In a recent lengthy memorandum to its readers, The New York Times acknowledged it had published a number of articles that turned out to be misleading or deceptive and helped persuade the American people that the war in Iraq was justified. The Times said that many of the questionable articles were based on information from Ahmad Chalabi, an Iraqi exile politician who was once a darling of the Pentagon but now is in disfavor as unreliable and possibly a spy for Iran. Certain administration officials, notably in the Pentagon and the office of the vice president, had confirmed the information and encouraged its publication.

Some of the articles linked Saddam Hussein with the terrorist network al-Qaida, a linkage that has never been confirmed. Some told of concealed Iraqi efforts to prepare nuclear and chemical weapons on the eve of the war, which never could be proved. One story reported a discovery of supposed mobile biological weapons labs, which turned out to be for ordinary peaceful use.

Together, the stories helped convince the American people that Saddam had something to do with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and that his regime had nuclear, biological and chemical weapons ready to go and constituted an imminent military threat. Many Americans continue to hold those dubious beliefs.

The Times blamed not only the individual reporters who wrote the stories but also “editors at several levels.” It said they “should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism” and “were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper.”

To be sure, the Times also published some stories that raised doubts about the claims of weapons of mass destruction. But the corrective articles often were buried inside the paper. Judith Miller, who wrote some of the questioned stories, also reported that there were “deep divisions in Washington over the value of information from defectors.” And the Times’ reporters and editors were far from the only ones taken in by informants like Mr. Chalabi. Many administration officials were victimized, as were respected private observers including the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

This unusual mea culpa met with mixed response. Some readers praised the Times’ candor and forthrightness, while others asked why the apology appeared on page A10, whereas many of the questionable stories were on the front page. The Times’ own “public editor” or readers’ representative, Daniel Okrent, concluded last Sunday that the newspaper had gotten it only “mostly” right. His half-page column complained of an “inadequate explanation of the journalistic imperatives and practices that led the Times down this unfortunate path.”

Mr. Okrent called for “a series of aggressively reported stories detailing the misinformation, disinformation and suspect analysis that led virtually the entire world to believe Hussein had WMD at his disposal.” The Times and other newspapers should take the ombudsman’s advice and launch new examinations and investigations.