Why did Miller lie about saying she was turned down on a Plame story?

[Carolab]

We know that the editor has said she never did ask about writing such a story.

Is it because Miller not only knew about the plan to plant phony WMD but that Plame also knew about it? That part of her "briefing" included this information?

She made a big deal out of it but yet couldn't remember her original source and didn't have the name spelled correctly.

Is Jill Abramson lying or is Judy lying about this? And why? I don't get it.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/005738.php

[Carolab]

1. More on this (relates to Miller's attempt to resuscitate uranium claims)

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2005/10/how_fitzgerald_.html

Fitzgerald was looking for information relating to conversations about Plame from both journalists. But in addition, he was looking for information from Judy relating to Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium. He had reason to believe--and provided evidence to the court to the effect--that the week of July 6, 2003, in addition to conversations about Plame, Judy and Libby talked about Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium.

{snip}

All of this probably explains why Judy was so delighted that she had gotten an agreement limiting her testimony. She was not (just) protecting her other sources. She had succeeded in refusing one half of Fitzgerald's subpoena, the part asking for details on their conversation about uranium.

I'm still not sure why Fitzgerald accepted the deal. Perhaps he has already gotten to the uranium conversation in another way. Perhaps he was making a bold gamble that he could capture Judy in a perjury trap and force her to release all the information he was seeking.

Of course, now that she is going to try for a plea bargain on Tuesday, it's unclear whether she'll still be able to shield this information. Fitzgerald, after all, asked for it in the original subpoena. So the courts have already said he's entitled to the information. But will Judy agree to give it up? Will Judy deal away crucial details on the Niger uranium scandal when she meets with Fitzgerald on Tuesday?

Judy's jailhouse visitors

There's one more intriguing detail. Much has been made of the news that John Bolton visited Judy while in jail. But from the perspective of this post, she had another intriguing visitor, Charles Duelfer.

Miller also hosted Charles Duelfer, who concluded in 2005 that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction but uncovered bribes in the United Nations' oil-for-food program.

Kind of curious that two of Judy's big sources tied to the uranium story stopped by for a visit. Given how pathetic Libby's attempts to telegraph information to Judy were, I wonder whether Bolton's and Duelfer's attempts were any less transparent?

{snip}

[Peace Patriot]

4. One of my pet theories is that the "aspens" represent the persons and

various international dirty tricks capabilities that the Neocon cabal set up to foment a large-scale war in the Middle East; he was signaling her that, although he was taking the 'fall' for the widened war, they would get their beloved slaughter anyway, and that she "should come back to work--and life" now to help propagandize it (thus he predicts a conflict over Iran nukes, possibly with dirty tricks aspects to it; and "biological threats" (also the Iraq elections, yet another con job).

Ergo, I wonder about this item on Duelfer. I hadn't realized that he'd visited her in jail. I wonder if he's responsible for the repeated efforts to destroy George Galloway, the British MP antiwar spokesman who dismantled the Republicans in the Senate committee hearing.

You know, it's fascinating the way the corporate newsstream picks away at your consciousness if you aren't fully paying attention to a story, but just grab little bits of it. I noticed this with Venezuela and Chavez--that the corporate newsstream was successfully planting little doubts in my mind about Chavez, his elections and his intentions--and so, in that case, I decided to pay FULL attention to it. I sought out lots of alternative sources of information; I read the corporate newsstream carefully--and informed myself well on the subject. And I now understand that those little shadows, little concerns, that were being planted in my brain were utter crap. And I mean absolute, total and complete crap. The way they always start off descriptions of Chavez with "increasingly authoritarian," according to "his critics" (never named; no evidence given). The way they manage to paint him as some sort of extremist, as some sort of a danger to us or to democracy--although they never say how or why.

The facts about Chavez are the exact opposite of everything the corporate news monopolies are, in this shadowy and deceptive way, implying.

It's just mind-boggling. I think it was the Chavez stories that finally convinced me that NOT ONE WORD IS TO BE TRUSTED from a corporate news monopoly source. Not one word! I mean that.

So, now I'm wondering about the current Galloway stories (--he is accused of accepting oil profits from Saddam). Is one word of it true? I'm thinking--as with every other smear of Galloway, which he has beaten back and completely defeated each time the Blairite corporatists have tried this crap on him--will this, too, be proved completely groundless, but with the damage to his reputation already accomplished, and THAT was the point--to sneak those little shadows into the newsstream, because so few people bother to fully investigate them?

If Duelfer is involved with Judith Miller, what I would suspect is that, a) evidence was manufactured against Galloway; and b) possibly also in other oil-for-food program cases (to smear the UN, or other opponents of the Iraq war).

It's one of those stories--the UN story--that I haven't had much time for--given everything else that's going on in the world, and, given the Bush junta's hatred for the UN, and the junta's own humongous thievery, and the corporate news monopolies' shilling for the junta and covering up its crimes, why should I focus on minor corruption?

Here are some good rules of thumb that might help in dealing with the sheer volume of the newsstream: 1. Assume that the war profiteering corporate news monopolies are telling lies of some kind, whatever they print or promote--and just dismiss any and all allegations against antiwar figures or leftists as manufactured crap (unless you have time to investigate). 2. Assume that whoever they are slurring is probably doing some good--that's WHY they are being slurred (whoever is actually manufacturing the 'evidence', or 'framing' the story for the lapdog press). 3. Assume at least a neutral stance on the so-called enemies of the U.S., or at the least, re: such enemies, that the story about them may be horribly distorted, or false by means of omission (as stories about Iraqi rebels, and Al Qeda, often are), or just outright made up gov't propaganda.

On the latter (#3) I don't mean, ignore possible threats or problems, and be unrealistic about them--just to be very skeptical of both facts and framing in these news sources.

We cannot trust U.S. corporate news sources any more, not even a little bit. They are creating a world of pervasive lying and illusions. And we really have to get that through our heads, so that the devious ways that they penetrate our consciousness--sideways, subtly, by our lack of full attention--will not be so successful.

[Carolab]

5. As you, I have not investigated the UN Oil for Food story much either.

But it seems to me that if Judy is involved in it, and Duelfer is somehow tied to Judy, and Norm Coleman (former mayor of MY city) is leading this parade, there is a lot of reason to believe that:

1. The WHIGs were trying to plant WMD evidence in Iraq
2. They were trying to tie it to the Oil For Food program
3. They are trying to discredit Galloway because he humiliated Coleman and is now (like Wilson) one of the most outspoken critics of this war and the many lies surrounding it.
4. They are using this Galloway story and Duelfer's and Judy's Oil for Food claims to bolster a case to dismantle the UN

It all connects together--just like Libby's Aspen roots--in a huge tangle. And with Judy Miller's involvement with the Aspen group all of these years, her "clearance" to go to Iraq with the ISG, her now proven bogus stories in the NYT, and her "close relationship" with Libby--plus this revelation about what part of Fitzgerald's original subpoena was "forfeited" in Judy's last appearance before the GJ--how can one even doubt that she has been a conduit for WMD lies? It is not a big leap for me to assume that Valerie Plame/Brewster Jennings had at least some knowledge of these transactions and that this administration was primarily after HER and not Joe. Judy would not have written anything about Plame in the NYT because that was not her "mission", and it would have made vulnerable her true mission which was to pump up the phony WMD and Oil for Food claims.

[snowbear]

2. I dunno~ but I read somewhere that Miller & Scooter were having nooners..

Not sure how often they had em... but I either read or saw on one of the programs that they were occasionally initiment..

Whatcha think? Tabloid rumor, or freaky factoid? http://eliteleague.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/duh!.gif

[Carolab]

3. Actually, it wouldn't surprise me.

That letter read like, as someone else said, "things you'd say to your girlfriend if you wanted to get her to break up with you".

I have no doubt Judy was thoroughly used.