DSM on Page A01 of Tommorrow's WaPo

Glenn Frankel of the Washington Post Foreign Service has written a pretty solid article on the DSM that will appear on Page A01 of tommorrow's Post. Just yesterday, the ombudsman stated that it was a mistake to have Milbank (who's primarily a columnist) report on Conyer's hearing, a news event. Nice to see that the WaPo is following up on that admission with some real reporting. And even if a piece like this is late in coming, you gotta like that it's hitting the streets the day of Bush's address.

A few snippets are given below the fold.

Behind the scenes, British officials believed the U.S. administration was already committed to a war that they feared was ill-conceived and illegal and could lead to disaster.

The documents indicate that the officials foresaw a host of problems that later would haunt both governments -- including thin intelligence about the nature of the Iraqi threat, weak public support for war and a lack of planning for the aftermath of military action.

--snip--

Critics of the Bush administration contend the documents -- including the now-famous Downing Street Memo of July 23, 2002 -- constitute proof that Bush made the decision to go to war at least eight months before it began, and that the subsequent diplomatic campaign at the United Nations was a charade, designed to convince the public that war was necessary, rather than an attempt to resolve the crisis peacefully. They contend the documents have not received the attention they deserve.

I like the phrase "the subsequent diplomatic campaign at the United Nations was a charade." To me, this is a somewhat neglected aspect of the DSMs. It's not just that that Bush was planning for war while telling us it was the last option. It's not just that the facts were being fixed around the policy. It's not just that the administration was rushing to war without adequate planning. It's also the fact that the Bush administration was attempting to "wrongfoot" Saddam, to bait him into war. Everyone can understand how wrong that is.