[cyncooper]

In my opinion, this article is typical of much of the NYT reporting on this scandal. The facts are obscured by the rhetoric. The NYT is so interested in making the BBC look good, you can barely discern the fact from this story that the BBC distorted the truth about Blair.

Exactly what I was going to say. One example of admitting the BBC basically lied, but still implying there was an element of truth in the "sexed up" charge is this excerpt:

While the 11 days of testimony have uncovered evidence that the government was feverishly involved in the wording and shaping of the intelligence dossier, it has not turned up any corroboration for Mr. Gilligan's report that it deliberately published dubious claims over the objections of intelligence chiefs.

Note the order the NYT lists what has and has not been buttressed. And "feverishly" seems to me to be a loaded word, and, from the many articles and accounts I've read, not accurate either.

[norwaypinesavage]

"Note the order the NYT lists what has and has not been buttressed. And "feverishly" seems to me to be a loaded word, and, from the many articles and accounts I've read, not accurate either."

Good point. I do a fair amount of technical report writing and editing. From my experience, an author doesn't make this type of mistake accidentally. This type of distortion is intentional.