Great wrap up of the memos and what they mean, plus an exquisite smack-down of the MSM, er... LMSM!!!
<snip>
While it may be true that some people were alleging what the secret British memos now confirm, those people were vocal opponents of invading Iraq and were treated by the Post and other pro-war news outlets as fringe characters fit only to be ignored.
For example, many war critics asserted that Bush’s decision to take his case against Iraq to the United Nations was a ploy designed only to justify a predetermined course for invasion. In other words, the critics felt that Bush and his allies were not acting in good faith, but simply wanted some political cover for an illegal war.
That, of course, was not the judgment of editorialists at the Washington Post, the New York Times or other major newspapers who praised Bush for going to the UN on the advice of supposed moderates such as Secretary of State Colin Powell and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Indeed, looking back to late 2002 and early 2003, it would be hard to find any “reputable” commentary in the mainstream press calling Bush’s actions fraudulent, which is what the British evidence reveals them to be.
<snip>
Link:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/061605.htmlDrip... Drip... Drip...
:nuke: