I think he was saying it's quite the opposite of denying the authenticity of the memo. In general though, the military plans for many, many contingencies that are never exercised. It would be imprudent to do otherwise and would, rightly, get hoots of derision from the opposition party if it were not done. This is not a smoking gun, it is a paper that lays out a possible strategy based on a potential executive decision. However you feel about Bush and Blair, you have also to recognize that as heads of governments, part of their role is to understand their options and make decisions. After all, it is what "We the People" pay them for. Would we rather that they not be given information on the broad range of options?
I'm in agreement with this. Heck, for some reason this brings back memories of a college history professor pointing out that Canada actually had contingency plans to invade the United States as late as the 1920s. That having been said, I'm also with Revolt. After all, tt would have been even better if we'd looked at other options before doing the one-and-a-half gainer into this manure pit.