I know, I know. Lots of bloggers have said the same thing. I confess I'm not sufficiently versed in the history of Judith Miller and Ahmed Chalabi and the selling of WMDs to the American public to join in the anti-Miller crowd. I'm talking about a less-popular (because it protects a scuzzball's anonymity) reason.
Today's Washington Post coverage closes with a tidbit that suggests Miller ought still be in jail -- protecting her source.
Miller has said repeatedly that she stayed in jail so long because she wanted to be super, super sure that Lewis Libby, Dick Cheney's chief of staff, really, truly thought it was okey-dokey for her to testify.
In other words, Miller wanted to be absolutely positive that Libby had not waived his confidentiality under any coercion whatsoever.
But now the Washington Post reports:
In three single-spaced pages, the special counsel wrote Libby attorney Joseph A. Tate that it would be seen as "cooperation with the investigation" if Libby reiterated the confidentiality release he had previously given Miller.In other words, Fitzgerald coerced Libby into waiving his confidentiality. And if Miller knew that, she should have stayed in jail.
But in a twist apparently designed to get Libby's attention, Fitzgerald said twice that he suspected Libby may have preferred Miller to keep quiet about their talks.
Libby, after months of silence, quickly wrote Miller. He told her she was missed. He declared that he would be better off if she testified, and he made clear he was freeing her from her pledge.