NYTimes skeptically reports more Iranian bomb parts in Iraq

If you're watching the reporting on Iranian bomb parts in Iraq, the NYTimes has a good story on a new presentation by the US military today. It's got pretty good detail.

But, what I found more interesting was the skepticism laid throughout the article. (justified in my opinion.) It's a nice balanced article with the bottom line, "probably, but still not certain."

The reason this is notable is that the NYTimes and its reporter Michael Gordon got absoluely torn apart for their story preceding the last major briefing. (Michael Gordon was also second on the byline on the Judy Miller "Iraq aluminum tubes" story.)

So, after getting blasted for questionable presentation and ethics in the last article, the NYTimes took this story away from Michael Gordon and gave it to James Glanz. Good job.

If they had done that with Judy Miller in 2002, we might not be in this war, and by doing it now and returning to a neutral "report all sides" journalism, you're giving us a chance to really evaluate before being l(i)ed into the next war.

Good Job, NYTimes. A little late, but the right move.