The RollingStone Blog: "The Smoking Gun? "

[sabra]

<<SNIP>>
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7318016?pageid=rs.Home&pageregion=single7&rnd=1116442666151&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.1040

The Smoking Gun?
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL ? U.K. EYES ONLY

... Military action was now seen as inevitable. 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... There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

...

These notes, taken for Prime Minister Tony Blair in July 2002, seven months before the launch of the Iraq war, and confirmed by a former Bush official as an " absolutely accurate description of what transpired" are about as close as you can get to a smoking gun on Iraq.

To review: Bush was pre-determined to go to war. The case that Saddam posed any danger was "thin." The administration had taken it upon itself to "fix" the intelligence to justify an invasion. The lack of post-war planning had already begun.

I haven't blogged on this outrage for two weeks, assuming naively that this would become front-page, CNN Headline news any day now. You would think, after all, that 90 Congressional Democrats signing a letter to the President demanding that he explain how he could have "secretly agreed to attack Iraq in the summer of 2002, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority" would make a few waves.

But the U.S. media world has just so far simply shrugged. Where did the major dailies play the story? Washington Post: A-18. New York Times: A-9 (buried in a political analysis handicapping of Blair's electoral chances.) The LA Times: A-3.

Indeed, search on GoogleNews for mention of the Democrat's letter and you'll get two hits: The Washington Post's ombudsman -- taking his paper to task for not covering it -- and Aljazeera.com.

You know you're in trouble when the American newspaper taking charge on this story is the The New York Review of Books.

<</SNIP>>

[IChing]

1. White House Says Report of memo Insult Should Be Retracted

I can't wait for that headline

[cyberpj]

2. And besides -- keep it quiet or people could die!

:sarcasm:

[MadisonProgressive]

3. And then the terrorists win! Are you with us or....

[IChing]

4. or people could die!"

we're not saying who but people could die

[AndyTiedye]

5. That's Why "Gannon" Fit In So Well in the Press Corps

They're ALL presstitutes!

[xchrom]

6. we've all gone through the looking glass.

yes, it's inconceivable that the msm has ignored the memo, the response/request from dem letter, etc.

one can only conclude that the msm is complicit in the whatever the goals of the admin are.

what other reasonable choice is there to think?

[rodeodance]

7. the media ought to be ashamed of themselves (little by little

newspapers have an article) while the networks and cable are silent-except for blurb on cnn a while ago.

[xchrom]

8. you're right.

but we'll see little of that shame i'm afraid.

[leftchick]

9. I firmly believe they are comlicit after this past month's VF article

It was the forward in RFK Jr.'s new book. It had extensive information from David Brock. I had no idea how bad it was until I read this.... Every Wednesday there is a meeting held in Grover Norquist's office in DC with EIGHTY RW media people. People that own or have interests in major US publications, television and radio. This shadowy group meets weekly for strategies on controling the message to AmeriKa. I never imagined it had come to this. And how the hell can you fight back at it? The BFEE has firmly take over this country.

:(

[killbotfactory]

10. All these "why isn't the memo being covered" stories are pissing me off

ATTN Fouth Estate: DO YOUR FUCKING JOBS
Thanks,
The People