Miller, not Rove?


The other day I suggested that it may well have been a reporter who "outed" Valerie Plame. Looking at today's New York Times story in which they buried the bone, my suspicions are growing that Miller was the source, and I am not alone. The National Review's Media Blog is on the case.


The Times wants you to forget that it is obstructing not just the investigation of a possible crime, but the public's evaluation of whether a high—ranking public official should continue to serve.

What is Miller hiding? Conservatives should not let the Times get away with this just because it might be bad for Rove. We can go on without Rove. We cannot go on with a press that routinely defies the rule of law in defense of a practice that turns reporters into agents for unaccountable operators who leak to serve their own interests more often than the interests of the public.

UPDATE: Mediacrity, who supports Miller, points out the most glaring problem with this story:

The Times rightly supports Miller, who won't cough up her source. Fine. But the fact is, the editors of the Times know who that source is. They have to. There is not even a tiny doubt that they don't. It is S—O—P. That being the case, since they know more on this than they are willing to let on, it is unseemly to say the least for the Times to needle the White House for being silent on the leaker.
To say the least. To say the most, it's an obfuscation — meant to throw all the attention in this case onto Rove and off of Miller. 

Think what the consequences would be if it turned out that Miller was the source——both to the NYT and the legacy media——and you can imagine why there is such a great effort to sanctify the very person who is obstructing the investigation that very media demanded.
Clarice Feldman   7 12 05