Quote:
Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So Josh writes:
Let me get this straight:
1) The Brits commissioned a second report solely to validate Bush's claim (and those prove Wilson a liar and wrong)?
|
This may sound odd, but the Brits are actually more concerned with Tony Blair's performance than George Bush's, Blair being the Prime Minister and all.
Quote:
|
2) The second report - obviously later in time and benefiting from the addition of new information, more intel and research, and more documents, is somehow less valid than the earlier report?
|
Imagine, if you will, that Brit Hume and Robert Rubin jointly wrote a report about George W. Bush's service in the Air National Guard, and then somewhat later, with additional materials come to light and more research, Dan Rather and Howard Dean wrote another report. Which would you trust?
eta: You'll also note that Marshall talks about the report of the Iraq Survey Group, written after the others and on the basis of what we found after we controlled the country.
