Fascinating and shameful logic

How is this for the paradox?

Form WoPo editorial:

"War opponents have been trumpeting several British government memos from July 2002, which describe the Bush administration's preparations for invasion, as revelatory of President Bush's deceptions about Iraq....

The memos add not a single fact to what was previously known about the administration's prewar deliberations. Not only that: They add nothing to what was publicly known in July 2002."

Now Bush at the press conference with Blair:

(More after the fold...)

"...And somebody said, well, you know, we had made up our mind to go to use military force to deal with Saddam. There's nothing farther from the truth....
... And so we worked hard to see if we could figure out how to do this peacefully..."

Via TomDispatch:

"So even today, our President gets up and, in response to these memos, denies that he or Tony Blair made a decision to go to war until the last second ("There's nothing farther from the truth."), something our papers are now saying we all knew wasn't so back when. So he lied then, and he lies today on this matter, and somehow this isn't considered a news story because somewhere, sometime, some reporters on some major papers actually published pieces contradicting him before the Downing Street documents themselves were written? The logic is fascinating. It is also shameful."

I have nothing to add.