Ending with a Whimper

Perhaps I am just too cynical, but I must confess to a touch of incredulity at the explanation for Judy Miller's decision to testify in the Plame case. Recall, she went to jail in July because she refused to reveal a source (who now turns out to be Scooter Libby, surprise, surprise) even though she and the New York Times acknowledged that "the source" had given Miller a waiver. Now, after 12 weeks in jail she has decided that she can testify after all. What changed for this woman of principle? Why, she got a waiver from her source! Oh and this time it was voluntary and uncoerced:

"Judy has been unwavering in her commitment to protect the confidentiality of her source," Mr. Sulzberger said. "We are very pleased that she has finally received a direct and uncoerced waiver, both by phone and in writing, releasing her from any claim of confidentiality and enabling her to testify."

This just seems all too preposterous. If you assume the first waiver was coerced, why would you assume the second was not? Because it came both by phone and in writing? More to the point, I guess, why would you have ever considered the first one to have been coerced.

Perhaps there really is something of substance here. But from the facts we know, it is also possible that the Judith Miller is simply a drama queen who decided that being a martyr would be cool and good for her tattered journalisitc credentials, but then found that jail was boring and got Scooter Libby to give her a fig leaf so she could come back in from the cold -- and get her name back in the news.