Does Greg Palast have influence, or was he simply The memo revealed, as Palast wrote, “an elaborate plan by George Bush and British Prime Anyway, have a look at Editor & Publisher’s May 14 article<\/FONT><\/B><\/A>, which Yesterday WashPost ombudsman Michael Geller wrote<\/FONT><\/B><\/A>, “I <\/P>
\ntook note of this May 6 item<\/FONT><\/B><\/A>, in which my
\nstaff of thousands pointed out that Palast was “pissed off that the American press, unlike the
\nBritish press, has made so little” of the Downing Street memo leaked to The Times of London
\nand “splashed across [its] front pages” on May 1.<\/P>
\n
\nMinister Tony Blair to hoodwink the planet into supporting an attack on Iraq knowing full well
\nthe evidence for war was a phony.”<\/P>
\n
\nsays: “For more than 10 days, the U.S. media nearly ignored it, but finally the so-called ‘Downing
\nStreet Memo’ is finally gaining traction in the U.S. press. The Los Angeles Times featured a
\nlengthy report on Thursday, and Walter Pincus of The Washington Post followed on Friday.”<\/P>
\n
\nhave to say I’m amazed that The Post took almost two weeks to follow up on the Times report.”
\nThis morning Paul Krugman takes note<\/FONT><\/B><\/A>. He
\nwrites:<\/P>
\n
\nThere has been notably little U.S. coverage of the ‘Downing Street memo’ —
\nactually the minutes of a British prime minister’s meeting on July 23, 2002, during which officials
\nreported on talks with the Bush administration about Iraq. But the memo, which was leaked to
\nThe Times of London during the British election campaign, confirms what apologists for the war
\nhave always denied: the Bush administration cooked up a case for a war it
\nwanted.<\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
\n