Last week Judith Miller's byline appeared on an article that said, "An early draft of an interim report by the American leading the hunt for banned weapons in Iraq says his team has not found any of the unconventional weapons cited by the Bush administration as a principal reason for going to war..."
This week her byline appears on another WMD article that says, "The search so far has turned up no solid evidence that Iraq had chemical, biological or nuclear weapons when the American invasion began in March..."
posted by dackNotice how both of those articles were written by Judy and someone else? Methinks the NYT has assigned some handlers to her. I googled "Judith Miller Times" and, well, her credibility must be gone. My guess is that they are trying to get it back while avoiding a Blair-type scandal by firing her. Must be rough to be the Times: Blair, Judy, and now the Post beat them to the Wilsongate story. Anyone else think Judy is being managed by the people she is writing with?
Posted by: Ted on October 2, 2003 12:41 AMGood thinking, Ted. The shared byline perhaps indicates some kind of probationary period for Judy. The fact that her last 2 articles mention the fact that no WMD have been found is clearly her penance.
And yes, the Post is eating their lunch.
Posted by: dack on October 2, 2003 02:31 PMTed, you hit it dead solid perfect:
Following the appearance of a Sept. 25 jointly-authored story on the yet-to-be-released Iraqi Survey Group's WMD report, with Jehl listed before Miller, a Times correspondent currently serving abroad sent this message to me: "I hear that our friend has clipped wings these days."Posted by: Sven on October 2, 2003 03:33 PM