelligence community's 2002 NIE that was published a month later:



3. Even if Miller had challenged the consensus view on those tubes it wouldn't have made a damned bit of difference, because the tubes were only one of many pieces of the puzzle that led every agency (including the ones who disagreed with the tubes assessment) to conclude that Saddam was attempting to reconstitute his nuclear program.

Your entire argument centers around Miller not adopting the anti-war, anti-Bush viewpoint and pursuing anything she could find to make liars out of the administration like you believe every good liberal journalist should.

What she printed was true, honest and represented both sides of the issue... I'm sorry if it didn't meet with your partisan expectations, but every once in a while even the liberal media plays it straight, in spite of people like yourself who demand members of the MSM put their loyalty to progressivism first and foremost.


I think were done here.

JasperL said:

LOL.... The connection was a BIG part of the case for war. Not the official case, but the propaganda case. Here's one of dozens of quotes asserting that link. Darth Cheney:



More here: pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

I'm not sure who you think you're fooling, but the Admin made a concerted effort to link Iraq and AQ and they succeeded - even after the war was well in progress, in 2004, nearly a majority of Americans believed ""clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda HAS BEEN FOUND" That link also has more direct quotes from Admin including Cheney about this non-existent link actually...existing. Propaganda works!

Click to expand...

Such a claim was never part of serious discussion.

JANFU said:

Iraqis -Saddam's connection to Al Qaeda is one
1 Iraq was not a threat and the Whitehouse knew that.
2 That Iraq has WMD's that could be used against the US.
3- The Uranium hoax.

Click to expand...

A dozen years later and the "Bush lied" crowd is still pushing that false narrative.

When half a dozen investigation failed to support your BS, that was the time you should have just walked away and tried to recoup some of your dignity and self respect... Continuing that farse today is just plain disturbing.