The Puzzling Consequences of the Judy Miller Theory

In a strange confluence of blogospheric speculation, bloggers from the left, right, and center have all recently trumpeted variations of the "Judy Miller did it" theory. According to this theory, it was Miller who first learned Valerie Plame's identity (from either a non-White House source or through her own investigative efforts). She then told Scooter Libby and/or Karl Rove, and they passed the information along to other journalists.

Whenever an idea is simultaneously being floated by Arianna Huffington, Josh Marshall, Mickey Kaus, Tom Maguire, and the guys at NRO, you have to take it seriously. After all, that kind of agreement across the ideological spectrum is virtually unprecedented; it's like the planets being perfectly aligned. But there seems to be a significant problem with this theory, one I'd encourage the theory's advocates to address.

If Libby and Rove first learned about Plame from Miller, then some puzzling inferences necessarily follow. As I stated in my previous post, this theory seems to contradict Libby and Rove's testimony, as least as currently reported in the media. Libby has reportedly testified that he learned about Plame from Tim Russert (who has denied this, although somewhat ambiguously). Rove has reportedly testified that he learned about Plame from a journalist, but cannot remember from whom. According to some reports, Rove may have hedged even further, telling Fitzgerald that he may have learned about Plame from another White House staffer. If this is indeed how they testified (and the "Miller did it" theory is correct), then both Rove and Libby likely perjured themselves, and for not obvious reason.

It's possible, of course, that the media accounts of Rove and Libby's testimony are inaccurate, and that they have in fact told Fitzgerald that Miller was their source (this is what Tom Maguire suggested in a comment to my previous post). But if that's the case, why would they allow false or misleading accounts of their testimony to circulate in the media? Rove's own lawyer seems to be the source behind his reported testimony, and both Rove and Libby's attorneys have been active behind the scenes, getting their side of the story out. If Miller was their source, why would they withhold this obviously exculpatory fact? Why wouldn't they point the finger at her publicly (through anonymous sources if necessary) so as to quell the speculation about perjury and obstruction of justice? Wouldn't that be in both their and the White House's best interests?

Since this hasn't happened, the necessary inference is that either Rove and Libby lied to Fitzgerald to protect Miller (and in doing so committed crimes), or are currently misleading the media to protect her (which is causing this scandal to escalate unnecessarily and is damaging their own reputations as well as that of the White House). Why would they do either of these things for Miller, particularly when they are facing possible criminal charges and she is not? If you believe that Miller is the source, then you have to offer some explanation for this bizarre behavior.

So what would drive Rove and Libby either to lie to Fitzgerald or to lie to the media about Miller's involvement in this affair? I can think of a number of possible explanations, but they are all a bit far-fetched and conspiratorial, much like the plot of an Oliver Stone movie.

For instance, it's possible that the source Miller is protecting is a really big fish (like, say, Condi Rice or Dick Cheney). As unlikely as that is, it would at least explain why Rove and Libby don't want to point the finger at Miller, an act which would turn up the pressure on her and risk an even greater embarrassment for the White House.

Another possibility is that Miller has some other sort of leverage over the White House, that she knows things about, say, the leadup to war, that would be very damaging if exposed. As a result, Rove and Libby are going out of their way not to get on her bad side, and are therefore avoiding any public finger-pointing in her direction.

By far the wildest explanation is the one currently being championed by commentors at DailyKos, Atrios and other liberal blogs: that Miller is herself on the payroll of some intelligence organization (such as the DIA or CIA) and that the White House is trying to protect her cover (wouldn't that be ironic?). This speculation is being fueled by Arianna Huffington's latest account of Miller's intelligence connections and her unusual experience as an "inbed" during the first months of the war. And, crazy as it sounds, the intelligence community does have an acknowledged history of keeping reporters on the payroll.

But I ask you, do any of the above stated explanations strike you as likely to be true? If the answer is no, then you may want to reconsider whether you believe the "Judy Miller theory."