The Paper of Record finally comes clean on the Valerie Plame-Judith Miller case--sort of.
I have to admit that after reading the article, I am more confused than ever. They went in the face of clear precedent and a SCOTUS decision to defend the indefensible for what more and more looks like a rouge reporter with questionable ethics. In other words, it seems like the Times has been taken for a ride for the third time in as many years. And twice in a row by Judith Miller. If I were a conspiracy theorist with a strong believe in the omnipotence of Karl Rove, I'd suspect that he planted Miller to discredit the liberal press. But since the Times is doing such a good job by themselves, there is really no need.
Todd S. Purdum, a Washington reporter for The Times, probably said it best:
"Everyone admires our paper's willingness to stand behind us and our work, but most people I talk to have been troubled and puzzled by Judy's seeming ability to operate outside of conventional reportorial channels and managerial controls.Partly because of that, many people have worried about whether this was the proper fight to fight."
At least, the Times, unlike FOX News is still allows questioning themselves.