Cryptic Statement on Miller's Testimony.

Very strange, very cryptic statement from Floyd Abrams, Judith Miller's attorney. Kind of makes you wonder who else spoke to her during the run up to the war, eh?

Appearing Sunday on CNN's "Reliable Sources," Abrams said: "I tried to get a deal a year ago. I spoke to Mr. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, and he did not agree at that time to something that he later did agree to, which was to limit the scope of the questions he would ask, so as to assure that the only source he would effectively be asking about was Mr. Libby." ......

Miller held out, Abrams said Sunday, in part because "she has other sources and was very concerned about the possibility of having to reveal those sources, or going back to jail because of them." Before she finally testified, Fitzgerald promised to limit his questioning to the Libby contacts regarding Plame.

Now, I understand the idea that Miller should not be asked to testify to what other sources said on other matters, but I think my question would be, who gets to draw the boundaries on the Plame investigation. Is Miller's "concern" about other sources an indication that the Fitzgerald grand jury is looking beyond just the leaking of a Plame into the inclusion of the 16 words on Niger uranium? Or some of the "mischaracterizations" that were used to sell the Iraq war? After all, Judith Miller was the key NYTimes byline on almost all the Chalbi information on WMD, and she obviously was a key element in the campaign to propagate false information in the war run up. Alot of the same people are involved in both the direct Plame leak, and the lies of Saddam's WMD. And most of it seems to center around the VP's office, where Libby was chief of staff.

Don't know, may be over reading this, but it seems to indicate that Miller was concerned with protecting more than Plame.

But then we come to my meta question. Do I think that if this thing links up to Cheney or Bush, they would actually be brought up on some sort of charges? I don't know.

Let's look at the history on these sorts of things. Do you believe the Warren Report, that Oswald acted alone? Polls show most Americans don't.(somewhere around 65%) Do you believe that we know all the criminal activities from the Nixon administration? Do you believe the 9-11 investigation was thorough?(as one example, what about the massive short sales on the airline stocks where the investigation was dropped because they couldn't determine the buyer. C'mon, a brokerage house places a ten million dollar short sale and has no way to indentify the buyer? Well, then I placed it. I'll take my profits now, please.)

So, my point is this. I'm not sure whether the true activities in the run up to the war will ever be made public. I wouldn't be surprised to see some indictments of Libby, for instance, on charges related to Plame, but my belief would be that he would be allowed to plead on the Plame charges in exchange for a walk on the lying the country into war charges if he keeps his mouth shut. And the higher ups, Cheney for example, would just step out of the limelight because of health reasons or "to spend more time with my family."

The reason I'm so cynical about this is that there is circumstantial evidence that the Israelis were running intel ops in the DoD (See Franklin/AIPAC), and that the flow of information was not just out of the DoD, but into it. Into the Office of Special Plans where it was "stovepiped" up to Cheney's desk and distributed to the media. And, damningly, the OSP was set up to "re-examine" the existing intelligence specifically looking for evidence of WMD, and it was the source for alot of the bad Chalabi/Ghorbanifar intel that was used to prop up the WMD claims.

Now, as Israel is our international "friend," I find it difficult to believe that the true nature of all this would be made public, as it would seriously disrupt relations between the US and Israel. So, I'm not optimistic that we will ever know the full truth of what went down in the lead up to the Iraq war, but I do take some solace in the belief that those involved will probably be slowly and quietly removed from postions of influence.

Maybe I'm just too cynical.

(Aside: Before anybody starts yelling anti-semitism, let me say, that my issue is not with the Jewish people. I side with the vast majority of Israelis that would prefer peaceful coexistence rather than the aggression and occupation exercised the current Likud government. And there is circumstantial evidence(AIPAC/Franklin) that certain individuals within the Israeli governement were involved in the transfer of classified info. Whether or not it was sanctioned by the gov't is unknown. )

Sorry, tinfoil hat morning.

Mike

UPDATE : Somebody else agrees with me. Russ Hoyle from the new Talking Points Cafe site.

But with Miller’s release from jail last Thursday, her cloudy motives have grown even murkier. It may be time to admit that we’ve probably been asking the wrong questions about Judith Miller. The chattering classes so far have completely ignored the possibility that what Miller is so determined to protect may have nothing to do with the Plame case.

It may, however, have plenty to do with I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the vice-president’s chief of staff, whom Miller met with on July 8, 2003 and spoke with at least once more that week, along with other unnamed officials, after her return from Iraq and the unsuccessful U.S. search for Saddam’s weapons. And it may have everything to do with protecting the White House officials who leaked classified intelligence – not about Valerie Plame to Robert Novak in the summer of 2003 – but to Miller herself about Iraq’s allegedly reconstituted nuclear weapons program in September 2002.

Plus, he's got a lengthy recounting of the Judy and Iraq Propaganda story.