"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please." (Mark Twain)
Monday, June 13, 2005
A briefing paper prepared for Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain and his top advisers eight months before the US-led invasion of Iraq concluded that the US military was not preparing adequately for what the memo predicted would be a "protracted and costly" postwar occupation.
The eight-page memo provides new insights into how senior British officials saw a Bush administration decision to go to war as inevitable and realized more clearly than their US counterparts the potential for the postinvasion instability that continues to plague Iraq.
So, how does the New York Times treat this continuing accretion of evidence that the Empty Flight Suit had made up his mind to invade Iraq a full year ahead of the Shock 'n Awe Review? In its usual, liberal manner, of course (emphasis supplied):
A memorandum written by Prime Minister Tony Blair's cabinet office in late July 2002 explicitly states that the Bush administration had made "no political decisions" to invade Iraq, but that American military planning for the possibility was advanced. The memo also said American planning, in the eyes of Mr. Blair's aides, was "virtually silent" on the problems of a postwar occupation.
The rest of the article is a fairly complete and accurate representation of the damning memo, but guess what detail the headline writer picked out for emphasis? That's right - "Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn't Made".
The check's in the mail, boys.