The New York Times' editorial page takes one of its continuing series of liberties with the facts surrounding the U.S. decision to go to war in Iraq, with its column today saying:

"(Joseph Wilson) had drawn the White House's ire by disputing one of the central and ultimately false justifications for war with Iraq: that there was an active effort by Saddam Hussein to get parts for a nuclear bomb."

This runs against the facts, especially those outlined by the Butler Report from 2004 which noted:

We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that:

The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

was well-founded.

It may be the Times' opinion that the Iraq-nuclear attempts were false, but others with access to far more amounts of intelligence than the newspper, or even Wilson, have concluded otherwise based on the available facts.

Tag: Iraq Errata