Well, I can't really accuse the Philadelphia Inquirer of refusing to acknowledge Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from Niger. But most people -- if they read this article without any other reference -- would remain clueless:

First, Butler, formerly Britain's top civil servant, said Britain had received information from "several different sources" to substantiate reports that Iraq sought to purchase uranium from Niger. The Senate report found that similar claims by U.S. intelligence, which found their way into President Bush's State of the Union address last year, were based on a single set of forged documents.

Certainly they won't get a clue from the Inquirer's headline:

"British probe blames data, not Blair
It said he didn't intentionally mislead but used "seriously flawed" information on Iraq.

And remember Bush's famous "16 words"?

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

Nothing about them now, because the 16 words turned out to be true.

What can we expect from forgers of fake turkeys? (Also via Glenn Reynolds.)

The only thing I might add to this outrageous orgy of non-reporting is something I "added" one year ago:

Might it be true that the Bush administration has more evidence about WMDs than they let on?

If so, then the Democrats (and the left in general) have seriously underestimated a popular Republican president.

It wouldn't be the first time.

If Mr. Kelly's warning doesn't quite jumpstart your political imagination, consider it in the context of this intriguing report about the French origins of the (allegedly) forged intelligence about Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium from Niger:

the president’s accusers may soon have to eat their words. A growing number of sources demonstrate President Bush’s words were accurate and based on intelligence that originated . . . with the French.

It is not my purpose here to defend Bush. (As a libertarian, I am highly suspicious and distrustful of both parties.) Rather, I am wondering whether his attackers -- blinded by an all-consuming hatred of Bush -- (how many times have they said this was "worse than Watergate"?) will spend the next two or so years trapped in an ambush they thought they had laid.

Not that you'll find them in your local newspaper.

I guess we should consider ourselves lucky that they appear at all.

UPDATE: Honesty is being restored by Joe Wilson here. Except I think it may be slated for demolition.....

MORE: The Wall Street Journal is not shying away from this story:

Mr. Wilson's disinformation became the vanguard of a year-long assault on Mr. Bush's credibility. The political goal was to portray the President as a "liar," regardless of the facts. Now that we know those facts, Americans can decide who the real liars are.

AND MORE: Roger L. Simon thinks the word "RAT" is more descriptive of Joe Wilson than "whistle blower." Not just any old rat, either, but a rat of distinction:

Wilson is no ordinary rat, the likes of which have abounded in virtually every political party since time immemorial. He is a deeply evil human being willing to lie and obfuscate for temporary political gain about a homicidal dictator's search for weapon's grade uranium. Think about that when you walk into your dining room tonight and sit down to dinner with your family. And think about this -- John Kerry, The New York Times, even some bloggers are willing to soft-pedal this. And they call themselves "liberals." Puh-leeze! (Via the deservedly gloating Glenn Reynolds.)