I haven't said anything about trusting them. I am simply correcting statements about what the US has supposedly "admitted".

It's one thing to say "I think the US did XYZ".

It's quite another to say "It is an objective truth that the US did XYZ, in fact they even admitted it".

Transposed to the Guardian, if they want to write "we think the US did XYZ", they should clearly frame it as an opinion piece. Instead they are writing "it is an objective truth that the US did XYZ" - which is false. That is journalistic malpractice.