Interesting take excerpted from David Corn, full text at link. Its pretty short but effective. I thought about the language myself, and I'm no lawyer. Any legal minds out there with an opinion? Terminology, slang, between the US and Britain could be used by Bush to weaken the DSM. Before DSM I felt that Bush and gang should be held accountable just for the lie of WMD and the tie to 9/11. Maybe the DSM is comparable to the Watergate break-in, and it'll bring to light all the other crap this administration is pulling.
http://www.davidcorn.com/2005/06/reconsidering_t.phpRichard Dearlove (aka C),the head of the British MI6, was telling Blair that the Bushies were "gearing" intelligence and facts toward their desire for war. Or perhaps he was indicating that they were building a case for war with whatever facts and intelligence they could find. All of these possibilities come across as somewhat dodgy. But maybe C did not mean "fixed" as in "rigged."
There might be some wiggle room here for the Bushies. But the true impact of the DSM--which Chavez and Graham danced around--is that it shows that Bush was not being straight with the American public. At that point in time--the summer of 2002- Bush and his advisers were claiming that Bush had not yet decided to go to war, that he saw it as a last option, that he would try other alternatives--even diplomacy!--first. The obvious goal was to persuade the public that he was a reasonable fellow who would not rush to such a momentous decision. Yet the DSM, as many readers of this blog already know, discloses that C came back from Washington with quite a different impression: