Judith Miller Article in NYT

Is bullshit. While it did provide some interesting information as to the internal workings of the case and the debate taking place at the Times during the whole thing, it seemed more like an advertisement or something than a news article. For example, the last two paragraphs:
The Times incurred millions of dollars in legal fees in Ms. Miller's case. It limited its own ability to cover aspects ofone of the biggest scandals of the day. Even as the paper asked for the public's support, it was unable to answer its questions.
"It's too early to judge it, and it's probably for other people to judge," said Mr. Keller, the executive editor. "I hope that people will remember that this institution stood behind a reporter, and the principle, when it wasn't easy to do that, or popular to do that".

Leaving this quote at the end of an article without further comment seems very sketchy to me. It is the kind of quoting of sources that has gotten Judith Miller in trouble. A source, the giver of a quote, should not be able to use his status to speak directly to the public through the reporter. Where is the evaluation? Where is the opposite view? There were no convincing counter-arguments in this story. But Howard Kurtz at the Washington Post has said he received emails from at least 1o times reporters, saying they are pissed about the shit going on at the Times. If this is true, where are those voices in this story? Where is the fucking debate? To be clear, I have no moral condemnation for these people. It is merely the bad taste you get in your mouth when you see a job poorly done, or in this case, multiple jobs poorly done on multiple levels. Gross.