Iraq's WMDs: The Pinch and Judy Show

Joshua Marshall is sure to spark some interesting blogger speculation with his latest post, which suggests that the search for the full story of Judith Miller's involvement in the Plame case can be compared to the search for a black hole:

No light escapes from them; so there's nothing to see. You can tell where they are by plotting the effects of their gravitation pull on nearby stars and celestial bodies.

There's something similar happening here.

When you read the Times Sunday article plus Miller's apologia, there's too much there that is simply inexplicable in terms of what we already know. Going into this mess Miller's reputation was already severely checkered and her journalistic judgment very much in question. And yet Sulzberger and Keller (the first in the van, the second following with an odd passivity) staked the reputation of the Times itself on her and went along for this whole ride without even getting the most basic information from her about what had happened?

Simple poor judgment doesn't explain that for me. Something else is up.

Now, I know it seems like I'm hinting ominously about some deep dark secret. Really, I have no idea what it is. But there's a whole piece to this puzzle, probably the most telling one, that we haven't yet seen.

My two cents? Back in the 1960's, the CIA used to boast that they had an agent in every newspaper across the USA. I think such agents are now in the boardrooms and on the editiorial staff, not mere journalists and copy-takers. It's probably no coincidence that Judith Miller's totally bogus WMD stories were breaking in - of all papers - the traditionally left-leaning New York Times, once the nation's most respected newspaper.

Anti-war readers of the NYT and WaPo are continually frustrated by those papers' half-hearted criticisms of Bush administration lies, and their regular publication of bizzarre articles that seem totally out of place. Why is it so?

The most obvious target of interest is NYT publisher, owner and Chairman Emeritus Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., who by all accounts has an extremely hands-on approach to his newspaper. According to one review of The Trust, by Susan E. Tifft and Alex S. Jones:

The Sulzbergers are more than a family--they're a monarchy. The official family tree, appropriately, includes five Arthurs. The book accurately terms the family ''arguably the most powerful blood-related dynasty in twentieth-century America.'' [Hmmn, old American family dynasty - sound like anybody we know? ]

"Pinch", as he is known, succeeded his father as NYT publisher in 1992. By many accounts, he is in over his head. So maybe it's worth looking at other NYT figures. But there is an elephant in the living room here, and I'm not going to walk around it and pretend it isn't there: Sulzberger is Jewish.

Now (as I hope regular readers will understand) I have nothing against Jews and I am not a bigot or racist or whatever. But if there is a common thread running through this whole neo-con adventure in US Emperialism, it is surely the links between highly-placed Bush officials and numerous Jewish people promoting an agenda which favours Israel. Key players who are not Jewish appear to have been unduly influenced by key Jewish neo-cons like Strauss and Ledeen (others, obviously, have their own self-interested reasons for joining or supporting the Bush cabal).

Of course, there are good Jews and bad Jews, just as there are good Americans and bad Americans. Having a Jewish surname does not make you complicit in Bush's International War Crimes. And maybe I should spend a couple of hours trying to be more careful with my language here (sorry, don't have the time). But... dammit! Sulzberger is Jewish! And it would surely be no surprise to anyone if he has rich and powerful social acquaintances in Jewish/Israeli circles, and surely it is not racist to suggest that those people may have been able to influence him to support a particular agenda on a certain issue.

Indeed, many commentators would go ever further. Ahmed Amr at Dissident Voice calls Sulzerger "one of the major neo-con players in the WMD hoax":

Within the Bush Administration, the designated WMD hit man was Dick Cheney, Libby’s immediate boss. In my estimate, both Libby and Miller have now consented to embrace in a carefully choreographed dance to prevent further revelations about the massive coordinated campaign to deceive the American people and pave the path to war. Aside from protecting themselves and their ideological fellow travelers in the neo-con cabal, they are determined to cover up for Sulzberger, Cheney and Karl Rove. This might explain why Miller insisted on limiting her testimony to Libby’s role in outing Valerie Plame as a CIA agent...

One of the few positive side effects of the war in Iraq has been the exposure of the New York Times as an instrument of state propaganda. Sulzberger is a war monger -- a descendant of William Hurst and a purveyor of putrid yellow journalism. The new poster child of media empire is Judith Miller -- who makes Jayson Blair look like Edward R. Murrow. Every subscriber to the ‘paper of record’ is a willing enabler of a breed of ‘journalists’ who are willing to use their pens to spill the blood of other people’s children.

In a land that cherishes free speech, what can be done about a publisher who has no scruples about marketing war and mayhem? As citizens, we don’t have the luxury of voting the bastard out of his exalted office. But we can and we must economically bleed his media empire. If you want to muzzle the sounds of Sulzberger’s war drums, stop buying his paper. Let him pay the price of the blood he spills in red ink.

I don't know if destroying a great newspaper is the best way to deal with these problems, but if there is no other way, so be it. Sulzberger, Keller and Miller promised a full accounting once Miller's court gag had been lifted. Yesterday's stories were by no means a full accounting.

UPDATE: Editor Bill Keller nails his colours to the mast, calling the NYT's fliff-flaff piece a "fine, rigorous piece of journalism". Sulzberger says he is satisfied by his newspaper's account and "we can all hope this period is behind us." You wish...!

UPDATE 2: E&P today:

"We have learned that the executive editor of The New York Times can lose his job," one Times reporter said, referring to former executive editor Howell Raines, who was fired after the Jayson Blair scandal two years ago. "But it seems the publisher is in more trouble. We know that Arthur was driving the editorials, and we were constrained from writing anything."

Another longtime staffer agreed, noting, "The big issue is Sulzberger. He is the one who turned the paper over to Miller and he is left holding the bag."

Keller and Sulzberger have not returned calls this week from E&P seeking comment.

They are not the only people at managerial level staying quiet:

Managing Editor Jill Abramson declined to comment on the Sunday report, as did Managing Editor John Geddes...

When asked about Miller's assertion that she had gotten special security clearance as an embed, Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis did not respond... Mathis also did not say whether Miller was on paid or unpaid leave or when she might return, or in what capacity...

[Former NYT Editor] Howell Raines, who was contacted by E&P via e-mail at his home in Pennsylvania, declined to comment on the Miller situation.