I would dare to say that many reporters and editors would agree with me, that this stands out as totally suspect. From Miller's piece:

Our meeting, which lasted about two hours, took place over breakfast at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington. I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I almost certainly began this interview by asking about Mr. Wilson's essay, which appeared to have agitated Mr. Libby. As I recall, Mr. Libby asserted that the essay was inaccurate.

Mr. Fitzgerald asked about a notation I made on the first page of my notes about this July 8 meeting, "Former Hill staffer."

My recollection, I told him, was that Mr. Libby wanted to modify our prior understanding that I would attribute information from him to a "senior administration official." When the subject turned to Mr. Wilson, Mr. Libby requested that he be identified only as a "former Hill staffer." I agreed to the new ground rules because I knew that Mr. Libby had once worked on Capitol Hill.

Did Mr. Libby explain this request? Mr. Fitzgerald asked. No, I don't recall, I replied. But I said I assumed Mr. Libby did not want the White House to be seen as attacking Mr. Wilson.

It's one thing to go up the hierarchy of a person's position to make it more general, e.g. a White House official becomes "an administration official" or a Republican Senate Foreign Relations committee staffer becomes a "Hill staffer." But to agree to describe the chief of staff to the vice president of the United States as simply a "former Hill staffer" is totally dishonest. Why? Because it colludes in misrepresenting what branch of government a source is coming from. And that matters.

What I mean is, something can be technically true (Libby was a former Hill staffer), and yet, very very misleading (he's the last guy to talk to the last guy who talked to the president, as one reporter describes Libby). One has a responsibility in conveying a quote to be honest about the affiliation of the person speaking, as honestly as possible. Sometimes, one can't be specific at all. But you don't mislead about where they're coming from to describe their identity. You just make it more general.

Update: And Miller confirms that she did indeed have a Secret clearance from the Pentagon for a time:

In my grand jury testimony, Mr. Fitzgerald repeatedly turned to the subject of how Mr. Libby handled classified information with me. He asked, for example, whether I had discussed my security status with Mr. Libby. During the Iraq war, the Pentagon had given me clearance to see secret information as part of my assignment "embedded" with a special military unit hunting for unconventional weapons.

How unprecedented is that? And how exactly was that arranged, both from the US government, and the Times?

Posted by Laura at October 15, 2005 10:12 PM