So The New York Times is apologizing for running "scoops" and other stories based on lies from the likes of Ahmad Chalabi. Well, that's nice. Now, can we un-fight the war, un-occupy the country, un-brutalize the prisoners, un-screw up the reconstruction? It's my understanding that these aren't viable options. So the only possible good this apology can do is to correct the record for posterity -- but I think it was already clear to posterity that everything linked to Chalabi bears the stink of corruption. So, nice apology, but I don't see what difference it makes now.