Backhanded Demand For Bush Apology

The New York Times is apologizing for not investigating its sources rigorously enough. In short, sources who told the Times about Iraq's WMD program should have had their reliability checked.

Reports of claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or ties to international terrorists contained information that was unchallenged by editors and was not adequately followed up, the Times said in a lengthy editor’s note that appears inside the front section of Wednesday’s editions, alongside its Iraq coverage.

“In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged,” the newspaper said. “Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged or failed to emerge.”

The Times also said it had featured articles containing alarming claims about Iraq under Saddam Hussein more prominently than follow-up stories that countered those claims.

Many of the stories used information from Iraqi exiles and critics of Hussein who were pressing the United States to oust the Iraqi leader, but the newspaper said it did not always emphasize the informants’ motivations. On two occasions, stories described claims that were never independently confirmed.

“Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper,” the editor’s note said.

Is this a backhanded attempt to get the Bush Administration to apologize for overestimating Iraq's WMD's?