Geez, the Washington Post is still harping on 16 words from President Bush's State of the Union Address back in January. Apparently some advisory board has spent long hours trying to figure out if there is any reason to impeach Bush over the following factually correct statement.

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

In their findings, the board claims:

...there was "no deliberate effort to fabricate" a story, the [unnamed] source said. Instead, the source said, the board believes the White House was so anxious "to grab onto something affirmative" about Hussein's nuclear ambitions that it disregarded warnings from the intelligence community that the claim was questionable.

After reporting the he-said/she-said hearsay, the Post gleefully editorializes:

The findings of the advisory board do not appear to add many new details about the uranium episode, but they make it clear that the White House should share blame with the CIA for allowing the questionable material into the speech.

Isn't it ironic that the Washington Post is basing their entire claim on "a well-placed source familiar with the board's findings". Should this source turn out to be mistaken or deliberately lying, I wonder if they will be as hard on themselves as they have been the President. I doubt it.