the times of london has published that cabinet memo. a document which corroborates the downing street memo and thus further supports the what richard clark and paul o'neill told us a year ago: that bush decided to go into iraq long before he claimed he did--and indeed when he was publicly insisting that he had no such plans--and that intelligence was used creatively to build a case for war where there wasn't one.
more corroboration is probably on the way. congressman conyers has scheduled a hearing before the house judiciary committee to address the issue on thursday and promises to "introduce new documents that corroborate the Downing Street Memo."
who knows what will come of all of this. but it will at least be fun to watch. i actually have rather modest hopes. all i ask is that the media begin to finally question out loud whether iraq was worth invading and whether it is worth staying there now. it's not quite as sexy as impeachment, but it's a little more likely to happen. but only just a little.
...oh, and this is really late. i was sick last weekend when various sites were inviting their readers to sign congressman conyer's letter to president bush. if you still haven't heard about it or signed it yet here's your chance. congressman conyers will present the letter and signatures to president bush on thursday when he opens the hearings.
