> Citation needed? Have The Guardian actually read the memo?
Maybe I'm being pedantic, but the document was widely condemned as being both of those things. Reporting that those condemnations occurred (they did) isn't an implicit validation of said condemnations.
If 9/11, Iraq and WMDs have taught us anything, it is that repeating a lie enough times makes it true.
This is repeating the lie. Sure. It's done by reference only, and not directly, but it's still a repetition.
What lies are you referring to?
US intelligence agencies time and time again claimed to posses evidence of Iraq having WMDs, and how it was vital to invade to stop Saddam from using them.
After the invasion it was obvious to pretty much everyone that the WMDs weren't there, they had been deliberately lied to, and that the "evidence" was manufactured.
I remember even Colin Powell being furious about this, seeing as he was the one who stood in front of the UN presenting the "evidence" as fact. A massive loss of face. He was not happy.
They had their target first and tried to spin 9/11 in such a way that it pointed to their predestined target. Many US Americans fell for it back then, still believing to this day that Saddam was involved with 9/11, lies about baby incubators and that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was sanctioned by the UN.
Those are all evidently false, yet quite a many US Americans still consider them to be true, especially that last one about the Iraq invasion being UN sanctioned or else they'd have to admit that their country is leading wars of aggression for economic gains and not just to be "the good guys" aka "world police".
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_li...
[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/plans-for-iraq-attack-began-on-9...
Of course it isn't a validation per se, but repeating those ideas gives them some gravity and makes them believable in the eyes of the reader.
The real victim here is debate. Even suggesting there's an issue worth debating is ripe for being flagged and flogged, and that's bad.