Did Miller Make a Fool of Her Supporters?

I've supported Judith Miller from the gitgo, as a a perusal of this blog indicates. Just look here, here and here. I've supported her right to withhold the name of her source, lamented her jailing, and lambasted her critics on the loony left such as the loathsome hack Russ Baker and the Payola Pundit Ian Williams.

But after reading the amazing New York Times piece today on Miller's release from prison, I'm starting to feel that Miller has made a fool out of me and other people who have supported her.

Simple reason: According to this article, Miller's source gave her permission to testify before the grand jury, voluntarily and without coercion. If that indeed was the case, her going to prison was grandstanding -- just as her left-jackass opponents have been saying.

In late August, the Times piece says, "[her source] Libby told Ms. Miller that she had his personal and voluntary waiver." Late August! Then what was she doing in jail for another month?

It gets worse. The Times piece goes on to say "The discussions [between Miller, the source and their lawyers] were at times strained, with Mr. Libby and Mr. Tate's asserting that they communicated their voluntary waiver to another lawyer for Ms. Miller, Floyd Abrams, more than year ago, according to those briefed on the case." (Emphasis added.)

And then we get this: "Other people involved in the case have said Ms. Miller did not understand that the waiver had been freely given and did not accept it until she had heard from Mr. Libby directly."

Oh, come on! She's sitting in jail for three months because of a "misunderstanding"? And she wanted to hear it from Libby directly? Don't they have telephones in that part of the country?

Apparently, but nobody was in any hurry. "Ms. Miller authorized her lawyers to seek further clarification from Mr. Libby's representatives in late August. . . Mr. Libby wrote to Ms. Miller in mid-September saying he believed that her lawyers understood during discussions last year that his waiver was voluntary."

It gets worse and worse, phonier and stupider. As this glacially slow travesty continues, Miller's lawyer writes back saying in effect, "Come on. You don't really mean that, do you?"

Adding to the idiocy and surrealism of the whole thing, the Times story -- by the people directly involved -- distances itself by quoting people "briefed" on the matter.

The whole thing smells. It's looking more and more as if Miller was in jail just for the reason her jackass critics say -- self-aggrandizement. Assuming this is as bad as it looks, she has set back the cause of investigative journalism by her grandstanding, and given her loony-left critics a ton of ammunition.

Let the Moonbat gloating commence.

UPDATE: The World's Worst Media Columnist, terminally clueless Jon Friedman of MarketWatch, takes time out from writing puff pieces to weigh in on Miller. Only problem is that he has absolutely nothing to say. He begins with an unfunny baseball joke, and goes on to make this candid admission of incompetence: "If you can understand what the hell is going on in this case, you're a lot smarter than I am."

Jon, at the risk of stating the obvious.......