Quote:
|
Originally Posted by maximusveritas
Looks like CNN has finally decided to report this story:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/bri...emo/index.html
Maybe other news organizations will start to do their job now.
I don't understand how any rational person can honestly defend the Bush administration on this. |
Well..... the WAPO ombusman commented on the lack of coverage, but offered no explanation and no criticism of the Washington Post:
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050700942.html
Ombudsman
Fairness and History in the Balance
By Michael Getler
Sunday, May 8, 2005; Page B06
Compared with most weeks, this past one was relatively quiet on the complaint front. There were challenges, as there are almost every week, about how the paper handles the Social Security debate. For example, are reporters allowing President Bush to get away with claiming that the system is "on the path to bankruptcy" by 2041, as he said at his April 28 news conference?...................
.......................A handful of readers last week also faulted the paper for not following up on a London Sunday Times disclosure of a secret memo by a foreign policy aide to British Prime Minister Tony Blair after a Bush-Blair meeting in July 2002, eight months before the invasion of Iraq. It said, in part: "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam [Hussein], through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
|
IMO, there is no way to over emphasize the following excerpt, by isolating it from it's place in the thread starter:
Quote:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1000912159
...........The MI-6 chief's account of his U.S. visit was paraphrased this way: "There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. ... There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
Strobel and Wolcott noted that the White House has repeatedly denied accusations by top foreign officials that intelligence estimates were manipulated.
But they report that a former senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, called it "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during Dearlove's visit to Washington.
|