The Washington Post is standing its ground in the Plame Game and the Iraq war – pushing back on anti-war zealots in an Ombudsman piece today.  Good stuff:

The Post editorially has supported the war, and the purpose of the editorial — headlined “A Good Leak” — was to support that leak as necessary to show that the president had reason to believe that Iraq was seeking uranium. The editorial said Bush “clumsily” handled the leak, leading to Democrats’ “hyperbolic charges of misconduct and hypocrisy.” (Don’t expect newspapers to editorialize against leaks.)

The passage in the Post editorial that sent war critics round the bend was this one: ” . . . Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.”

…

The “supported” in the editorial refers to Wilson’s report that there was a trade meeting between officials of Iraq and Niger. Though news accounts have said there was no talk of uranium, the meeting was seen as corroboration that the Iraqis were seeking uranium, because that’s mostly what Niger has to export.

Hiatt pointed to a British intelligence report that he said lent credence to the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium and to the report of the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which was critical of Wilson. The committee concluded that “the report on the former ambassador’s trip to Niger . . . did not change any analysts’ assessments.” For most analysts, the committee report said, the information in Wilson’s report “lent more credibility” to original reports of an Iraq-Niger uranium deal, “but the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.”

Amazing.   A newspaper reporting facts accurately and objectively.  What will they think of next?   (The piece does address counter views contained in a WaPo news article, built on less convincing analysis)