In this battle of credibility I'll take Miller over Jill "Strange Justice" Abramson.
As Miller points out, she swore to her version under oath.
It's sickening to watch the NYT try to adopt some kind of virtuous stance on reporters and their holy sources while embracing a documented liar (Wilson and his gang) as they try to throw a Bush administration official passing on honest information to the best of his ability under the train.
It won't work.
My take on this is that Libby told Miller that some of the stuff Wilson was saying was false, and that Miller - aware of the Times's role in spreading Wilson's version of events - went to Abramson and asked whether she should pursue Libby's leads and write a story potentially contradicting Wilson, and was told, "No." Is that what Miller is saying here?