We all know that the Washington Post has employed a number of dubious arguments to avoid looking at the significance of the Downing Street leaked documents and consequently their complicity in aiding the rush to war in Iraq. But they HAVE published a transcript of a frank on-line discussion of the documents with Michael Smith - the author of the London Sunday Times article that broke the story.
How frank?
There are number of people asking about fixed and its meaning. This is a real joke. I do not know anyone in the UK who took it to mean anything other than fixed as in fixed a race, fixed an election, fixed the intelligence. If you fix something, you make it the way you want it.
Link after the jump...
More from the transcript:
Yesterday this paper, The Washington Post wrote and editorial about Iraq and mentioned the Downing Street memo and said the memo revealed absolutely nothing new and added nothing to the debate.
What say you?
Michael Smith: The same as I said earlier in other answers. This is the documentary evidence from within the U.K. equivalent of an NSC meeting. It is one thing saying well The Post wrote this back then from our sources, but it is a very different thing to have the documents from the heart of government that prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
The other thing we keep coming back to is the build-up of concern over the whole business of being in Iraq, losing soldiers every day. These memos not only convince the ordinary man or woman in the street they strike a chord.
That editorial said it couldn't speak for its news desk who keep going with this story. Whoever wrote it was entitled to their opinion. But they were flat wrong!
Frankly I'm surprised the Post published this transcript at all, but credit where credit is due.
Enjoy:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/14/DI2005061401261.html?nav=rss_worl
d
=Tod K