I doubt this Washington Post editorial will receive quite as much MSM attention attention as it should:

...one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue.

Right?

"Don't hold your breath," says Robert Bidinotto:

Buried in this editorial is the fact with the most far-reaching implications: that Joe Wilson falsely claimed that he had "debunked" White House charges that Saddam had been trying to buy uranium in Niger. It turns out that Saddam had been trying to buy uranium, so that Iraq could build nuclear weapons.

Thus, it turns out that the White House stands vindicated on one of its key arguments for going to war against Saddam: that this thug and his regime were actively pursuing a WMD program.

So...where are all the headlines about this? Except for this editorial admission by the Post (which implies that the newspaper had been taken in, rather than played a key roll in disseminating the lies), where are the media mea culpas, retractions, and apologies for many months of false, anti-Bush "conspiracy" stories?

Glenn has a roundup here, but I just couldn't find too many apologies. It isn't interesting to Atrios. But Tom Maguire reminds us that the truth will still emerge any day now. Mean Michelle Malkin has made a cruel Emily Litella comparison.

But never mind that.

I'm waiting for John "Worse than Watergate" Dean to apologize.

UPDATE (09/04/06): Was the apology meme strangled in its crib? On 08/31/06, The Philadelphia Inquirer repeated the conclusion of the WaPo's R. Jeffrey Smith:

Armitage's involvement in the matter does not fit neatly into the assertions of Bush administration critics that employment was disclosed as part of a White House conspiracy to besmirch Wilson.