Could I BE any more nerdy?

OK, so to keep you updated, I thought I'd let you know that the Editor of my paper, Manning Pynn, wrote an editorial today on the Downing Street Memo and quoted me. Here it was I thought he was ignoring me because we could never marry since my name would be Lynne Pynn.

A missing story?
Manning Pynn
Public Editor
June 12, 2005

A secret document about the Iraq war released four days before Prime Minister Tony Blair's recent re-election has prompted a wave of press coverage in Britain but barely a ripple in the United States.

The document, marked "Secret and Strictly Personal -- UK Eyes Only," summarizes a July 2002 meeting in which Richard Dearlove, the head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service, reported to the prime minister about a meeting he had with President George W. Bush's administration.

Known as the Downing Street Memo, it states, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. . . . There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

The memo continues, "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

At the time, Bush was insisting that he had made no such decision and was pursuing a diplomatic course with Iraq. He repeated that last week in a joint appearance with Blair in Washington in which, referring to the memo, he said, "There's nothing farther from the truth."

Whether or not the memo accurately reflects the president's intentions, presumably it accurately reflects what Blair was told about Bush's intentions. It was, after all, the prime minister -- facing a tough re-election -- who released the document.

Still, although the issue has been all over the British press since the Sunday Times reported about, and published, the memo May 1, it has received comparatively little attention on this side of the Atlantic.

Sentinel reader Jack Wajda learned about the memo last month and complained, "the U.S. media has ignored it up to now. Why?"

That wasn't quite the case.

Nearly two weeks passed, though, before Walter Pincus of the Washington Post wrote about it -- and 10 more days before the first article on the subject showed up in the Sentinel.

Stephen J. Hedges and Mark Silva of the Chicago Tribune noted in mid-May, "the potentially explosive revelation has proven to be something of a dud in the United States."

Advancing that theme, the Minneapolis Star Tribune wrote in an editorial Thursday, "Americans have shown much less interest than the British in a bombshell of a memo leaked last month in London."

That prompted Sentinel reader Lynne Reed of Orlando to comment, "It's not that Americans don't care; you can't care when you don't know."

She has a point.

The American press has failed to call adequate attention to the document, which, although British in origin, describes the United States government's plans for a war that continues to cost dollars and lives.

The Sentinel actually has carried three references to the memo since it surfaced 43 days ago. Two of those, though, appeared in articles that focused on other issues, and -- as has been the case in most American newspapers -- none was on the front page.

The issue is not whose version of events anyone believes.

It is whether the press is doing its job in keeping Americans informed so they can decide for themselves what to believe.



I love that I have a point. Who knew?

I do know this, persistence pays off. We need to hold the press as accountable as we hold our elected officials.