Will the real Judy Miller please stand up

Michael R. Gordon is at it again. Here's the lede to his article in today's NY Times:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 — One of the questions posed by skeptics about the Bush administration assertions about Iran’s meddling in Iraq is why the charges are coming to light only now, when American officials say the shipment of lethal weapons from Iran to Shiite militias was first detected several years ago.

Among possible explanations for the timetable, some critics have suggested, is that the White House is making its assertions now in an effort to blame Iran for the deteriorating situation in Iraq, or that President Bush is trying to lay a legal and political groundwork for a military strike against the government in Tehran, which he singled out in 2002 as a member of the “axis of evil.”

In recent interviews and in a military briefing on Wednesday in Baghdad, American officials have offered a more direct explanation for the timetable: attacks with the device have increased sharply in recent months, prompting the United States to react, and then to justify its actions. [Emphasis added]

I mean, I suppose you could make an argument that passing on the government's explanation rationalization is newsworthy, but really, do you need to give it false credence by telling your readers that this is the "more direct explanation."

This is the same Michael Gordon who contributed to some of the worst and most misleading of Judy Miller's articles on Iraqi WMD. It's the same Michael Gordon who penned that piece of glorious stenography last Saturday quoting a multitude of unnamed government officials saying that Iran was at the heart of our problems in Iraq. They probably even handed him the copy already printed.

What's wrong with the NY Times? Won't they ever learn?

Yes, I know, simple answers to simple questions, as Atrios would say. The simple answer is "No."