The Washington Post appended a correction to the Milbank/Pincus story I blogged about here. The only problem is that they corrected the insignificant error rather than the big one. Here’s the Post’s correction:

An Oct. 25 article incorrectly said President Bush asserted during his January 2003 State of the Union message that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Niger. The president said that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa.

But as Christopher Fotos at PostWatch pointed out, Bush meant Niger when he referenced British intelligence in his 2003 State of the Union address. This is a pretty insignificant error. Meanwhile, there’s a much bigger error in the same paragraph that goes uncorrected:

Wilson’s central assertion — disputing President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union claim that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Niger — has been validated by postwar weapons inspections.

This is incorrect. Postwar weapons inspections found no evidence that Iraq had actually purchased uranium from Niger, but as for seeking uranium from Niger, both Wilson’s conversation with the former prime minister of Niger and the British intelligence to which Bush referred indicated that Saddam had sought uranium from Niger (the Anchoress linked to the relevant British intelligence and Senate Intelligence Committee reports). How could postwar inspections validate the claim that Saddam never sought to purchase uranium from Niger?