I want to cry

Here is the Times, on the Downing Street Memo:
British Memo on U.S. Plans for Iraq War Fuels Critics - New York Times:

More than two weeks after its publication in London, a previously secret British government memorandum that reported in July 2002 that President Bush had decided to 'remove Saddam, through military action' is still creating a stir among administration critics. They are portraying it as evidence that Mr. Bush was intent on war with Iraq earlier than the White House has acknowledged.

Why don't you just print the damn memo, in its entirety, and let people decide for themselves if it is evidence that Bush was intent on war or not? It's not such a long memo, and it's quite interesting reading, and then you can avoid the story being about "what critics say" vs. what the "Bush administration says". The document is there, guys. Let's see it!

UPDATE: Here is my letter to the Times:

When Ken Starr released his report on Clinton's sex life, I remember that the New York Times, along with many other newspapers, reprinted the report so that readers could come to their own conclusions about it. Rather than report that administration critics think the leaked British memo is damning, and the administration itself thinks it's not at all important, the Times should print the memo itself, in its entirety, and allow readers to decide for themselves. It is much shorter than the Starr Report, and while it's true there's no sex involved, it does address the very important question of whether the American and British people were led into war on false pretenses.