New York Times reporter Judith Miller [3] has begun revising her first draft of history, some two months after her widely criticized stories made the case that evidence of Saddam's unconventional weapons was being found. In a hindsight account written July 20 [4], Miller belatedly concluded that the postwar search for evidence was plagued by "chaos, disorganization, interagency feuds, disputes within and among military units, and shortages of everything. ... To this day, whether Saddam Hussein possessed such weapons when the war began remains unknown." But as William E. Jackson Jr. notes, it was Miller's own stories in April and May that "made it appear a great deal was being discovered that served to demonstrate the validity of the administration's major reasons for a pre-emptive attack. ... Only after Miller's reporting came under fire from reporters within the Times and in the pages of the Post -- among other newspapers and journals -- did the editors couple her with William Broad to write more skeptically about the alleged successes of the WMD search. ... It is puzzling that a star reporter caught in highly misleading reporting on WMDs [5] would be so protected from the consequences of her actions. Disturbing questions are raised when the Times publishes big stories that travel the same winding road as the Bush administration on the very grave matter of why American soldiers were sent off to war."