Left out of almost all the media coverage of Judith Miller’s decision to go to jail rather than reveal sources to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is the way the New York Times editorialists pounded the table for the special-counsel probe that boomeranged on them.
The richest example of a crusading editorial for eventually putting Miller in jail came on December 31, 2003, suggesting John Ashcroft had finally gotten it right by naming a special counsel. The editorial was titled “The Right Thing At Last.” In part, it said:
“After an egregiously long delay, Attorney General John Ashcroft finally did the right thing yesterday when he recused himself from the investigation into who gave the name of a C.I.A. operative to the columnist Robert Novak. Mr. Ashcroft turned the inquiry over to his deputy, who quickly appointed a special counsel. There was little chance of a credible outcome for the investigation as Mr. Ashcroft had originally chosen to run it…The change was announced by the newly appointed Deputy Attorney General James Comey, who turned the case over to a respected career prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, the United States attorney in Chicago…
“There are still serious questions about the investigation, the most immediate of which is whether Mr. Comey will give Mr. Fitzgerald true operational independence. Mr. Comey must also allow Mr. Fitzgerald to use the full powers of a special counsel, including the ability to seek Congressional intervention if he finds his investigation blocked by a government official or agency.
“We may never know what damage was caused by Mr. Ashcroft’s delay of nearly two months in taking the proper action. Further time will now be lost as Mr. Fitzgerald gets up to speed on the investigation. In his announcement, Mr. Comey said that Mr. Ashcroft was displaying “an abundance of caution” in recusing himself from the case. But that sort of care would have mandated the appointment of a special counsel from the start.”