About that memo... (Chicago Tribune Editorial on "Downing Street Memo")

Chicago Tribune ^ | June 29, 2005 | The Editors

[RWR8189]

Since it was first published in the British press in May, the so-called Downing Street memo has generated debate about the Bush administration's intentions of going to war.

Critics of the Iraq war have seized on the document--minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his senior government leadership--as proof that the Bush administration was hell-bent for war even as it publicly sought to bring Saddam Hussein to heel through diplomacy.

War critics have focused on a section of the document in which a British spy agency chief, identified as C, discussed a recent visit to Washington. "Military action was now seen as inevitable," the spy chief reported. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around policy." British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw agreed that it seemed Bush "had made up his mind to take military action."

War was clearly an option at that time, as the British discussed. But remember: This was the British version of the events then forming in Washington. U.S. media outlets at the time were also reporting on the growing possibility of war, a war that would not occur for another eight months as the U.S. and British exhausted diplomatic efforts through the United Nations.

It's hard to find a smoking gun in the Downing Street memo, unless you're intent on finding one. At least two subsequent events argue that, contrary to the spy chief's assessment, Bush in July of 2002 did not see war as inevitable.

[Restorer]

The least smoking of all guns explained.

[alloysteel]

The memo is more about speculation and opinion, than it is about any statements of fact. Besides, like the Texas Air National Guard memos "unearthed" by Dan Rather's factfinders at See BS, there is no original version floating around, only "copies".

More made-up "documentation" being put into place, while the real history is quietly quashed.

[randog]

I watched a show on the History Channel last night. It was about Roswell and some supposed new evidence (don't worry--there's no new evidence). Anyway, the most interesting aspect of the show was the religious-like fervor that a lot of these "investigators" had. They so wanted to believe that an alien spacecraft crashed into the NM desert it was palpable.

You see the same thing in the dems. They believe in their black little hearts that GW is the devil hisself and all they need to do is find that one elusive scrap of "irrefutable evidence" that will finally put him (and his evil cronies) away.

[WoofDog123]

they do seem to have figured out how to use period writing machines for this one, though.

[baystaterebel]

Four months later, in November, the United Nations Security Council approved Resolution 1441, sponsored by the U.S., which required Iraq to submit to weapons inspections and disclose any elements of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs. This page has long argued that war could well have been averted if the UN had been willing to enforce its resolution. Six months after the Downing Street memo,UN weapons inspector Hans Blix reported in detail on Iraq's failure to cooperate with inspectors. If Iraq had cooperated, it would have defused any U.S. intention to go to war. Iraq did not.

There it is. Bring this up and liberals start stammering and looking for the exits.
Saddam figured he was calling another United Nations bluff. He didn't count on the cowboy to call him.

[Max Flatow]

Hey I watched parts of that show, too. Lasers, printed circuit boards and other technology are all from a crashed UFO? WTF. I did all I could to laugh out loud at this show. Until a UFO lands on the WH west lawn at noon time, I will never believe in UFOs.

[nsmart]

The fact that no 'original' memo exists doesn't matter as Blair has confirmed its existence in defending the memo.

1441 non-compliance was predetermined as Scott Ritter said at the time of passage. It was an impossible task to comply. Not only that, but the US took the document from Saddam before delivering it to the UN and redacted hundreds of pages.

Notice the London bombings have moved the memo off the front pages.

Although this was not the same as a coalition military strike... If Clinton was in office, you and I would be asking if this was wag-the-dog. I so vividly recall Monica's testimony to the Grand Jury -- sobbing as she learned that Clinton had denied their relationship. Next morning I pick up the USA Today in front of my hotel room door and a picture of Osama bin Laden confronts me. They had bombed camps in Afghanistan and no telling how many folks died to get Monica off the front page.

What I don't understand about my former compatriots at this site and the participants here is how they can see Bush as incapable of 'tom foolery'.

[kristinn]

Are you seriously suggesting that Bush and/or Blair concocted the London bombings?

[nsmart]

Note that Scotland Yard warned Netanyahu who changed his plans and stayed in his hotel rather than travel to one of the buildings over the site of a bombing. I'm not saying they instigated them, but sometimes looking the other way and losing a few citizens solves a lot of problems.

[kristinn]

That AP report has been refuted by the AP. They got it wrong. Netanyahu was informed after the first blasts.

There is healthy distrust of government and there is tinfoil hat kookery.

[nsmart]

.. I agree! Conspiracy Theorist is a great 'put down' label. After all, it worked well on us as we attempted to find out the truth about OKC. How could that blast come the day after Clinton was explaining to the press "How are you still relevant" after the Republican Revolution that swept Congress.

Have you wondered about Waco and OKC true origins in the past? If you haven't, go rent "Waco: Rules of Engagement".

[nsmart]

One more thing. Remember Bush, the senior, was head of the CIA for several years. Do you seriously think he never 'offed' a few folks?

[kristinn]

Clinton was the original conspiracy theorist with regard to OKC. He blamed it on Rush Limbaugh.

The incompetence of the alphabet agencies in dealing with terrorism is well documented. Not just with OKC but also the first WTC attack. But that doesn't mean Clinton was complicit in those attacks.

As for Waco we all know Janet Reno was under pressure from the Clintonistas to finish the job.

George H.W. Bush's short tenure as CIA director is a convenient bogeyman for many.

But let's bring this back around to the subject of the thread and your comment: Your implication that at a minimum Bush and/or Blair allowed the London bombings to happen for political gain. I think that ranks down with the conspiracy theory that the Pentagon attack on 9/11 was an inside job and that no plane crashed into it.

[nsmart]

When the assault on Waco started and the FBI took over from the bumbling ATF, most people forget that Reno wasn't confirmed yet. Webster Hubbel was in charge at Justice. That link to Foster/Hillary is much more apparent than Reno's. It was convenient that she was confirmed in time to 'allow' the gassing, tanks and sharp-shooters of the final assault. Having a now-convicted felon in charge would have raised too many eyebrows.

Don't get me started on the outright fraud from Waco like Wesley Clark commanding military there which was totally against the law and Anne Richards allowing helicopter to be commendeered by the ATF on the (totally false) 'drug' allegation. Both Richards and Lloyd Bentzen (then head of the Treasury and in charge of ATF) haled from Waco region and must have known the Davidians as they lived there since the 1930's.

Yes, Clinton used the OKC bombing to shut down the militia movement and blame OKC on 'hate speech'. He was attempting to pass a national 'hate crimes' legislation, too. Lord knows where that would have taken us. My concern is that "W" could propose the same thing and get it passed. He got the National ID passed (Real ID bill).

But do you not find it 'convenient' when these bombings in London occurred? Didn't we 'hate' convenient deaths and 'accidents' like Ron Brown's plane going down under Clinton? Why do we give "W" a pass? Do you think he even 'knows' some of the crap pulled by our agencies or Brit guys for that matter?