The Times Apologizes

May 26, 2004

The New York Times realizes that its editors and reporters took the Bush Administration claims about an imminent Iraqi threat at face value without looking at the totality of information available. The Times and Iraq

We have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge.

The problematic articles varied in authorship and subject matter, but many shared a common feature. They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on "regime change" in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks.

Maybe the Bush Administration will admit to following a faith-based foreign policy, but that seems unlikely, doesn't it?

Posted by Andrew Raff at May 26, 2004 2:03 PM