Boy, if this ain't a novel way to drip out bad news.
The headline should be in large fonts on the front page "MILLER CAUGHT HIDING KEY EVIDENCE".
Instead, it's a minor article about a mea culpa from the editor.
And yet the Times and Post gleefully declare that Rove and Libby, if indicted, would be charged for NOT BEING FORTHCOMING or not disclosing information, ie. doing what is now said about Miller!
And my question is also this: Why would the editor have been more compromising had he known of her "involvement" with Libby? I thought that protecting sources MEANT protecting sources! Isn't that what they had encouraged her to do? And yet we then find out he had given a waiver a year before!
The NYTimes continues to slide into the pit of fraud.
Miller didn't know why Valerie FLAME was written in her notebook. She said she didn't get it from Libby BUT she couldn't remember who. In short....She got caught hiding knowledge of Plame before Joe's article and Novak's reference to Plame, the operative!! I have no doubt that Novak meant Dem Operative. Novak and/or the Whitehouse had no reason and absolutely nothing to gain by outing her, in fact, just the opposite.
FWIW, it's in an article by AP's John Solomon, which is about as close to a blockbuster as you're gonna get with a perennial non-starter like this story....
And it's an extremely interesting mea culpa, too. What does Bill Keller know, that he's started backing away from Judith Miller? Clearly there's more afoot here.
And the NYT suffers another black eye.... (sniff. So sad.)