There are some strong stories inside the paper this morning. Carol e-mailed to note Douglas Jehl's story [A8] "Senate May Open Inquiry Into C.I.A.'s Handling of Suspects:"
The Senate intelligence committee is moving toward adoption of a plan to conduct a formal inquiry into the Central Intelligence Agency's handling of suspects captured in the American effort to curb terrorism, Congressional officials from each party said this week.
The inquiry would be the first by Congress to address the C.I.A.'s conduct in what has remained a shadowy corner of American counterterrorism efforts. The agency is believed to be holding at least three dozen senior members of Al Qaeda at secret sites around the world, and former intelligence officials say it has been involved in the extrajudicial handing over to third countries of scores of other suspects, in an arrangement known as rendition.
The C.I.A.'s inspector general is already conducting several reviews of the agency's detention and interrogation practices in Iraq and Afghanistan, including several episodes in which prisoners have been injured or killed in C.I.A. custody, intelligence officials have said. However, no C.I.A. review is known to be under way into the renditions or the treatment of prisoners at the secret sites, where those being held by the agency include Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, regarded as the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The top Republican on the panel, Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, confirmed in an interview on Friday that he and his staff were reviewing a proposal submitted by the top Democrat, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, which called for a formal investigation into detention, interrogation and rendition. Mr. Roberts said he was not sure that a formal investigation was warranted, but he suggested that the two sides could agree on a review.
Carol: Pat Roberts may not be sure, but I am. We need an investigation and we need it right now.
Brad e-mailed asking that we highlight Anne E. Kornblut's A14 article "Democrats Elect Dean as Committee Chairman."
Brad: I don't know that I'm impressed with Kornblut's article, I do know it's nice to not have to suffer through Adam Nagourney's uninformed opinions passing off as facts. I also want to point out another thing we are winning. The grass roots wanted Howard Dean and we got him. We wanted someone to sign Stephanie Tubbs Jones's petition and Barbara Boxer did. We wanted someone to ask hard questions of Alberto Gonzales and Barbara Boxer and John Kerry did. The momentum that went into the 2004 election hasn't subsided and we haven't stopped caring. Yeah it's hard, daily life, but we're not zoning out on MTV Cribs and The Simple Life we're staying focused and active. If we can carry this energy through the next four years we may be able to not just ward off the attempts by the Bully Boy but be able to set up some major changes.
I doubt D.C. insiders are too thrilled with MoveOn or any of us but right now, they can't ignore us. And if we stay strong, vocal and focused we can move mountains.
Francisco highlights an article that I'm not finding in my copy of the paper (it may have run yesterday or I may just be missing it -- which wouldn't be the first time) by Reuters entitled
"Castro Warns U.S. Against Plot on Chávez:"
"I say to world public opinion: if they assassinate Chávez, the responsibility will fall squarely on the president of the United States, George W. Bush," Mr. Castro said.
The Cuban leader, who was the target of C.I.A. assassination plots after his 1959 revolution steered Cuba toward Communism and the Soviet Union's sphere of influence, offered no evidence that Mr. Chávez's life was in danger.
Francisco: I'm nervous about asking you to highlight this after the quejar that greeted the opinion that maybe a woman whose family fled a nation should disclose that when doing a story on someone's views about that nation or maybe not even having story written by that woman.
But Chávez was duly elected and we tried to oust him before so I want to say atención!
I agree with Francisco this is worthy of noting.
Woody e-mails asking if it's okay to highlight Matthew Wald's "Wind Power Is Becoming a Better Bargain." It's more than fine to highlight anything you see in the Times. Woody's a new member so that might be what he's asking about. But if he's noting the reaction to yesterday's piece, let me note again that only Frank in Orlando complained. Two people asked questions and I take responsibility for that, I obviously wasn't clear in my post. But we can and will highlight any story in the Times. (That goes for Iraq. You can highlight them and we'll link to them. I'm just not going to spend my time going over them because I think we need to know whether they are reported as witnessed or reported as told to. I noted the headline to Dexter Filkins' article this morning because it applied to something Judith Miller had stated on The Chris Matthews story. I didn't weigh in on Filkins' article itself. But you're welcome to highlight anything. If you provide comments for quotation, we'll highlight those as well.)
From Wald's story:
Wind energy makes up a small fraction of electric generation in this country, but the rising price of natural gas has made wind look like a bargain; in some cases, it is cheaper to build a wind turbine and let existing natural gas generators stand idle. Giant, modern wind farms like the New Mexico Wind Energy Center here may become more common if prices continue to rise.
The center, 150 miles east of Albuquerque, opened in the summer of 2003 and is one of the largest in the country. The power is bought by the state's largest utility, Public Service of New Mexico, and provides about 4 percent of that company's electricity over the course of a year. In March, when demand is low and winds are usually strong, the project generates 10 percent of the electricity the company supplies. The state has established a goal of using 10 percent renewable energy by 2011. The governor, Bill Richardson, a former secretary of energy, has said that New Mexico could become "the Saudi Arabia of renewables."
Across the country, the increase in gas prices has made a fundamental difference in the purchasing decisions of utility companies, said Michael A. O'Sullivan, senior vice president of FPL Energy, which owns and operates the New Mexico center.
"Gas prices helped get - pardon the pun - the wind at our backs," he said in a telephone interview from the company headquarters in Juno Beach, Fla. At $6 per million B.T.U.'s, the standard unit in which gas prices are quoted, the fuel needed to produce a kilowatt-hour costs more than 5 cents at an inefficient gas plant, and more than 4 cents at the most efficient plants.
Last fall, Congress restored the Production Tax Credit, worth 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour after taxes, for wind energy projects completed by the end of 2005. Counting that credit, Mr. O'Sullivan said, his company sells wind energy for 3 to 5 cents a kilowatt-hour.
The tax credit and steeper natural gas prices are driving the increased interest in wind energy. But there are problems, even supporters say.
Sunday, February 13, 2005
"Detainee Says He Was Tortured in U.S. Custody," Raymond Bonner's front page story on this morning Times
Raymond Bonner's "Detainee Says He Was Tortured in U.S. Custody" is on the front page of the New York Times and belongs there.
Mamdouh Habib still has a bruise on his lower back. He says it is a sign of the beatings he endured in a prison in Egypt. Interrogators there put out cigarettes on his chest, he says, and he lifts his shirt to show the marks. He says he got the dark spot on his forehead when Americans hit his head against the floor at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
After being arrested in Pakistan in the weeks after Sept. 11, 2001, he was held as a terror suspect by the Americans for 40 months. Back home now, Mr. Habib alleges that at every step of his detention - from Pakistan, to Egypt, to Afghanistan, to Guantánamo - he endured physical and psychological abuse.
The physical abuse, he said, ranged from a kick "that nearly killed me" to electric shocks administered through a wired helmet that he said interrogators told him could detect whether he was lying.
Speaking publicly for the first time since he was freed two weeks ago, Mr. Habib, a 49-year-old Australian citizen born in Egypt, also described psychological abuse that seemed intended to undermine his identity - as a husband, a father and a Muslim man. At Guantánamo, he said, he was sexually humiliated by a female interrogator who reached under her skirt and threw what appeared to be blood in his face. He also said he was forced to look at photographs of his wife's face superimposed on images of naked women next to Osama bin Laden.
Mr. Habib's claims of mistreatment and torture cannot be confirmed, yet many are in line with accounts from other former detainees, as well as from human rights reports and from some government agents involved in the detention system. In addition, Australian officials confirm Mr. Habib's movements during his confinement, including his imprisonment in Egypt, where his lawyers say the United States sent him for harsh interrogation through a process known as rendition.
Democracy Now! has been covering this story in great detail. But the fact is, though scanners of the paper may not know it, Bonner's been covering this as well for the Times. It just didn't turn up on the front page.
As we noted on January 29th in "What the Fluff Patrol (Sanger, Stevenson & Bumiller) left out of Thursdays with Bully Boy:"
Today, buried inside the paper (A4), you'll find a long article by Raymond Bonner entitled "Australian's Long Path in the U.S. Antiterrorism Maze." Here are the opening paragraphs:
For more than three years, Mamdouh Habib, an Egyptian-born Australian with a volatile temper and an intense devotion to radical Islam, was in American custody, transported from Pakistan to Afghanistan to Egypt to the prison at Guantánamo Bay.
The Americans designated him an "enemy combatant," saying he had admitted to having prior knowledge of the Sept. 11 attacks and to having trained some of the hijackers. He said he confessed while in Egypt only to stop the waves of torture.
But Mr. Habib's journey came to an unexpected end on Friday afternoon at Sydney's international airport when he stepped off a white executive jet and was set free.
Another section of the article:. . . what distinguishes Mr. Habib's case are the severity of the accusations on both sides - the Americans' allegations of his connection to Sept. 11, and his charges, in legal papers made public earlier this month, that he was subjected to a process called "rendition," under which the United States sent him to Egypt. There, he says, he was tortured with beatings and electric shocks, and hung from the walls by hooks.
In a statement, the Department of Defense said, "There is no evidence that any Australian detainee in D.o.D. custody was tortured or abused." United States officials have acknowledged using renditions but say they do not condone torture.
Australian officials confirmed that Mr. Habib was indeed taken to Egypt, and added that when they interviewed him at Guantánamo, he told them of being beaten and given electric shocks in Egypt.
In separate interviews, three senior Australian officials agreed to discuss the case on condition of anonymity, in part because they were discussing intelligence material and sensitive diplomatic negotiations. Moreover, some of what they said went beyond what has been asserted
publicly. . . .
In early October, Mr. Habib was heading to Karachi to catch a flight home when his bus was stopped by Pakistani police officers, who seized two Germans wanted in Germany in connection with a terrorism investigation. When Mr. Habib protested to the officers about the arrests, they took him away, too. Within weeks, the Pakistanis turned Mr. Habib over to the Americans, but not before they, too, tortured him, Mr. Habib told his lawyer, Joseph Margulies.
One form of torture in Pakistan, Mr. Habib said, involved hanging him on hooks with his feet on the side of a large drum. Wires from the drum ran to what seemed to be a battery. When the interrogators were not satisfied with his answers, they threw a switch and a jolt of electricity shot through the drum, causing it to rotate and leaving him "dancing" on it. When he slipped off, he said, he was left hanging.
. . .
Australian officials said this week that consular officials had sought access to him in Egypt, although at the time the Egyptian government said repeatedly that he was not being held there. When Australian investigators visited Mr. Habib after he had been taken to Guantánamo, he told them he had been tortured with electric shock and beatings in Egypt, an Australian official said.
The Egyptian Embassy here declined to answer any questions about Mr. Habib.
Mr. Margulies's affidavit contains further statements by Mr. Habib about his time in Egypt.
For almost six months, the affidavit says, Mr. Habib was kept in a small, roach-infested, windowless cell, roughly 6 feet by 8, with a single light bulb hanging from the ceiling. He slept on the concrete floor. He was taken out for interrogations, sometimes in the middle of the night. Sometimes he was hung from hooks on the wall, he said. He was "kicked, punched, beaten with a stick and rammed with what can only be described as a cattle prod," Mr. Margulies wrote.
Bonner's earlier article belonged on the front page but didn't end up there. Today this one does.
Read the article but in case you don't have time (or need further persuasion), we'll highlight two more sections from Bonner's front page story:
Mr. Habib's lawyers have alleged that he was sent to Egypt as part of the rendition program, which the United States has used increasingly to transfer terror suspects to countries where they can be interrogated, sometimes using practices not allowed in the United States, according to American diplomats and C.I.A. officers. In recent months, several stories have emerged of men who say they were the subject of renditions and complain of being mistreated by their captors.
One frequent destination for renditions, those officials say, is Egypt, which has a history of torture. In its 2003 human rights report, the State Department said "there were numerous credible reports that security forces tortured and mistreated detainees."
and:
At Guantánamo, Mr. Habib was also interrogated by Australian investigators who hoped to learn enough from the Americans to prosecute him, Australian officials said. But, one of them said, "all they had was that he was caught on the bus, and whatever he gave up under 'extreme circumstances' in Egypt."
When the Americans decided last month not to charge Mr. Habib, the Australians sought his release. With Mr. Habib back home, Australian officials have revoked his passport and say they intend to monitor him closely.
A few days ago, Mr. Habib said, he gathered his family and told them everything that had happened since he left Sydney in July 2001. Just in case something bad happens to him, he said, "I want them to know fully everything."
Mamdouh Habib still has a bruise on his lower back. He says it is a sign of the beatings he endured in a prison in Egypt. Interrogators there put out cigarettes on his chest, he says, and he lifts his shirt to show the marks. He says he got the dark spot on his forehead when Americans hit his head against the floor at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
After being arrested in Pakistan in the weeks after Sept. 11, 2001, he was held as a terror suspect by the Americans for 40 months. Back home now, Mr. Habib alleges that at every step of his detention - from Pakistan, to Egypt, to Afghanistan, to Guantánamo - he endured physical and psychological abuse.
The physical abuse, he said, ranged from a kick "that nearly killed me" to electric shocks administered through a wired helmet that he said interrogators told him could detect whether he was lying.
Speaking publicly for the first time since he was freed two weeks ago, Mr. Habib, a 49-year-old Australian citizen born in Egypt, also described psychological abuse that seemed intended to undermine his identity - as a husband, a father and a Muslim man. At Guantánamo, he said, he was sexually humiliated by a female interrogator who reached under her skirt and threw what appeared to be blood in his face. He also said he was forced to look at photographs of his wife's face superimposed on images of naked women next to Osama bin Laden.
Mr. Habib's claims of mistreatment and torture cannot be confirmed, yet many are in line with accounts from other former detainees, as well as from human rights reports and from some government agents involved in the detention system. In addition, Australian officials confirm Mr. Habib's movements during his confinement, including his imprisonment in Egypt, where his lawyers say the United States sent him for harsh interrogation through a process known as rendition.
Democracy Now! has been covering this story in great detail. But the fact is, though scanners of the paper may not know it, Bonner's been covering this as well for the Times. It just didn't turn up on the front page.
As we noted on January 29th in "What the Fluff Patrol (Sanger, Stevenson & Bumiller) left out of Thursdays with Bully Boy:"
Today, buried inside the paper (A4), you'll find a long article by Raymond Bonner entitled "Australian's Long Path in the U.S. Antiterrorism Maze." Here are the opening paragraphs:
For more than three years, Mamdouh Habib, an Egyptian-born Australian with a volatile temper and an intense devotion to radical Islam, was in American custody, transported from Pakistan to Afghanistan to Egypt to the prison at Guantánamo Bay.
The Americans designated him an "enemy combatant," saying he had admitted to having prior knowledge of the Sept. 11 attacks and to having trained some of the hijackers. He said he confessed while in Egypt only to stop the waves of torture.
But Mr. Habib's journey came to an unexpected end on Friday afternoon at Sydney's international airport when he stepped off a white executive jet and was set free.
Another section of the article:. . . what distinguishes Mr. Habib's case are the severity of the accusations on both sides - the Americans' allegations of his connection to Sept. 11, and his charges, in legal papers made public earlier this month, that he was subjected to a process called "rendition," under which the United States sent him to Egypt. There, he says, he was tortured with beatings and electric shocks, and hung from the walls by hooks.
In a statement, the Department of Defense said, "There is no evidence that any Australian detainee in D.o.D. custody was tortured or abused." United States officials have acknowledged using renditions but say they do not condone torture.
Australian officials confirmed that Mr. Habib was indeed taken to Egypt, and added that when they interviewed him at Guantánamo, he told them of being beaten and given electric shocks in Egypt.
In separate interviews, three senior Australian officials agreed to discuss the case on condition of anonymity, in part because they were discussing intelligence material and sensitive diplomatic negotiations. Moreover, some of what they said went beyond what has been asserted
publicly. . . .
In early October, Mr. Habib was heading to Karachi to catch a flight home when his bus was stopped by Pakistani police officers, who seized two Germans wanted in Germany in connection with a terrorism investigation. When Mr. Habib protested to the officers about the arrests, they took him away, too. Within weeks, the Pakistanis turned Mr. Habib over to the Americans, but not before they, too, tortured him, Mr. Habib told his lawyer, Joseph Margulies.
One form of torture in Pakistan, Mr. Habib said, involved hanging him on hooks with his feet on the side of a large drum. Wires from the drum ran to what seemed to be a battery. When the interrogators were not satisfied with his answers, they threw a switch and a jolt of electricity shot through the drum, causing it to rotate and leaving him "dancing" on it. When he slipped off, he said, he was left hanging.
. . .
Australian officials said this week that consular officials had sought access to him in Egypt, although at the time the Egyptian government said repeatedly that he was not being held there. When Australian investigators visited Mr. Habib after he had been taken to Guantánamo, he told them he had been tortured with electric shock and beatings in Egypt, an Australian official said.
The Egyptian Embassy here declined to answer any questions about Mr. Habib.
Mr. Margulies's affidavit contains further statements by Mr. Habib about his time in Egypt.
For almost six months, the affidavit says, Mr. Habib was kept in a small, roach-infested, windowless cell, roughly 6 feet by 8, with a single light bulb hanging from the ceiling. He slept on the concrete floor. He was taken out for interrogations, sometimes in the middle of the night. Sometimes he was hung from hooks on the wall, he said. He was "kicked, punched, beaten with a stick and rammed with what can only be described as a cattle prod," Mr. Margulies wrote.
Bonner's earlier article belonged on the front page but didn't end up there. Today this one does.
Read the article but in case you don't have time (or need further persuasion), we'll highlight two more sections from Bonner's front page story:
Mr. Habib's lawyers have alleged that he was sent to Egypt as part of the rendition program, which the United States has used increasingly to transfer terror suspects to countries where they can be interrogated, sometimes using practices not allowed in the United States, according to American diplomats and C.I.A. officers. In recent months, several stories have emerged of men who say they were the subject of renditions and complain of being mistreated by their captors.
One frequent destination for renditions, those officials say, is Egypt, which has a history of torture. In its 2003 human rights report, the State Department said "there were numerous credible reports that security forces tortured and mistreated detainees."
and:
At Guantánamo, Mr. Habib was also interrogated by Australian investigators who hoped to learn enough from the Americans to prosecute him, Australian officials said. But, one of them said, "all they had was that he was caught on the bus, and whatever he gave up under 'extreme circumstances' in Egypt."
When the Americans decided last month not to charge Mr. Habib, the Australians sought his release. With Mr. Habib back home, Australian officials have revoked his passport and say they intend to monitor him closely.
A few days ago, Mr. Habib said, he gathered his family and told them everything that had happened since he left Sydney in July 2001. Just in case something bad happens to him, he said, "I want them to know fully everything."
Is Judith Miller crowing: "I was proved f**king right." again? and is Okrent now going to examine this issue?
"I was proved f**king right." That was Judith Miller's response to Salon's James C. Moore
("Not Fit to Print"):
"You know what," she offered angrily. "I was proved f**king right. That's what happened. People who disagreed with me were saying, 'There she goes again.' But I was proved f**king right."
(Please note, Miller was not then on, what some community members have dubbed, her attempted TV make over into Sally Field. Also note, for those who would like to read about this statement and others, as well as commentary on her non-reality based reporting during the lead up to war and, in fact, while the war was going on but do not want to watch an ad to view a Salon article, you can check out the Dan Kennedy's "Miller's Times" in The Boston Phoenix.)
Miller made comments on Chris Matthew's Hardball show recently that set off a discussion. She stated that our administration was in talks with Chalabi. (The Third Estate Sunday Review mentioned this in their editorial "Danny Okrent -- Ready for his own sitcom or menace to society?" but I don't believe we've mentioned it here. Disclosure, I assisted with The Third Estate Sunday Review editorial.)
I first learned of Miller's remarks via BuzzFlash which linked to "Together Again" by Jack Shafer. [Note, I get a solid red page when I try to access, in case that happens to anyone else here's a link for the cached version of the story.] [Note also, there's a font error of some kind in the cached version. I'm assuming that's not on the official version and have corrected "to" as "to."]
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 …
. . .
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?!
In The Third Estate Sunday Review editorial, Daniel Okrent was chided for devoting a column/op-ed to comments made by Miller on television, not in print. (He's the public editor of the New York Times, the readers' representative. And he has enough to deal with regarding what the Times prints without 'chasing down' 'scoops' on why something was said or not said on TV.)
Front page of this morning's New York Times features a story by Dexter Filkins entitled "A Former Exile Sees His Hopes Revive in Iraq: Chalabi Is Jockeying to Be Prime Minister."
Get ready for Miller to shyly demure, again, "I was proved f**king right!" Only this time, she may have actually be correct.
With WMD and assorted other stories, Miller's stories didn't bear out. Whether she was duped (willing or not) or an active participant in articles that can be termed "propaganda" isn't the point here. The point is who was her pipeline? "Official sources" (within the administration and
Ahmad Chalabi himself).
When Matthews reacted in shock (appropriately, my opinion -- and "shock" is my evaluation based on the transcript, I don't watch TV) Miller back pedaled with it being based on "one story." Do we interpret that as "one source?"
Miller's pipeline remains in place. So if it's "one source" -- who's the source?
Regardless, why didn't the Times follow up on that. (As Shafer asked in his "Together Again?")
Several times, I've done a draft about sources and deleted it because I found something I felt was more pressing that day. (Or, honestly, unhappy with the way it meandered -- as does this post.) A reporter is only as good as their sources is usually the point and that's a point that's been touched on in other entries.
Dealing with comments leading us into war, Miller either offered no dissenting voices or buried them within her story. Something she continues to do with her UN reporting, reporting that reveals her pipeline with the administration still flows freely. She is also still in contact with Chalabi.
Matthews shock (outrage?) is appropriate. But someone fed the story to Miller. I don't think she's been accused of inventing the lies passed on to her, I could be wrong. So when Miller makes that claim, someone's fed it to her.
If it's Chalabi, his reasons for doing so are probably obvious to readers of Filkins' story in today's paper. If it's the administration (with or without Chalabi), then the Times failed to inform the readers of a very important development. (Okrent, take note, now you have the basis for a column.)
The paper could beg off with the excuse that due to the faulty reporting of previous stories on Chalabi and Iraq that erupted from Miller's data processor, they weren't willing to let Miller right this article or take the heat for it. While it's true that Miller's byline raises eyebrows among some readers (myself included), I don't think (again, I could be wrong) that anyone's yet to accuse her of distorting her administration sources. (She's accused, rightly, of not having enough skepticsm or offering enough dissenting sources.)
The paper could have (and should have) encouraged Miller to share her information with a collegue at the paper (which is appropriate under the ethics guideline -- see re-reading it last night, wasn't a total waste). Someone else could have pursued the story for the paper. (Miller noted she was on vacation to Matthews.) Even without her cooperation, when Miller made the remarks on the show the Times (and other papers as well, but we focus on the Times here) should have pursued her allegations.
If she had only one source (if that's what she means by "one story"), it was news either way.
If Chalabi told her that (or someone in his camp) it was an indication that Chalabi (whether the US was assisting him or not) was gearing up to return to the spotlight and to power. If it was the administration (again, if "one story" means one source), it was news that would have likely provoked the same reaction in some (many?) people that Chris Matthews had:
Matthews: You mean Americans? [Italics in the MSNBC transcript.] . . .
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. . . . Why are we in the business of deciding or even negotiating cabinet ministries in a foreign government? . . . 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.
Maybe the paper just didn't want to put the spotlight on Miller. Bill Keller implied that in his comments to Okrent. A better reply might have been, "Okrent, you do realize that Jack Shafer is a media critic and you are the ombudsman of this paper, right?" Point being, Shafer critiques all media. Okrent's responsibility is supposed to be over what is in the paper and what the paper kills. Today, with Filkins front page story, this is now an issue for the public editor. Prior to that, it was speculation better left to media critics while Okrent hunted down an issue over what appeared in print and what didn't.
Okrent jumped the gun (as he did with his "pre-emptive strike on the Tonys" -- criticizing the coverage before it had appeared in print). It's good that someone at the paper cared about the issue (even I will give Okrent credit for that); however, it was then out of his scope.
With today's front page article by Filkins, the entire issue now belongs to him, he owns it. Provided at least one reader raises the issue to him. (He is, after all, supposed to be addressing their concerns about the paper.)
Miller made claims on television to Chris Matthews. Miller is a reporter for the paper. The paper remained silent on her claims and today the front page story by Filkins lends credence to Miller's "one story." Fourteen days after her remarks. Remarks made on the day of "free elections." Was the story put aside to avoid raining on the rah-rah-rah election coverage?
That's a question Okrent can now press Keller on. (And Keller should have to respond. The issue is no longer Miller, it's why the Times waited fourteen days to cover an issue that was very pertinent.) Who was Miller's source? Who is Filkins source? (Or sources in both cases.) What explains the reluctance of the paper to deal with this in a timely fashion?
My theory (and I could be wrong): the paper didn't want to "embarrass" the administration. The whole purple finger photo-op was playing so nicely for many, why rock the boat by acknowledging that behind the scenes manuevers were taking place in this supposed open-election?
This isn't a defense of Miller, but, if she wants to crow she was "proven right," she may be able to convincingly crow that on this one issue.
But the issue regarding her reporting, prior to being reassigned to the UN beat, was never questioning whether Miller could jot down just what the administration or Chalabi (or both) wanted her to -- she's proven herself to be an exemplary stenographer. I'd put her in charge of keeping the minutes at any committee meeting in an instant.
I don't think (and again, I could be wrong) anyone's doubted that she was fed those stories. No one has, to the best of my knowledge, accused of her inventing questionable facts (just of swallowing them). So when Miller speaks or writes, you can be sure that someone fed her. (Overfed?). (No, Frank in Orlando, that's not a weight crack -- Miller's "lithe." Term used intentionally.)
So, as the paper rallies around her, why did they refuse to pursue this story?
Keller has written:
Judy is a smart, relentless, incredibly well-sourced, and fearless reporter. It’s a little galling to watch her pursued by some of these armchair media ethicists who have never ventured into a war zone or earned the right to carry Judy’s laptop.
If that's how he feels, why didn't they pursue this story?
That's the column Okrent could (and should) write now. Whether or not it would get to the heart of the matter (which may have to do with the "costs" of access and the need to continue being "the official paper of record") , I can only guess. But there's Okrent's column. (If at least one reader complains.)
[Note: 2-24-05. This post has been corrected in two ways. 1) The post went into italics after the first few paragraphs. 2) Jack Shafer's name was wrongly spelled by me "Jack Shaefer." My apologies. When names are mispelled by me, they will be corrected. E-mail common_ills@yahoo.com should you come across one because it's not the first time and it won't be the last time.]
("Not Fit to Print"):
"You know what," she offered angrily. "I was proved f**king right. That's what happened. People who disagreed with me were saying, 'There she goes again.' But I was proved f**king right."
(Please note, Miller was not then on, what some community members have dubbed, her attempted TV make over into Sally Field. Also note, for those who would like to read about this statement and others, as well as commentary on her non-reality based reporting during the lead up to war and, in fact, while the war was going on but do not want to watch an ad to view a Salon article, you can check out the Dan Kennedy's "Miller's Times" in The Boston Phoenix.)
Miller made comments on Chris Matthew's Hardball show recently that set off a discussion. She stated that our administration was in talks with Chalabi. (The Third Estate Sunday Review mentioned this in their editorial "Danny Okrent -- Ready for his own sitcom or menace to society?" but I don't believe we've mentioned it here. Disclosure, I assisted with The Third Estate Sunday Review editorial.)
I first learned of Miller's remarks via BuzzFlash which linked to "Together Again" by Jack Shafer. [Note, I get a solid red page when I try to access, in case that happens to anyone else here's a link for the cached version of the story.] [Note also, there's a font error of some kind in the cached version. I'm assuming that's not on the official version and have corrected "to" as "to."]
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 …
. . .
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?!
In The Third Estate Sunday Review editorial, Daniel Okrent was chided for devoting a column/op-ed to comments made by Miller on television, not in print. (He's the public editor of the New York Times, the readers' representative. And he has enough to deal with regarding what the Times prints without 'chasing down' 'scoops' on why something was said or not said on TV.)
Front page of this morning's New York Times features a story by Dexter Filkins entitled "A Former Exile Sees His Hopes Revive in Iraq: Chalabi Is Jockeying to Be Prime Minister."
Get ready for Miller to shyly demure, again, "I was proved f**king right!" Only this time, she may have actually be correct.
With WMD and assorted other stories, Miller's stories didn't bear out. Whether she was duped (willing or not) or an active participant in articles that can be termed "propaganda" isn't the point here. The point is who was her pipeline? "Official sources" (within the administration and
Ahmad Chalabi himself).
When Matthews reacted in shock (appropriately, my opinion -- and "shock" is my evaluation based on the transcript, I don't watch TV) Miller back pedaled with it being based on "one story." Do we interpret that as "one source?"
Miller's pipeline remains in place. So if it's "one source" -- who's the source?
Regardless, why didn't the Times follow up on that. (As Shafer asked in his "Together Again?")
Several times, I've done a draft about sources and deleted it because I found something I felt was more pressing that day. (Or, honestly, unhappy with the way it meandered -- as does this post.) A reporter is only as good as their sources is usually the point and that's a point that's been touched on in other entries.
Dealing with comments leading us into war, Miller either offered no dissenting voices or buried them within her story. Something she continues to do with her UN reporting, reporting that reveals her pipeline with the administration still flows freely. She is also still in contact with Chalabi.
Matthews shock (outrage?) is appropriate. But someone fed the story to Miller. I don't think she's been accused of inventing the lies passed on to her, I could be wrong. So when Miller makes that claim, someone's fed it to her.
If it's Chalabi, his reasons for doing so are probably obvious to readers of Filkins' story in today's paper. If it's the administration (with or without Chalabi), then the Times failed to inform the readers of a very important development. (Okrent, take note, now you have the basis for a column.)
The paper could beg off with the excuse that due to the faulty reporting of previous stories on Chalabi and Iraq that erupted from Miller's data processor, they weren't willing to let Miller right this article or take the heat for it. While it's true that Miller's byline raises eyebrows among some readers (myself included), I don't think (again, I could be wrong) that anyone's yet to accuse her of distorting her administration sources. (She's accused, rightly, of not having enough skepticsm or offering enough dissenting sources.)
The paper could have (and should have) encouraged Miller to share her information with a collegue at the paper (which is appropriate under the ethics guideline -- see re-reading it last night, wasn't a total waste). Someone else could have pursued the story for the paper. (Miller noted she was on vacation to Matthews.) Even without her cooperation, when Miller made the remarks on the show the Times (and other papers as well, but we focus on the Times here) should have pursued her allegations.
If she had only one source (if that's what she means by "one story"), it was news either way.
If Chalabi told her that (or someone in his camp) it was an indication that Chalabi (whether the US was assisting him or not) was gearing up to return to the spotlight and to power. If it was the administration (again, if "one story" means one source), it was news that would have likely provoked the same reaction in some (many?) people that Chris Matthews had:
Matthews: You mean Americans? [Italics in the MSNBC transcript.] . . .
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. . . . Why are we in the business of deciding or even negotiating cabinet ministries in a foreign government? . . . 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.
Maybe the paper just didn't want to put the spotlight on Miller. Bill Keller implied that in his comments to Okrent. A better reply might have been, "Okrent, you do realize that Jack Shafer is a media critic and you are the ombudsman of this paper, right?" Point being, Shafer critiques all media. Okrent's responsibility is supposed to be over what is in the paper and what the paper kills. Today, with Filkins front page story, this is now an issue for the public editor. Prior to that, it was speculation better left to media critics while Okrent hunted down an issue over what appeared in print and what didn't.
Okrent jumped the gun (as he did with his "pre-emptive strike on the Tonys" -- criticizing the coverage before it had appeared in print). It's good that someone at the paper cared about the issue (even I will give Okrent credit for that); however, it was then out of his scope.
With today's front page article by Filkins, the entire issue now belongs to him, he owns it. Provided at least one reader raises the issue to him. (He is, after all, supposed to be addressing their concerns about the paper.)
Miller made claims on television to Chris Matthews. Miller is a reporter for the paper. The paper remained silent on her claims and today the front page story by Filkins lends credence to Miller's "one story." Fourteen days after her remarks. Remarks made on the day of "free elections." Was the story put aside to avoid raining on the rah-rah-rah election coverage?
That's a question Okrent can now press Keller on. (And Keller should have to respond. The issue is no longer Miller, it's why the Times waited fourteen days to cover an issue that was very pertinent.) Who was Miller's source? Who is Filkins source? (Or sources in both cases.) What explains the reluctance of the paper to deal with this in a timely fashion?
My theory (and I could be wrong): the paper didn't want to "embarrass" the administration. The whole purple finger photo-op was playing so nicely for many, why rock the boat by acknowledging that behind the scenes manuevers were taking place in this supposed open-election?
This isn't a defense of Miller, but, if she wants to crow she was "proven right," she may be able to convincingly crow that on this one issue.
But the issue regarding her reporting, prior to being reassigned to the UN beat, was never questioning whether Miller could jot down just what the administration or Chalabi (or both) wanted her to -- she's proven herself to be an exemplary stenographer. I'd put her in charge of keeping the minutes at any committee meeting in an instant.
I don't think (and again, I could be wrong) anyone's doubted that she was fed those stories. No one has, to the best of my knowledge, accused of her inventing questionable facts (just of swallowing them). So when Miller speaks or writes, you can be sure that someone fed her. (Overfed?). (No, Frank in Orlando, that's not a weight crack -- Miller's "lithe." Term used intentionally.)
So, as the paper rallies around her, why did they refuse to pursue this story?
Keller has written:
Judy is a smart, relentless, incredibly well-sourced, and fearless reporter. It’s a little galling to watch her pursued by some of these armchair media ethicists who have never ventured into a war zone or earned the right to carry Judy’s laptop.
If that's how he feels, why didn't they pursue this story?
That's the column Okrent could (and should) write now. Whether or not it would get to the heart of the matter (which may have to do with the "costs" of access and the need to continue being "the official paper of record") , I can only guess. But there's Okrent's column. (If at least one reader complains.)
[Note: 2-24-05. This post has been corrected in two ways. 1) The post went into italics after the first few paragraphs. 2) Jack Shafer's name was wrongly spelled by me "Jack Shaefer." My apologies. When names are mispelled by me, they will be corrected. E-mail common_ills@yahoo.com should you come across one because it's not the first time and it won't be the last time.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)