Judith Miller always conveys for me the air of someone delighted with herself. In her letter to the public editor in today's New York Times (SUN 11/13), her first lines trumpet the foundation of her self-love:
"Over the years my work at The Times was acknowledged by a Pulitzer, many awards and successive promotions to coveted posts. The substance of my work was never questioned, nor was my professionalism."
And it is right that she be honored, for she has finally, in this very letter, stumbled upon the secret meaning of this War. (If she is unfamiliar with the word irony, she can look it up).
When she takes on her critics she claims,
"You accuse me of taking journalistic "shortcuts," but take your own by supplying no evidence. You prefer to believe Jill Abramson, who says that she does not recall my suggestion in July 2003 that we pursue the implications of my conversation about Joe Wilson. But I remember this vividly, for it occurred amid the departure of Howell Raines, a time of crisis for senior editors, when she may have been rather preoccupied. But you, without a shred of evidence one way or the other, choose to believe Jill and not me. What one believes on the basis of no evidence simply exposes one's prejudice and is otherwise meaningless."
She seems to be very attuned to certain keys themes: the need for clear evidence, shortcuts, preoccupation due to a crisis, belief unsupported by evidence.
"Then came W.M.D., when like many others in the press, I reported intelligence that proved faulty. I was not the only reporter to do so, but perhaps because I worked at The Times, I was the most prominent."
Why is it that this prominent reporter was not concerned with the same key themes prior to our ill-fated invasion of Iraq? Yes, she is prominent when she writes for The Times. And yes, that means that she should not simply report, but also question, challenge and investigate. Those who simply report write for suburban newspapers.
If, I, as a mere citizen watching the evidence placed before us considered it unconvincing and demanding challenge, then why can't we expect those questions and challenges to come from a leading reporter?
I guess she answers it for us, and finally manages to stumble upon the truth of this war's origin, if only by accident:
"What one believes on the basis of no evidence simply exposes one's prejudice and is otherwise meaningless."
And one more thing.
What about her former employer?