Why Judith Miller Should Testify — And Why Karl Rove Must Go

In the news today, as it has been on and off for about two years: the investigation into White House retaliation against former ambassador Joseph Wilson for his revelation that one of the many bogus justifications for the Iraq invasion (that Saddam tried to buy "yellowcake" from Niger) was indeed bogus.

Apparently, as the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, interviews each reporter to whom Karl Rove (and perhaps other White House officials) outed Valerie Plame, new information comes out. It's like a puzzle where you can guess at the picture forming as you add each piece. But you don't get the satisfaction of seeing the entire scene until all pieces are in place.

When Rove spoke to Matt Cooper, according to Newsweek -- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/ -- Rove apparently tried to discredit Joe Wilson's statements about the White House's overblown Niger/Iraq connection by saying that Wilson's wife, not Cheney, sent Wilson on the Niger mission. When Rove spoke to Chris Matthews, according to the same Newsweek article, he told Matthews that Valerie Plame was "fair game," meaning, it would seem, that it was okay to say something that would harm Plame when going after Wilson.

We don't know yet what Rove told Tim Russert, Robert Novak or Judith Miller. The prosecutor has gotten Russert's cooperation and, presumably, Novak's. So, he has a couple more of the missing pieces. And since Rove's conversations with Cooper and Matthews provide entirely different perspectives, it's reasonable to assume that the testimony of different witnesses will provide more and different insights. These insights may even lead to the prosecution of Bush's righthand man, the guy most credited with getting Bush into the White House in the first (and second) place.

It would be sensible for Rove to resign before the heat gets turned up higher, especially since Bush once promised that anyone involved would get the boot. Of course, I'm not holding my breath.

As for Miller, though...

I don't see how her refusal to testify serves the public interest in any way. It may, for all we know, deny the prosecutor the last piece he needs in order to indict those in government who use members of the press as aides in disinformation and coercion.

I've had a problem with what Judith Miller and her supporters consider her "ethical" stance for a while. It certainly is not a position that is consistent with the First Amendment which exists to prevent government control and censorship of the press, not encourage it. It takes an excruciating amount of twisting to get to the point where you can claim that supporting an attempt by a high government official to coerce and censor whistleblowers (see above about Plame being "fair game") serves the public interest.

I hope that the brouhaha about Rove's statements to Cooper will finally erase the portrait of Miller as First Amendment martyr.

A free press exposes the coercive acts of government, it doesn't help cover them up.