|
I'm in Connecticut, and Republican & ex-CIA "analyst" Rob Simmons is my congressional representative. A few weeks back, I had emailed him on the Downing Street Memo and last night he sent back a PDF of a Washington Post editorial from June 15, 2005 that basically says it adds no facts to the debate:
(forgive my bad cut & paste job, I'm not sure how to do from PDF)
Iraq, Then and Now
AFTER LAGGING for months, debate on Iraq in Washington is picking up again. . That's a needed and welcome devel- opment, but much of the discussion is being diverted to the wrong subject. War opponents have been trumpeting several British government memos from July 2002, which describe the Bush administration's preparations for invasion, as revelatory of President Bush's de- 'ceptions about Iraq. Bloggers have demanded to know why "the mainstream media" have ,not paid more attention to them. Though we "~'t 'speak for The Post's news department, the answer appears .obvious: The memos add not a single fact to what was previously known 'al;)out the administration's prewar delibera- 'Jions. Not only that: They add nothing to what ~s publicly known in July 2002. , " Three summers ago the pages of this and ,other newspapers were filled with reports .about military planning for war to remove Saddam Hussein and Mr. Bush's determination to force a showdown. "Debate over whether the 'United States should go to war against Iraq, " \ve stated in a lead editorial on Aug. 4, "has -lUrched into a higher gear." Concern that the "B!1shadministration was not adequately pre- "pared for a postwar occupation - another supposed revelation of the British memos - 'prompted widely reported public hearings by .the SenateForeignRelationsCommitteestart- 'mg on July 31, 2002. .....<rest cut out>
|