Amidst the vacuum of Judy Miller saying nothing and the misshapen vessel of Bob Novak's obfuscations, informed speculation swirls, on this site among many. At bottom, we wonder if Miller -- perhaps the private citizen singly most responsible for the current quagmire -- is admirably upholding a principle underlying one of the few brakes on an unbridled administration.
Or has she realized, potential book deal and all, the salutary power of a four-month stint in reputation rehab? Or just maybe, as has been recently and deliciously floated, is she protecting her own Tinkers to Evans to Chance role as a leaker herself in the Plame affair? Ball's in your court, Mr. Fitzgerald, though Miller's fate is small beer amidst the even more tantalizing rumors of big-fish indictments lurking ahead.
Waiting, we pass time parsing Miller's unfathomables (as well as wondering why Joe Wilson didn't publish his critique months before the Iraq invasion rather than months after). James Moore was kind enough yesterday to mention my own contribution to understanding the partisan baggage Miller toted while pimping for war, but it was on page 13 of my printout of Moore, so some may not have caught it. He referenced a Global Vision News Network article published in May, 2003.
Back when Miller was being lauded and denounced for making much of the baseball-capped scientist who she never actually spoke to, but who nevertheless revealed -- to her Army censors anyway -- significant Iraqi WMD activity as well as Saddam's link to Al Qaeda (of the latter, Rush Limbaugh averred: "This kind of wraps it all up, doesn't it."), I published this piece on Miller's role as an on-call "expert" associated with pro-war hawk Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum.
A second tier neo-con fond of calling at various times for invading Syria and Iraq; Pipes has a flair for inflammatory rhetoric, such as his National Review warning of the "Muslim influx": "West European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene." Then there's his declaration, according to Mark Engler in Tompaine.com, that neither WMDs, Saddam's repression of Iraqis, nor Saddam's danger to his neighbors led to war. No, "The campaign in Iraq is about keeping promises to the United States or paying the consequences…. Keep your promises or you are gone. It's a powerful precedent that U.S. leaders should make the most of."
A bellicose "cookie full of arsenic," Pipes and the forum's raison d'etre is to overtly influence U.S. foreign policy, its website declaring it "seeks to help shape the intellectual climate in which U.S. foreign policy is made." And it "believes in strong ties with Israel and Turkey.... It strives to weaken the forces of religious radicals; [and it] seeks a stable supply and a low price of oil...."
Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in June, 2000 Pipes advocated potential military action against Syria, referencing a forum report on America's "undisputed military supremacy" which precludes the "specter of huge [American] casualties." That was mere prelude to his plans for Iraq; in December, 2001 one of his regular New York Post columns was headlined: "On to Baghdad?: Yes -- The Risks Are Overrated."
All in all, the forum is not shy about charting a course for U.S. foreign and defense policy -- as is its right. Yet, back in 2003, as Miller was conjuring WMD wraiths on page one, she was listed among the forum's "List of Experts on Islam, Islamism, and the Middle East." It identified her as a Times correspondent with two areas of expertise: "Militant Islam, [and] Biological warfare."
Jane Maestro, the forum's development director, confirmed Miller's presence on its list of experts. "She agreed to be on the page since the website's" inception a couple of years ago," said Maestro in 2003. Maesto added that anyone inquiring of the forum on some topic -- in Miller's case, "any person needing an expert on biological or chemical weapons" -- might be referred to Miller. Sometimes other journalists or groups requesting a (paid?) speaker were referred to Miller as well.
Pipes said Miller appeared in 2001 at a forum event regarding one of her books, speaking at a hotel in New York. Asked whether it was appropriate for a Times' reporter to be on his organization's list of experts, Pipes said, "If I didn't think it appropriate, why would she be on our website?" He added, "I don't know what you're talking about." He declined to discuss whether Miller received a fee for her appearances. It's also unknown whether she personally contributed to the expense of the book-related meeting at the New York hotel in 2001. Asked twice whether some might view Miller's association with the forum as perhaps coloring her objectivity reporting on the Middle East, Pipes declined to answer and hung up. Called back and asked again about any possible taint on Miller's objectivity, he said, "I'm declining to answer." He said, "maybe and maybe not," when asked whether the question had been raised with him before. Asked whether he had ever discussed it with anyone at the Times, he said, "perhaps and perhaps not."
Neither the Times' then Executive Editor Howell Raines nor Foreign Editor Roger Cohen responded to requests for comment regarding Miller and the forum. A Times foreign desk staffer agreed to forward an e-mail with questions on the matter to Miller. Both this e-mailed set of questions and two e-mailed queries sent to an address the forum listed for Miller received no reply. No attempts were made to reach her by phone in Iraq. Times' vice president of corporate communications, Catherine Mathis, provided a statement: "Our staff members are free to make guest-speaker appearances of a variety of kinds and there is no indication of any type of staff relationship with the forum." Mathis refused to answer any questions, including any regarding the propriety of Miller being a forum expert or any perceived taint to her objectivity.
The Times' own ethics guidelines do address the matter, though, in a chapter on "Participation in Public Life." It states, "Journalists have no place on the playing fields of politics." This is so as to not "do anything that damages The Times' reputation for strict neutrality in reporting on politics and government." Another prohibition says staffers may not "lend their name to campaigns ... if doing so might reasonably raise doubts about their ability or The Times' ability to function as neutral observers in covering the news." Whether paid or not, the rules continue, staffers "may not join boards of trustees, advisory committees or similar groups" except those pertaining to journalism. An exception is granted for such organizations as hobby groups, fine arts groups and youth sports -- that is, organizations "that do not generally seek to shape public policy." But shaping public policy, of course, is what makes Pipes tick.
There's more in my Global Vision piece, including Times Book Review editor Charles McGrath's statement that Miller never told him (and hence, readers) of her affiliation with Pipes when she reviewed his book in 2002, and that Miller was also linked to lecture agent Eleana Benador. At first Benador denied representing Miller; pressed on the matter, she terminated the call. She subsequently said she had represented Miller for speaking engagements, but she did not remember when the relationship ended. Along with Pipes' forum, Benador has represented the cream of the pro-war crop, including Richard Perle, James Woolsey and Michael Ledeen. Ledeen distinguished himself by telling Knight Ridder that, "Americans believe that peace is normal, but that's not true. Life isn't like that. Peace is abnormal."
Speaking of abnormal, readers might also find my discussion of a Clinton-era Pentagon official serving on a forum-related advisory board of interest. In the early 1990s, ex-CIA analyst Peter Probst became a special assistant for concept development in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, reporting to the Assistant for Terrorism Policy. According to web sites maintained by the U.S. Air Force and by Los Alamos National Laboratory, Probst served as a member of the Advisory Board of the Investigative Project on Religious Extremists, which was sponsored by the Middle East Forum. Probst told me he spoke regularly with Pipes and his colleague, Steven Emerson. Emerson said the two might discuss "what U.S. policy should be."
Though Probst said he discussed no "classified" information, his conduct still raises questions regarding federal law. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations states, "An employee shall not … allow the improper use of nonpublic information to further his own private interest or that of another, whether through advice or recommendation, or by knowing unauthorized disclosure." For more, see my piece in TomPaine.com.