http://www.guardian.co.uk/corrections/story/0,3604,970468,00.html
>>
Oh, one can make inferences. Yes, it seems unlikely that a reporter would invent such a thing. But it was based on the word of a confidential source, not on access to the actual transcript, which can always lead to problems.
1) (Not too likely) The source lied through his/her teeth. Reporter quickly polishes resume before access to Guardian computer is denied.
2) (Not unlikely) The source had a transcript but screwed up the details of the meeting's time or location, and, as is the way of such things, thereby screwed up the overall credibility of the story. Reporter has an extra round or five at the pub that night; maybe is stuck working the Brit equivalent of the White House Easter egg hunt beat for a while.
3) (More likely) Straw, the US, or both turn the screws on the Guardian, demanding confirmation of sources or else. The reporter is forced to provide a level of evidence that threatens the identity of the source. Newspaper caves. Editor tells reporter, "You understand, right? I had no choice. C'mon, I'll buy you an extra round or five tonight," or whatever they say in Britspeak. (BTW, it was once unthinkable, in the US or even the UK with its hideous libel laws, for editors to cave this way. It's now pretty much SOP.)
What I'd love to see, besides the correction on the original story, is a link with a comment per the following: "The substance of the US policy alleged here has since been independently confirmed by US defense official Paul Wolfowitz." But dream on, huh?