You are correct that Sternberg was not fired as editor. He has, however, filed a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel alleging religious harrassment from his superiors based on his decision to publish the article and that is what Klinghoffer based his piece.
The rebuttals on The Panda's Thumb -- the blog to which ThinkPlease linked -- come from Jonathan Coddington and Randall Kremer, the Smithsonians's Director of Public Affairs. Obviously these are not objective sources
Now, can someone show how Meyer's article was not properly peer-reviewed?
Since you reject any real scientists opinion, I doubt you will understand why this is not science.
Obviously, Klinghoffer's article is not objective, since it only presents one side of the story (and if the fact that the folks at PT are scientists, the fact that Klinghoffer is an strictly Othordox Jew(and likely a creationist) is another clue). The Panda's Thumb thread necessarily presents the other side, since Klinghoffer's views of the situation are obviously very different than what is reported by Dr. Coddington. We have a he-said, she-said story going here. Who is right? To me it appears that Klinghoffer is in error, since his article is so vague as to be insubstantial, and Coddington has come up with specific refutations of words that Klinghoffer has attributed to "sources" at Smithsonian. Sternberg has not certainly earned any benefit of the doubt from me at any rate, with his end-around deceit to get a paper published without proper review.
This review makes it perfectly clear how you can tell that it was not peer reviewed, as a properly peer reviewed paper wouldn't have made it to press without so many logical errors in it.