Liz Smith expresses surprise (after invoking the obligatory MGF disclaimer) that Judy Miller's questionable Hardball revelations that the Bush administration was reaching out to Ahmed Chalabi didn't get more press attention and that the Times didn't address them directly. (Hi Liz! Jack Shafer welcomes you!) Smith: "I know—this is hardly up there with important stuff like Paris Hilton's horoscope, dog and social doings." We'd mock, but we don't necessarily want to discourage this sort of behavior.

Dan Okrent addressed the question but didn't actually answer it, and commented instead on whether Times reporters represent the Times every time they're in front of a camera. Very Times-ian to think the question was about whether her Hardball comments were reprentative of Times thinking than whether she was obligated as a Times reporter to disclose her supposed knowledge of Ahmed Chalabi's status with the Bush administration. But even that was an improvement on Bill Keller's response, which was more or less, "we can't criticize Judy for anything because she may go to jail for something completely unrelated." (Apples and oranges, Bill. At least Okrent tried.)