The case against Judith
Miller
Slate
Together, Again Judith Miller and Ahmad Chalabi
By Jack Shafer
Posted Monday, Jan. 31, 2005, at 4:28 PM PT
How did the New York Times botch the weapons of mass
destruction story so magnificently? According to the editors'
mini culpa of May 26, 2004, many of the stories the Times
published during in the run-up to the war shared a common
feature. They depended at least in part on information from a
circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on "regime
change" in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under
increasing public debate in recent weeks. Complicating matters
for journalists, the accounts of these exiles were often eagerly
confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to
intervene in Iraq. Administration officials now acknowledge that
they sometimes fell for misinformation from these exile sources.
So did many news organizations—in particular, this one.
The most prominent of those exiles was Ahmad Chalabi, "an
occasional source in Times articles since at least 1991," who
"introduced reporters to other exiles" and "became a favorite of
hard-liners within the Bush administration and a paid broker of
information from Iraqi exiles." And one of the most prolific
chroniclers of Chalabi's views and those of his Iraqi National
Congress camp was Times reporter Judith Miller, who wrote or
co-wrote at least nine of the "problematic" stories the Times
cited in its mini culpa.
Continue Article
Miller was detailed to the oil-for-food scandal by the Times
after its self-examination, but she emerged from the woodshed
yesterday (Jan. 30) to appear on Hardball with stunning news
that, if true, belongs in the New York Times, not on cable TV as
talk show filler.
Citing unnamed "sources," Miller claimed that the Bush
administration had recently made "belated and sudden outreaches"
to Ahmad Chalabi, "to offer him expressions of cooperation and
support." She continued, "And according to one report, he was
even offered a chance to be an interior minister in the new
government. But I think one effect of this vote is going to be
that the Iraqis themselves will decide who will hold."
These revelations stunned Hardball host Chris Matthews and a
nation of Miller skeptics.
Matthews: Wait a
minute. When you say—Judy, when you say administration, do
you mean the alliance party leadership or Allawi over there, the
current prime minister? Who are you talking about?
Miller: We are
talking about the administration officials who have been reaching
out to …
Matthews: You mean
Americans? [Italics in the MSNBC transcript.]
Miller: ...
[Ayatollah] Sistani's—yes, American officials who have been
reaching out to Sistani's party. Because Dr. Chalabi is on that
list.
Matthews: So
where—so we have an election over there. And the same day
we're holding an election, the same week, we are plotting which
ministries to give to Chalabi, the guy who talked us into the war
in the first place.
Miller: No, no. There
were expressions. There was apparently an effort to determine
whether or not he would be interested in assuming a certain
portfolio.
Matthews: Why are we
in the business of deciding or even negotiating cabinet
ministries in a foreign government?
Miller: No. Well, you
know, Chris, first of all, this is just one report. But I think
what is very clear, according to people I talked to today, is
that they have been attempting to mend fences with him. Now
understanding that as a tent [phonetic transcription] on that
Sistani list, the Shia list, he will be an important person in
Iraq. And I think that there will have to be a lot of rethinking
on the part of the Americans with whom they want to deal.
Matthews: …
the idea that the man who won his country back through the vice
president's office, Ahmed Chalabi, finds his way now through all
this electoral process to end up as oil minister or finance
minister, as you say, interior minister—and I think he has
higher ambitions than that—makes the electoral process come
down to the guy who started the war, ends up winning the war,
irregardless of how people vote over there.
Miller: Well, you
know, I think the interesting thing was the up and down, was the
kind of rise and fall of Ahmed Chalabi in this administration. On
one hand, in the beginning, he was the person supported adamantly
by the Defense Department. He was opposed by the State Department
and the CIA …
Matthews: Right.
Miller: ... who said
he had no popular support in the country...
Matthews: Right.
Miller: ... and he
wouldn't be able to hold a coalition together. We've now seen
that, in fact, he played a pivotal role in putting together,
helping to put together the list which we don't know yet, but it
may very well have done extremely well, if not won the vote.
Once again, amazing if true, and if true worthy of inclusion
in the Times. But Miller's claim did not make today's (Jan. 31)
New York Times' news pages. An op-ed describes Chalabi as "now
disowned by the Americans who sponsored him. …"
Why isn't it in the Times? Miller tells Matthews that she
hasn't talked to her newspaper and is "on vacation in
Florida."
On vacation in Florida? She has the second-biggest Iraq story
of the day (after the successful election) and vacation is
keeping her from phoning in this scoop?!
This isn't the first time Miller has availed herself of the
un-vetted freedom of the airwaves to make a spectacular claim
that she didn't (or couldn't) get into the Times. On April 21,
2003, the Times published Miller's report from Iraq about the
discovery of buried chemical weapon precursors by the U.S.
military's MET Team Alpha. The hot copy that she couldn't move
past her editors she blabbed, un-vetted, on The NewsHour With Jim
Lehrer the next night. From the NewsHour transcript:
Miller: What they
found is a silver bullet in the form of a person, an Iraqi
individual, a scientist, as we've called him, who really worked
on the programs, who knows them firsthand, and who has led MET
Team Alpha people to some pretty startling conclusions that have
kind of challenged the American intelligence community's under
... previous understanding of, you know, what we thought the
Iraqis were doing.
Miller's silver bullet quickly turned into fool's gold, and
bit by bit she backed away from the story. There were no WMD
precursors. The "scientist" was a fraud.
Given her history as the discredited channeller of all things
Chalabi, one wonders 1) why Matthews cast her as some sort of
Iraq authority, and 2) why he didn't push her harder about her
"revelation."He could easily have asked with his trademarked
snort, "Judy, is this as solid as your WMD stories?" and "How
good are these 'sources' and this 'one report'?"
The last, best question, "Say, Judy, Ahmad Chalabi couldn't be
one of your 'sources,' could he?"
*******
Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day. For
Miller's sake, I hope somebody verifies her sources' information.
Send e-mail—or confirmation—to pressbox@hotmail.com.
(E-mail may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates
otherwise.)
Bloggers Rip My Flesh (Feb 1, noonish, ET) Beating me to the
Miller story were The Left Coaster ("Is The Bush Administration
Working To Install Ahmed Chalabi In New Iraqi Government?"),
Eschaton ("Here we have a New York Times reporter going on the
record saying that according to a source, the Bush administration
was in talks with Chalabi about a position in the new Iraqi
government."), and You Will Anyway ("I wouldn't be surprised if
Allawi is marginalized by these elections and the U.S. puts its
chips on their old partner-in-crime, Ahmed Chalabi. American
officials are already starting to 'reach out' to Chalabi, as New
York Times reporter Judith Miller put it on MSNBC's Hardball,
offering him all sorts of plum positions in the new Iraqi
Cabinet.") Xymphora, taking Miller at face value, riffs off of
Eschaton: "Whether it be Baghdad or Cleveland, the people running
the United States have developed a certain expertise at running
crooked elections staged as a series of televised photo-ops
intended to disguise what is really going on." Vegacura asks,
"Why, oh why, is Judith Miller still employed as a reporter by
the New York Times?" The Sorest Loser: "It's entirely possible
that our attempt to discredit [Chalabi] was a mere ruse to make
him more popular." The War in Context: "Though Judith Miller
doesn't know what a reliable source looks like when it comes to
intelligence, there's little question that she has is well
informed about the workings of the Bush administration."
(Feb. 1, 3:45 p.m. ET) Media in Trouble: "While I love the
fact that Atrios and Shafer are barking up Judith Miller's tree
about the Ahmed Chalabi bomb she dropped on Hardball. They seem
to be barking up the wrong tree. I realized this because I was
watching my DVR recording of the Capital Gang last night and
noticed that they had dropped that bomb first. … I wrote
them maybe they will link me." The Scooter's Freakin' Wicked
Weblog: " … there are a few questions that someone should
ask Miller. First, who was her unnamed source? Was it, in fact,
Ahmad Chalabi?"
Jack Shafer is Slate's editor at large.
Photograph of Judith Miller courtesy of the New York Times.
|