Well, as Hayes said and gave specific evidence for, either The Newsweek authors didn't read the memo, or they misreported it.
There seems to be alot of that going around.
Of course, Hayes seems to hold to the belief, often disparaged in some parts, that in addition to the need for "the memo" to actually be read, and commented on accurately, there seems to be something in Hayes' understanding that sees a connection between the issue of Saddam Husseins relation to terrorists and the actual war on terrorism and military action in Iraq.
Bernard, I agree. Unfortunately, it's difficult to tell what the Feith side of the story is, fully: it seems as if Newsweek did not have the memo, and was relying on the Hayes article for its content (no decent writer would have set themselves up for Hayes' reply).
The Weekly Standard has put itself, sadly, in the position of determining what should/not be revealed, by parceling out details in response to criticism. Naturally, some of the reason for a desire to withold bullet points may relate to national security, but since, presumably, they decided they could be the arbiter of what was 'safe' to print, I wonder if they checked with anyone else about what they could print first.
Well, as Hayes said and gave specific evidence for, either The Newsweek authors didn't read the memo, or they misreported it.
There seems to be alot of that going around.
Of course, Hayes seems to hold to the belief, often disparaged in some parts, that in addition to the need for "the memo" to actually be read, and commented on accurately, there seems to be something in Hayes' understanding that sees a connection between the issue of Saddam Husseins relation to terrorists and the actual war on terrorism and military action in Iraq.
Interesting theory. Might bear some discussion.
Posted by: Grumpy on November 21, 2003 02:55 AMGood food for thought. Thanks for posting this, Steve.
Posted by: Frank on November 21, 2003 09:02 AMI guess the old adage is true. There are always (at least) two sides to a story.
Posted by: Bernard on November 21, 2003 12:03 PMBernard, I agree. Unfortunately, it's difficult to tell what the Feith side of the story is, fully: it seems as if Newsweek did not have the memo, and was relying on the Hayes article for its content (no decent writer would have set themselves up for Hayes' reply).
The Weekly Standard has put itself, sadly, in the position of determining what should/not be revealed, by parceling out details in response to criticism. Naturally, some of the reason for a desire to withold bullet points may relate to national security, but since, presumably, they decided they could be the arbiter of what was 'safe' to print, I wonder if they checked with anyone else about what they could print first.
Posted by: Frank on November 23, 2003 07:57 AM