« "Secret Tribunals" for journalists in Iraq | Main | Cartoons »


October 1, 2005

A rat deserting a sinking ship?

-- by John Emerson

I've seen a lot of speculation about Judith Miller's decision to testify to the grand jury after three months in jail for refusing to do so. People are asking what it was that changed, and no one seems quite sure -- nobody seems to believe the official NYT / Miller story.

What I'd like to suggest is that it's just a case of a rat deserting a sinking ship. Based on what's been published already, the combination of the Iraq War, the Katrina fiasco, the Abramoff scandals, the Savafian arrest, and Delay's problems look as though they might cripple the Bush administration. Miller's visitors in jail come from the highest levels of the news media, so she has better sources of information than anyone else does and might know things we don't.

Maybe she realized that she's on her own now, and that her political friends might not be able either to protect her or to pay her off, so she decided to save her own ass and quit protecting her co-conspirators.

I hope so, anyway. Electing Bush twice was a tremendous failure of the political process, but if the prosecutors end up saving us, that's better than nothing!

Posted by John Emerson at October 1, 2005 8:17 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.seeingtheforest.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.fcgi/844

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A rat deserting a sinking ship?:

» Browsing and Pondering from Running Scared
Seeing the Forrest has a theory on why Judith Miller finally testifed to the Plamegate hearings. Was it just a case of a rat deserting a sinking ship?

[Read More]

Tracked on October 2, 2005 8:49 AM


Comments

I've seen a lot of speculation about Judith Miller's decision to testify to the grand jury after three months in jail for refusing to do so. People are asking what it was that changed, and no one seems quite sure -- nobody seems to believe the official NYT / Miller story.

I'm betting she finished her book and is ready to tour the circuit pushing it.

Posted by: ascap_scab [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 1, 2005 12:09 PM

I haven't read much (really any) of the speculation about Miller. So perhaps thi has been dismissed: Didn't she get a deal from Fitzgerald that the scope of her questioning would be narrowly defined? Given the theory I think rings truest about her willingness to go to jail in the first place -- that she was (and is) terrified of being questioned about her own role in the Plame and perhaps other matters -- then she may have won all she ever wanted by getting that narrowing. This seems simple and it also has the virtue of resting on assumption of grave misdeads by Miller. Things so bad she's willing to go to jail (relatively briefly) to keep them secret.

If this is true, then she will certainly not rat on her pals in the administration, because they certainly will return the favor.

They really did learn from Watergate:

(1) NOBODY important talks.
(2) Get the press involved in the misdeeds.
(3) Own the media -- and use that ownership everyday -- just in case.

Posted by: richard [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 1, 2005 12:17 PM

I can't help but think the rat's jumping off a sinking ship is part of it but a potentiall larger part for Judith and the NYTimes might be the agreement to limit to scope of questioning.

I have suspected all along that she was unwilling to get in front of a grand jury and be exposed a range of questions about her contacts with White House personel on matters related to say ... oh maybe IRAQ WDS and such.

Posted by: BadGimp [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 1, 2005 7:48 PM

"Electing Bush twice..."? Let's remember, that's not quite what happened.

Posted by: Ken C. [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 2, 2005 5:51 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?



Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Return to main page