The WaPo has a good editorial on the Libby verdict, thumping everyone:
Mr. Wilson's case has besmirched nearly everyone it touched. The former ambassador will be remembered as a blowhard. Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby were overbearing in their zeal to rebut Mr. Wilson and careless in their handling of classified information. Mr. Libby's subsequent false statements were reprehensible. And Mr. Fitzgerald has shown again why handing a Washington political case to a federal special prosecutor is a prescription for excess.
Mr. Fitzgerald was, at least, right about one thing: The Wilson-Plame case, and Mr. Libby's conviction, tell us nothing about the war in Iraq.
Times editors, on the other hand, remain at sea on key factual points:
[Libby] appears to have been trying to cover up a smear campaign that was orchestrated by his boss against the first person to unmask one of the many untruths that President Bush used to justify invading Iraq.
Said "smear" seemed to be the accurate point that Wilson's wife, not Dick Cheney, had sent him to Niger. And was then Deputy Secretary of State Dick Armitage, who leaked to Novak and Woodward, "orchestrated" by Dick Cheney? Who knew?
But this is just weird (emphasis added):
We also do not understand why the federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, chose to wage war with the news media in assembling his case, going so far as to jail a Times reporter, Judith Miller, for refusing to reveal the name of a confidential source.
The Times seems to have backslid here - in the early part of the Miller drama, they pretended that she was in jail to protect the identity of her source. That never made sense, since Libby was named in her grand jury subpoena, and eventually reality caught up with them. But only briefly.