Journalists react to Miller statement

Stateside and abroad, the abrupt change of course of the Judith Miller proceedings have been more than a bit curious.

Could it possibly be that Miller spent 12 weeks in jail to protect the confidentiality of a White House aide that didn’t even want protecting? Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post wonders…

Arianna Huffington wonders why the New York Times sat back and allowed the Philly Enquirer to break the story.

Arianna goes even further to the point in an editorial for the L.A. Times, “Who is Judy Miller Kidding?”

Power Line Blog has published copies of a September 15 letter from Libby to Miller, urging her to come forward.

Wayne Madsen reports on the Center for Research on Globalisation website that the sudden change in events with Miller may be a result of Patrick Fitzgerald “flipping” Libby as a witness in his ultimate motive of nabbing Cheney as the source of the leak.
In Financial Times, Marvin Kalb sniffs the repugnant odor of Watergate coming back to life: “Somebody is lying.? London Times wonders where Patrick Fitzgerald and Robert Novak have been throughout this “sleaze probe.”

The Committee to Protect Journalists is digusted by how “The U.S. prosecutor and courts have sent a terrible message that has reverberated across the world.”

Reporters Without Borders expresses regret that Miller “has been forced to violate
the principle that journalists’ sources are confidential.”

We anxiously await comments by Patrick Fitzgerald, the White House, and Novak. It seems evident that criminal charges should be coming in the direction of Cheney, Libby or Rove, and we must hope that President Bush sticks to his word and cans the evildoers.