Plausible deniability. No applause.

...It seems that Miller was literally out of (editorial) control at the Times not only after the WMD stories but after they were discredited as well.

I seldom disagree with Josh Marshall.  But I think both Sulzberger and Keller made an unofficial decision to let Miller do her thing if only by default -- because her thing was well within the borderlines of their own political convictions that American hegemony is so natural and important that a few misrepresentations along the way are of no importance.  For years the New York Times has reeked of this kind of complacent imperialism.

Remember the buzz of the mid-'90's?  When everyone was saying (and finally the Times virtually admitted) that it would prefer a one party state?  All the trouble and effort and -- eeuuuuwww! -- unprofessional dust and sweat of dissent just didn't please the Times editorial board. 

I think many people in power, from oil CEO's to media congloms, latched onto the practical, easy to grasp ideology which comes from Strauss' wrong-side-of-the-blanket heirs because it seemed so, well, sensible (America in charge of absolutely everything) and profitable (CEO's in charge of America, in perpetuity).