The New York Times has come in for its share of criticism from people who believe that it is being improperly harsh towards Dubya and co. So it was interesting to note that the paper made a point yesterday of reporting a major success on their part, getting the Saudis to agree to let U.S. forces use bases on Saudi soil in an attack on Iraq, after months of foot-dragging.

Nice story. Or at least, interesting. But it looks like someone forgot to check with the Saudis:

In remarks on Monday, both the foreign minister and the deputy defence minister said there was no change in Saudi Arabia's position. The kingdom remains opposed to a war against Iraq, but has said it may review its options if the UN passes a resolution explicitly authorising the use of force.

...

"The truth is what I said, not what the [New York Times] newspaper reported," Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal told reporters during a visit to Sudan.

"Even if the [UN] Security Council issues a unanimous decision to attack Iraq, we hope a chance will be given to the Arab states to find a political solution to this issue," Prince Saud said.