The Telegraph gets it wrong

It's pretty bad when we can't even count on the Telegraph to get it right:

At the time the Bush administration was anxious to support its principal case for the war, that the late Iraqi dictator was aiding plots against the US.

It was never the position of the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq "was aiding plots against the US."

Time and again, the administration made plain that the risk was in the future--that Iraq would continue its contacts with Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, and may eventually provide WMD to terrorists.

You might think the risk was too slim to matter, and argue consistently with that belief; but why misstate the administration's position like this?