THIS MODERN WORLD

And we certainly didn’t really know what she was up to…

The Times article on Judy Miller falls somewhat short of being the sort of mea culpa we saw after Jason Blair, and as Arianna notes, significant questions remain unanswered…but neither is it exactly a statement of unqualified support for Judy. In fact, the Times seems to go out of its way to distance itself from its one-time star reporter:

But Mr. Sulzberger and the paper’s executive editor, Bill Keller, knew few details about Ms. Miller’s conversations with her confidential source other than his name. They did not review Ms. Miller’s notes. Mr. Keller said he learned about the “Valerie Flame” notation only this month. Mr. Sulzberger was told about it by Times reporters on Thursday.

Interviews show that the paper’s leaders, in taking what they considered to be a principled stand, ultimately left the major decisions in the case up to Ms. Miller, an intrepid reporter whom editors found hard to control.

* * *

Ms. Miller had written a string of articles before the war – often based on the accounts of Bush administration officials and Iraqi defectors – strongly suggesting that Saddam Hussein was developing these weapons of mass destruction.

When no evidence of them was found, her reporting, along with that of some other journalists, came under fire. She was accused of writing articles that helped the Bush administration make its case for war.

“I told her there was unease, discomfort, unhappiness over some of the coverage,” said Roger Cohen, who was the foreign editor at the time. “There was concern that she’d been convinced in an unwarranted way, a way that was not holding up, of the possible existence of W.M.D.”

* * *

Within a few weeks, in one of his first personnel moves, Mr. Keller told Ms. Miller that she could no longer cover Iraq and weapons issues. Even so, Mr. Keller said, “she kept kind of drifting on her own back into the national security realm.”

* * *

Douglas Frantz, who succeeded Mr. Engelberg as the investigative editor, said that Ms. Miller once called herself “Miss Run Amok.”

“I said, ‘What does that mean?’ ” said Mr. Frantz, who was recently appointed managing editor at The Los Angeles Times. “And she said, ‘I can do whatever I want.’ ”

Ms. Miller said she remembered the remark only vaguely but must have meant it as a joke, adding, “I have strong elbows, but I’m not a dope.”

* * *

It was in these early days that Mr. Keller and Mr. Sulzberger learned Mr. Libby’s identity. Neither man asked Ms. Miller detailed questions about her conversations with him.

Both said they viewed the case as a matter of principle, which made the particulars less important. “I didn’t interrogate her about the details of the interview,” Mr. Keller said. “I didn’t ask to see her notes. And I really didn’t feel the need to do that.”

Still, Mr. Keller said the case was not ideal: “I wish it had been a clear-cut whistle-blower case. I wish it had been a reporter who came with less public baggage.”

* * *

Mr. Sulzberger said he did not personally write the editorials, but regularly urged Ms. Collins to devote space to them. After Ms. Miller was jailed, an editorial acknowledged that “this is far from an ideal case,” before saying, “If Ms. Miller testifies, it may be immeasurably harder in the future to persuade a frightened government employee to talk about malfeasance in high places.”

* * *

At a gathering in the newsroom, she made a speech claiming victories for press freedom. Her colleagues responded with restrained applause, seemingly as mystified by the outcome of her case as the public.

* * *
The Times incurred millions of dollars in legal fees in Ms. Miller’s case. It limited its own ability to cover aspects of one of the biggest scandals of the day. Even as the paper asked for the public’s support, it was unable to answer its questions.

I think this is really two articles–the article the editors wanted written, assuring readers that Judy Miller was a loose cannon and nothing she did should reflect poorly on the journalistic integrity of the Times…and the article that the rank and file wanted to see, in which some truths about this inexplicably privileged idiot of a co-worker were made public. I suspect the writers got as much of the latter in as they could, working within the institutional constraints of the Times, and probably more than they would have if the newsroom weren’t on the verge of mutiny.

That grumbling you hear out east is a minority party slowly waking up from its decade-long hibernation :

Key Democratic sources say Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other House leaders are putting the finishing touches on what arguably will be Democrats most detailed “positive” election-year agenda since the party lost power more than a decade ago. Pelosi has been coordinating with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), key Democratic strategists, advisers and outside interest groups on the policy platform as well as the party’s broader 2006 message.
. . .
An early draft of the agenda outlines the specific initiatives House Democrats will pledge to enact if given control of the House. Leaders have been working on the document for months, and have already started encouraging Members to unify around it and stick to its themes.

Among the proposals are: “real security” for America through stronger investments in U.S. armed forces and benchmarks for determining when to bring troops home from Iraq; affordable health insurance for all Americans; energy independence in 10 years; an economic package that includes an increase in the minimum wage and budget restrictions to end deficit spending; and universal college education through scholarships and grants as well as funding for the No Child Left Behind act.

Democrats will also promise to return ethical standards to Washington through bipartisan ethics oversight and tighter lobbying restrictions, increase assistance to Katrina disaster victims through Medicaid and housing vouchers, save Social Security from privatization and tighten pension laws.

This all sounds good, but vaguely familiar. I agree with the vague outline here, but I’d advise against presenting a laundry list without making the fiscal insanity of the GOP leadership a central issue. I’ve seen Democratic leaders propose bold plans like this plenty of times. The problem isn’t the plans themselves, but the fact that the public doesn’t really pay much attention.

Writing in the NY Times today, Walter Cronkite has a good idea on that front. (via MyDD)

The key to a Democratic success in next year’s Congressional election is clearly in the party leadership’s coming up with a campaign that does not concentrate on the Bush administration’s failures but offers alternative programs to fix what it believes is wrong with the Republican agenda.

A suggestion by which the Democratic Party could command the greatest public attention for its positive agenda: It could within weeks call an extraordinary midterm convention to draw up its platform.

The convention would not need to be expensive. The delegates could be those who attended the 2004 convention. Their meeting would be open to the public and of course the press.

In sharp contrast to the secrecy of the Bush administration, it would let the public, if only remotely, share in the construction of the Democratic platform.

Of course that last line is the rub in this particular plan. If the public barely pays attention to the current quadrennial conventions already, why would they care about a lefty pep-rally that the major networks wouldn’t even bother to carry live?

The answer to that is to have the convention a purpose beyond being a stadium-sized cheering section. Publicly play up the minor divisions within the party ranks (ie. how quickly we should get out of Iraq and what method to use to provide universal healthcare) to provide a little suspense in the lead-up to the delegates’ vote to approve the party platform. Use the convention to actually construct (in Cronkite’s words) the Democratic platform. Have the speakers from competitive Senate and House races, along with potential 2008 Presidential nominees, give keynote speeches about the various aspects of the Democratic message. And write off the inevitable complaints from GOP stalwarts as the “bitter complaints of an out-of-touch party that’s been corrupted by a decade in power”.

Most of all, stop being such chickenshits and let everyone talk. The conservative Democrats will still offer more progressive ideas than anything currently coming out of Washington and the super-liberal Dems will at least show than Democrats aren’t completely devoid of emotion. The Democrats have a golden opportunity to offer the public something different. Don’t blow it by focus-grouping your hearts, guys.

Conason speculates that Guckert/Gannon may face charges in Plamegate:

The New York Times reported Friday that in addition to possible charges directly involving the revelation of Valerie Wilson’s identity and related perjury or conspiracy charges, Fitzgerald is exploring other possible crimes. Specifically, according to the Times, the special counsel is seeking to determine whether anyone transmitted classified material or information to persons who were not cleared to receive it — which could be a felony under the 1917 Espionage Act.

One such classified item might be the still-classified State Department document, written by an official of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, concerning the CIA’s decision to send former ambassador Joseph Wilson to look into allegations that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from Niger. Someone leaked that INR document — which inaccurately indicated that Wilson’s assignment was the result of lobbying within CIA by his wife, Valerie — to right-wing media outlets, notably including Gannon’s former employers at Talon News. On Oct. 28, 2003, Gannon posted an interview with Joseph Wilson on the Talon Web site, in which he posed the following question: “An internal government memo prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel details a meeting in early 2002 where your wife, a member of the agency for clandestine service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested that you could be sent to investigate the reports. Do you dispute that?”

Gannon later hinted, rather coyly, that he had learned about the INR memo from an article in the Wall Street Journal. He also told reporters last February that FBI agents working for Fitzgerald had questioned him about where he got the memo. At the very least, that can be interpreted as confirming today’s Times report about the direction of the case.

…should be out around February (just in time to avoid that pesky Christmas gift-buying season). Because the Great Big Book threw off my publishing schedule, this will be my first real compilation of the post-9/11 world–and in full color to boot!

But the real point of this post is to give a shout out to the production staff at my new publisher, Tarcher Penguin. I am somewhat meticulous about the quality of these things, which translates to mean that I’m a pain in the ass if you’re stuck working with me. But they’ve jumped without complaint through each new hoop I’ve come up with, and I just want to say thanks for that.

Last night’s Daily Show, a rerun from a few weeks back, contained a Bush quote from September 23 that I missed at the time. He’s in Texas with Chertoff, discussing Hurricane Rita:

The thing I’m gonna do is, observe the relationship between the state and local government…I’m gonna watch that relationship, it’s an important relationship and I need to understand how it works better.

Did I mention he said this in Texas? Where, as Jon Stewart of course pointed out, he was once governor?

My wife and I were discussing this, trying to think of a single Democratic presidential candidate who was as obviously–what’s the word I want?–stupid as George W. Bush, and we just couldn’t. I have disagreed strongly with plenty of Democratic candidates, but I can’t think of one as predictably cringeworthy as GWB.