What's Up With the Downing Street Memo? (link) 6/4/2005 Diana Sevanian Signal Staff Writer If I had lost a loved one fighting in Iraq or currently had a soldier over there, I would be enraged over the Downing Street Memo. Even without that link, I am fuming about this formerly "extremely sensitive" and now public memorandum. In case you're unaware, the Downing Street Memo is the recently leaked minutes from a 2002 British government meeting between Prime Minister Tony Blair and his senior national security team. It pertains to their intelligence analysts' concerns over President Bush's determination to topple Saddam Hussein -- despite "wobbly evidence" that Iraq posed a serious threat to its neighbors or to the United States. Penned by top Blair aide Matthew Rycroft almost one year before we gave Iraq the shock and awe no one will ever forget, the top-secret memo spoke of how that cause for war would have to be scripted -- because a desire for regime change was just not a good enough reason to send in the troops. Per the minutes, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw concurred that Bush's case to go to war was slim. "Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran," Straw said. The memo also told of how Bush's decision to strike was already set prior to his presenting the plan to Congress; that the National Security Council lacked patience with the United Nations' route and had no zeal for releasing information on Iraq's regime record; and that there was "little discussion" in Washington to plan an aftermath to military action. Here's the kicker: The former head of British Secret Intelligence Services, Richard Dearlove (who had just gotten back from meetings in Washington, D.C.), was sure Bush wanted to "remove Saddam Hussein through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. ... But the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy." Facts "fixed"? Isn't that like manufacturing evidence? How do you explain that to kids who signed on to fight evildoers and secure their WMDs, only to come home in flag-draped boxes to a nation where, according to a recent Gallup poll, almost 60 percent of its citizens now feel the war was a total mistake? How do you explain it to grieving parents who thought their sons and daughters died in a war where military power had been used only as the absolute last resort -- like Bush said it would be? While Blair's cabinet has acknowledged the authenticity of the memo, White House spokesman Scott McClellan stiffly discounted it, saying "there is no need to respond" to it. I am not surprised at that reaction. Now for another disturbing twist: This whole memo story has largely gone to the back burner of our nation's consciousness. Although it was first divulged in Great Britain more than one month ago, you just aren't hearing or reading much about it here. Someone who is quite vocal about it, however, is Michigan Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee who, along with 88 other Congressional Democrats, has formally requested answers from President Bush. To date, no reply. So what does this silence say? It says, ignore the issue and the people will forget about it. Further, it says that "we the people" do not matter; what matters is preserving the cold-steely dogma that drives this human meat-grinding machine our leaders have set into voracious motion. Senior statesman Conyers feels the mainstream media have ignored the story and helped let the president off the hook. Why this reticence in reporting? After all, the "liberal" media is considered by many to be a mongrel that'll bite any bone if it makes the administration look bad. I know some folks are saying, "They're not writing about it because it is a non-issue. We are in a war now. That's what matters." Others, like McClellan, will just deny its validity. But I believe this paucity of front-page attention is more complex. Possibly some journalists are so burned up with -- or burned out by -- this historic debacle that they've chosen to stay mum and see what unfolds. Perhaps they feel there's too much fresh residue from the Newsweek and Dan Rather incidents to stick their necks out. Maybe a pervasive numbness has enveloped many of us. Each day the horrific news from Iraq, as well as the White House PR spin on it, give people more reason to feel sick, worried, mad, misguided and hopeless. It could also be that some people who have voiced their concerns over this cursed Pandora's Box and the fact that we have no exit strategy from it -- just a new generation of dying soldiers and hemorrhaging pockets -- are weary from speaking out and being excoriated. After all, when they do voice their opinions, the "real" patriots of this nation viciously label them cowardly, liberal, un-American, gun-absconding, fetus-killing, commie-wacko traitors who deserve to be deported. Speaking of communism, or totalitarianism or socialism, or any "ism" that strays from what this nation's founding government was supposed to be about, how far off are we from being under what many would consider an aberrant regime if we cannot depend on straight answers from the top? Democrats are not the only folks fired up over this situation. Republicans are coming forward, too. Count in Paul Craig Roberts, a conservative Republican and syndicated columnist. A Hoover Institution senior fellow and former Reagan Administration economic policy cabinet member, Roberts says, "George W. Bush and his gang of neocon warmongers have destroyed America's reputation." In his recent column, "A Reputation in Tatters," Roberts writes that our dismal standing will likely prevail unless drastic measures are taken -- including the same penalty served on our former commander-in-chief. "As intent as Republicans were to impeach President Clinton for lying about a sexual affair, they have a blind eye for President Bush's far more serious lies. Bush's lies have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people, injured and maimed tens of thousands more, devastated a country, destroyed America's reputation, caused one billion Muslims to hate America, ruined our alliances with Europe, created a police state at home, and squandered $300 billion dollars and counting," he said. So, Mr. President. What about a bona fide, non-scripted face-the-nation about the memo and this war? This is a democracy and you are supposed to listen to our concerns - and responsibly address them. Validate our right to know the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You owe us that, Mr. Bush. You especially owe it to the more than 1,600 soldiers who have died in Iraq, those still serving there, those bound to go, and all the people who love them.
"After all, when they do voice their opinions, the "real" patriots of this nation viciously label them cowardly, liberal, un-American, gun-absconding, fetus-killing, commie-wacko traitors who deserve to be deported."
That's just it. If the administration lets it alone, it may die a quiet death. This whole war was cooked up; 9/11 gave it "justification" (despite Saddam having nothing to do with that crime, bad as he is), but Bush had his eye on this war with Iraq from the very beginning of his first term. His first week in office, he held a meeting on the matter. And yet the media is so afraid of Emperor George that the story is buried. You know FOX won't cover it. CNN might not mention it because FOX and others will scream "liberal media bias" if you try to report the news (where was the liberal media bias during CLinton and his zipper problem?) Anyway, I thought someone should reply to this.
Today, from Sen. Kennedy "The contents of the Downing Street Minutes confirm that the Bush Administration was determined to go to war in Iraq, regardless of whether there was any credible justification for doing so. The Administration distorted and misrepresented the intelligence in its attempt to link Saddam Hussein with the terrorists of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden, and with weapons of mass destruction that Iraq did not have. "In addition, the Downing Street Minutes also confirm what has long been obvious that the timing of the war was linked to the 2002 Congressional elections, and that the Administration's planning for post-war Iraq was incompetent in all its aspects. The current continuing crisis is a direct result of that incompetence." "Many of you have worked hard for the American people, the media and those in government to speak out about the Downing Street Minutes and the Iraq war. You can join me in speaking out as well. "The policy of "shoot first, ask questions later" took us into an unjustified war, and without a clear concept of what 'winning the war' actually means. "President Bush constantly talks about the 'progress' that is being made in Iraq against the insurgency, but he's looking for good news with a microscope. All anyone can see is 'Mission Mis-accomplished' and the continuing losses of American lives, the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis, the torture scandal, and the ominous decline in our nation's moral authority in the world community. We know the Administration had been planning to invade Iraq for many months before the invasion actually began. We know the Administration twisted the intelligence to make the facts fit their plan. We know that the Administration never really intended to give the U.N. weapons inspectors a reasonable chance to succeed. The Downing Street Minutes demonstrate that the Administration knew their case for war was paper thin, and that in order to go into war with the support of our allies, we had to demonstrate some willingness to go along with the UN inspection process. But the Administration continued to misuse its intelligence, distort the facts and pay only lip-service to the UN's role in disarming Iraq. "We never should have gone to war for ideological reasons driven by politics and based on manipulated intelligence. The Downing Street Minutes provide even more proof that this is exactly what happened on Iraq. The Administration's dishonesty, lack of candor, and lack of planning have brought us to where we are today, with American soldiers dying, Iraqi civilians living in constant fear, and with no clearer picture of our strategy for victory in Iraq than when we started." http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Kenne...mo_Twisted_intelligence_Distorted_f_0607.html READ THE MEMO HERE AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELF: http://rawstory.com/news/2005/The_S...released_by_the_Sunday_Times_of_Lon_0607.html
The Downing Street Memo reported that in a July 23, 2002 meeting between Prime Minister Blair and his war cabinet, attendees of the meeting discussed the fact that President Bush had already made up his mind to attack Iraq. According to the minutes of the meeting: “There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action.” Yet, as the record below proves, President Bush claimed over and over after July 23rd until the war began that he had not made up his mind. Bush: “Of course, I haven’t made up my mind we’re going to war with Iraq.” [10/1/02] Bush:“Hopefully, we can do this peacefully – don’t get me wrong. And if the world were to collectively come together to do so, and to put pressure on Saddam Hussein and convince him to disarm, there’s a chance he may decide to do that. And war is not my first choice, don’t – it’s my last choice.” [11/7/02] Bush: “This is our attempt to work with the world community to create peace. And the best way for peace is for Mr. Saddam Hussein to disarm. It’s up to him to make his decision.” [12/4/02] Bush: “You said we’re headed to war in Iraq – I don’t know why you say that. I hope we’re not headed to war in Iraq. I’m the person who gets to decide, not you. I hope this can be done peacefully.” [12/31/02] Bush: “First of all, you know, I’m hopeful we won’t have to go war, and let’s leave it at that.” [1/2/03] Bush: “But Saddam Hussein is – he’s treated the demands of the world as a joke up to now, and it was his choice to make. He’s the person who gets to decide war and peace.” [2/7/03] Bush:“I’ve not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully.” [3/6/03] Bush: “I want to remind you that it’s his choice to make as to whether or not we go to war. It’s Saddam’s choice. He’s the person that can make the choice of war and peace.” [3/6/03] Bush: “We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force.” [3/8/03] Bush: “Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it.” [3/17/03]
Well, this is exactly why I laugh out loud whenever I am told of how our mass media is "liberal" and "anti-Bush" or even "anti-Clinton" or any other leader in power of either party. The media has become part of the elite class in this country, and they work with them, not against them. They can't be trusted, none of them. Tell me who owns our news networks and you will have your answer as to whom they belong. They are part of the elite class, they are not there to look out for our benefits/interests, only to brainwash us and misinform us to get a favorable reaction. Thankfully, according to a recent poll, nearly half of Americans don't trust the media. So that tells me Americans are not as easily fooled as our politicians would like us to believe. I just think that the real tragedy of our political system is that voters are left with no real genuine choice, only the ability to choose whom they think is the "lesser of two evils". It is a real tragedy in such a fine plutocracy like ours. When two supposedly "opposing" candidates had come from the same elite institution like Yale, and attended the same "secret" society, the Skulls and Bones, that just tells you how "diverse" the political arena really is.
This one of my favorite GWB quotes ... "You said we're headed to war in Iraq - I don't know why you say that. I hope we're not headed to war in Iraq. I'm the person who gets to decide, not you. I hope this can be done peacefully." [12/31/02]
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier – so long as I'm the dictator." [edit] That little joke should have been a clue.
$100 say neither TJ, texxx, or basso reply with a meaningful post in this thread. that being said, it's frustrating to see all the corruption out there. power corrupts almost everyone, especially those born with it. people who refuse to beleive that or completely ignorant.
I think the sad thing about why this memo isn't getting much play is that nothing about it is a surprise. Those who oppose the war pretty much knew that the Admin. was planning on going to war from the start. Those who supported the war also knew the same thing and accept that the Admin. had to put on a diplomatic show for the UN.
I think the sad thing about why this memo isn't getting much play is that nothing about it is a surprise. This is true. Now we have an additional story that Bush started the war before he even got that approval from Congress, based on the "fixed" intelligence. I am referring to the increased offensive bombing of Iraqi defenses that went way beyond any possible enforcement of the no fly zone. Many war supporters just don't care if Bush acted illegally by starting the war before getting Congressional approval. Their faith and primary commitment seems to be to Bush and the GOP electoral ambitiions. However, I do think the continued decline in what is now a decreasingly minority opinion who think the war was worthwhile reflects that there are some previous war supportes who do care about Bush's deceptions.
Exactly- Elites don't leave their future to chance. "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." -Franklin D. Roosevelt
The Downing Street Memo Story Won't Die (link) By Jefferson Morley washingtonpost.com Staff Writer Tuesday, June 7, 2005; 9:18 AM More than a month after its publication, the so-called Downing Street Memo remains among the top 10 most viewed articles on The Times of London site. It's not hard to see why this remarkable document, published in The Times on May 1 (and reported in this column on May 3), continues to attract reader interest around the world, especially with British Prime Minister Tony Blair visiting Washington Tuesday. The July 2002 memo, labeled "SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY," reports the views of "C," code name for Richard Dearlove, the chief of British intelligence. Dearlove had just retuned from a visit with Bush administration officials eight months before the war in Iraq began. "Military action was now seen as inevitable," Dearlove told Blair and his senior defense policy advisers. "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." A separate secret briefing paper for the meeting said Britain and the United States had to "create" conditions to justify a war. The story attracted some news coverage in the United States, but not much. Last month, the Chicago Tribune concluded that "the Downing Street memo story has proven to be something of a dud in the United States. "The White House has denied the premise of the memo, the American media have reacted slowly to it and the public generally seems indifferent to the issue or unwilling to rehash the bitter prewar debate over the reasons for the war," wrote reporters Stephen J. Hedges and Mark Silva. Still the story won't go away, thanks to the attention it gets on the Internet. "I think it's a . . . profoundly important document that raises stunning issues here at home," Sen. John Kerry told a Massachusetts audience last week. "And it's amazing to me the way it escaped major media discussion. It's not being missed on the Internet, I can tell you that." Kerry promised to raise the issue when he returned to Washington this week. On Sunday, "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert asked Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman about the memo. Mehlman said "that report has been discredited by everyone else who's looked at it since then." When Russert noted that the authenticity of the report has not been discredited, Mehlman said "I believe that the findings of the report, the fact that the intelligence was somehow fixed have been totally discredited by everyone who's looked at it." Mehlman referred specifically to the Senate Intelligence Committee's July 2004 report on pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction which concluded that the Bush administration's findings were "overstated" and "not supported by the underlying intelligence reporting." The report attributed the mistakes to "group think" in the intelligence community, not to pressure from the administration officials. The Post's Walter Pincus reported on the memo in a May 13 story, noting that Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) had written a letter to President Bush, signed by 88 congressional Democrats, demanding an explanation. A week later, The Times of London reported on the Conyers letter and quoted the Michigan congressman as saying, "I deplore the fact that our media have been so reticent on the question of whether there was a secret planning of a war for which neither the Congress nor the American people had given permission." "We have The Sunday Times to thank for this very important activity. It reminds me of Watergate, which started off as a tiny little incident reported in The Washington Post. I think that the interest of many citizens is picking up," Conyers said. So is journalistic interest. Over the weekend, Charles Hanley, a special correspondent for the Associated Press, linked The Times's Downing Street memo to U.N. Ambassador nominee John Bolton's effort to get a U.N. weapons inspector fired. "Bolton flew to Europe in 2002 to confront the head of a global arms-control agency and demand he resign, then orchestrated the firing of the unwilling diplomat in a move a U.N. tribunal has since judged unlawful, according to officials involved, " Hanley said in a story published this weekend by The Guardian in London and carried by Canadian TV. The dismissal, Hanley says, was part of the Bush administration effort to control intelligence findings on Iraq. Jose Bustani, the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), "had to go" according to one of Bolton's aides, because he was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad. The course of action favored by Bustani might "have helped defuse the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and undermined a U.S. rationale for war," Hanley wrote. Bustani was relieved of his position in April 2002 at an OPCW meeting attended by only one third of the group's member nations, according to the AP report. "The Iraq connection to the OPCW affair comes as fresh evidence surfaces that the Bush administration was intent from early on to pursue military and not diplomatic action against Saddam Hussein's regime," Hanley wrote. He cited the Times's original Downing Street memo story, which reported that Blair told Bush that Britain would support a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq at a meeting in Crawford, Tex., in mid-April 2002. "Two weeks later, Bustani was ousted, with British help," Hanley wrote. Far from being a dud, the Downing Street Memo may generate more stories to come.
From today's NYT Bush and Blair Deny 'Fixed' Iraq Reports By ELISABETH BUMILLER WASHINGTON, June 7 - President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain presented a united front on Tuesday against a recently disclosed British government memorandum that said in July 2002 that American intelligence was being "fixed" around the policy of removing Saddam Hussein in Iraq. "There's nothing farther from the truth," Mr. Bush said in his first public comments about the so-called Downing Street memo, which has created anger among the administration's critics who see it as evidence that the president was intent to go to war with Iraq earlier than the White House has said. "Look, both of us didn't want to use our military," Mr. Bush added. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option." Mr. Blair, standing at Mr. Bush's side in a joint news conference in the East Room of the White House, said, "No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all." The statements contradicted assertions in the memorandum, which was first disclosed by The Sunday Times of London on May 1 and which records the minutes of a meeting of Mr. Blair's senior policy advisers more than half a year before the war with Iraq began. The contents of the memo have dogged Mr. Blair, who has taken years of political criticism at home for joining Mr. Bush in the Iraq war and has come to Washington on his first trip since his re-election in May expressly to seek support on his plans for more aid to Africa and for fighting global warming. Mr. Blair, generally unsmiling through the 25-minute news conference, went home after dinner at the White House on Tuesday night with much less than he had wanted. The two leaders pledged to cancel the debts of 27 of the world's poorest nations to the World Bank and the African Development Bank, although no deal has yet been reached. And as expected, Mr. Bush announced that the White House would release $674 million in aid to Africa, mostly for food aid to Ethiopia and Eritrea, drawn from money already appropriated by Congress. But Mr. Blair failed to persuade Mr. Bush to agree to a doubling of aid to Africa, to $25 billion, from the world's richest nations, or to close the gap with the administration on policy toward climate change. Mr. Blair has cited the two areas as top foreign policy priorities. Mr. Bush defended his decision not to join with Mr. Blair by repeatedly saying that the United States has already tripled aid to Africa to $3.2 billion during his administration. But he promised, "We'll do more down the road." The United States has one of the lowest levels of aid among developed countries in the share of national income it gives, or 16 cents to each $100. Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair also appeared far apart on the issue of global warming - "I think everyone knows there are different perspectives on this issues," the prime minister acknowledged - as the president sidestepped a question about whether climate change was man-made. Instead Mr. Bush reiterated his longstanding position that the development of new technology was the best way to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases. Such differences were pushed aside in the public formalities of the news conference, where the two leaders seemed happy to have survived their re-elections after the war in Iraq. "Glad you're here," Mr. Bush said to Mr. Blair. "Congratulations on your great victory. It was a landmark victory, and I'm really thrilled to be able to work with you to be able to spread freedom and peace over the next years." The two expressed common ground most emphatically on the Downing Street memo, which was written by Matthew Rycroft, a top aide to Mr. Blair. In particular, it reports that Sir Richard Dearlove, the chief of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service, had been in talks in Washington and had told other senior British officials that Mr. Bush "wanted to remove" Mr. Hussein "through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and W.M.D.," or weapons of mass destruction. "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," Sir Richard was reported in the memo to have told his colleagues. Since the disclosure by The Sunday Times, 89 Democrats in the House of Representatives have written to the White House to ask if the memorandum accurately reflected the administration's thinking at the time, eight months before the American-led invasion of Iraq began. Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, has said there is "no need" to respond to the letter. In his comments at the news conference, Mr. Bush noted of the memorandum that "they dropped it out in the middle of his race," indicating that he thought it had been made public last month to hurt Mr. Blair's chances for re-election. Mr. Blair, who spoke frequently about the memorandum during his campaign, said it was written before the United States and Britain went to the United Nations seeking a resolution to justify military action in Iraq. "Now, no one knows more intimately the discussions that we were conducting as two countries at the time than me," Mr. Blair said. The White House has always insisted that Mr. Bush did not make the decision to invade Iraq until after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented the administration's case to the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, which relied heavily on claims, now discredited, that Iraq had illicit weapons. But as early as Nov. 21, 2001, Mr. Bush directed Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to begin a review of what could be done to oust Mr. Hussein. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/international/08prexy.html?
"There's nothing farther from the truth," Mr. Bush said in his first public comments about the so-called Downing Street memo, which has created anger among the administration's critics who see it as evidence that the president was intent to go to war with Iraq earlier than the White House has said. "Look, both of us didn't want to use our military," Mr. Bush added. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option." I am not a crook. I have never had sex with that woman.
