Given the central role of Ahmed Chalabi in 'unearthing' documents which triggered the UN oil-for-food scandal, can someone tell me why the New York Times still has Judith Miller covering the story?

I know Judy Miller-bashing is a full-time employment for many media critics and bloggers. But this isn't just a swipe at Miller or a throwaway smack at the paper of record. It's a pretty practical point: I'd actually like to follow what's happening in these investigations.

But if you know any of the history of the last five years it's simply impossible to read Miller's articles on this subject and have any confidence that what you're reading is anything that, by any measure, can be considered the straight story.

You're forced to discount all of it.