Posted on 06/10/2005 8:36:35 PM PDT by quidnunc
As leaked government documents go, the "Downing Street Memo" is pretty sexy. Not actually a memo but the official notes of a July 23, 2002, meeting in the British prime minister's office, the document reproduces the thoughts and concerns about Iraq of Tony Blair and his key advisers, including his foreign and defense secretaries, his attorney general, and "C" — code for Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6, Britain's foreign intelligence service, recently returned from high-level meetings in Washington. Rarely do you find an open window on such a high-level discussion, especially on a matter that will take a country to war a scant nine months later.
The Sunday Times published the document on May 1, along with an accompanying article of some 2,000 words sexing up its contents. Other British media also reported on it, as did the U.S. press, with a scanting yawn.
Anybody who thinks criticism of the "mainstream media" is the special province of right-wing America hasn't been reading the left's complaints about the perfidious media indifference to the memo. For Rep. John Conyers, the leading partisan Democratic websites, and the newly registered downingstreetmemo.com and afterdowningstreet.org, among others, as well as for the hundreds of thousands claiming to have signed petitions demanding a congressional investigation, the "Downing Street Memo" is the smoking gun, proof positive that the Bush administration — well, what exactly?
As C's comments are summarized, he had found in Washington that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of going to war to remove Saddam, "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD"; C went on: "Military action was now [as of July 2002] seen as inevitable." According to comments attributed to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, "The case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
There we have it in black and white: Bush lied about WMD and cooked the intelligence to support his position. At last, proof enough to start the impeachment proceedings.
Except, of course, that the folks peddling this story have long been convinced that Bush lied and cooked the intelligence. The question is: What have they got that will persuade someone who is not already a member of the ne plus ultra Bush-hating left?
-snip-
Don't bother giving them the hits, there's nothing to see but ranting about how the media are trying to ignore the story, and like two posted comments in response.
Rather writes memos in England? And they suck it up?
Absolutely amazing! That the alleged professionals who assert that THEY communicate ideas and truth with words and are the shield of the people from an otherwise oppressive and secretive government are too stupid to understand that in this instance FIXED means focused, centered, concentrated. For shame all you journalists. You should know better! Back to English class the LOT of YOU!
Bump for a really good post
I think you've posted about 10 articles on this subject now, but I'll say it again.
The memo is inconsequential to Bush - all it proves is that he was investigating means of carrying out an already stated American policy.
It is very damning to Blair, as it shows that his public statements at the time and later contained bare-faced lies. Not that he cares of course, we seem to have moved beyond a point in this country now where lying was considered a resigning offence at any level of government.
That is only true for liberals. Conservatives, or Republicans in general in the US, can't even be mistaken without it being trumpeted as a lie worthy of hanging after the impeachment.
read for later
So basically
One British agent said that Bush was looking for evidence that would help him in making a decision on starting war,
And some democrats are getting angry.
So they are saying that our leaders are not supposed to inquire about evidence of terrorist/weapon activity in a country and at the same time acknowledge that war might be necessary?
This won't get off the ground because it is nothing!
"One British agent said that Bush was looking for evidence that would help him in making a decision on starting war,
And some democrats are getting angry.
So they are saying that our leaders are not supposed to inquire about evidence of terrorist/weapon activity in a country and at the same time acknowledge that war might be necessary?"
Slight quibble about 'one British agent', this was the head of MI6, would you describe the director of the CIA as 'one American agent'!? Playing devils advocate, the wording says war with Iraq was the 'policy' rather than 'might be necessary' and that evidence was being sought to support the policy, rather than to actually establish the situation. But I think you guys have had enquiries into the pre-war intelligence which have basically concluded that there was some element of this happening, so nothing really new to see here.
Yes, of Clinton and adopted by Bush !
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.