Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is 'Downing Street Memo' a smoking gun?...csmonitor.com

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
RedEarth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 04:40 PM
Original message
Is 'Downing Street Memo' a smoking gun?...csmonitor.com

World > Terrorism & Security
posted June 16, 2005, updated 12:30 p.m.

Is 'Downing Street Memo' a smoking gun?

Bush critics say it shows he lied to Americans about Iraq, but others say memo offers nothing new.

By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and some media outlets, dismiss its importance, but the so-called 'Downing Street Memo' seems to be gathering increasing public attention.

Thursday senior Democrats held a public forum on Capitol Hill and called "for a full investigation into a memo that appears to accuse of misleading Americans into backing the war with Iraq," as the CBC reports.

The memo is based on a briefing given to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top security advisers in July 2002, eight months before the war. Labelled "top secret," the memo summarizes a report from Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of British intelligence, who had just met senior Bush officials in Washington.

The memo says: "Military action was now seen as inevitable." That "Terrorism and WMD " would be used to justify the war. But, the memo says, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."


http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0617/dailyUpdate.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. No, it's a "mushroom cloud."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skypilot 18 Donating Member (87 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. smoking gun ?
Hell yes.

next question
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
3. Good for the
CS Monitor! This looks like a good piece. I'm glad they're seeing fit to print it like this.

And in answer to the question--Hell, yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
4. Maybe I'll consider subscribing.
Now that's fair and balanced reporting -- relatively speaking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Ayup, I've long found the CS Monitor to offer excellent reporting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. My journalism professors, waaay back in the early 60s,
rated it as one of the top 3 national newspapers for content and objectivity.
40 years later I read it online every morning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
5. If Bush fixing the intel was old news to media, why didn't they report it
to the American people when it was happening?

Why let Bush and Condi get away with their "mushroom cloud" threats?

Why did they cover up for Bush's lies about the intel and why didn't they tell the American people that they knew Bush was lying?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
6. Actually DSM just confirms what was obvious from the git go IMHO so,
in reality, nothing new here, just a paper trail confirming the obvious, so no big deal. The American people and the world need to come to grips with the obvious mindset of those who control all the levers of power in our government and all those who support their policies and actions and pre-emptive war(s): a Repuke president must be allowed to do or not do absolutely whatever he wants when he wants, damn the law, damn the Constitution, damn international law and treaties, damn the torpedoes. EOS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
7. Back to default mode: Some say this, others say that
I'm not sure what's so mystifying about this for the media outlets. If it's nothing new, then I'm sure that they can all point to the copious amounts of copy and all the reports broadcast that said, in effect, "The Bush Administration, perpetuating the silly notion that there's still some debate about what they're going to do, said again today that nothing has been decided about whether Little Boots is going to send history's greatest war machine to knock off a third rate tinpot dictator. Naturally, the plans have all been drawn up, the intelligence is being tailored to shape public opinion, and all we're really waiting for is for all the troops to be in place before one helluva spectacle is unleashed. While some namby-pamby types are wringing their soft little girly hands over whether this is a good idea or not, and whether the Bush administration has really thought this through, the rugged, steely-eyed he-men of the Bush administration are determined to blast a load all over Iraq that will make Monica's stained blue dress look like an ad for fucking Woolite."

And if they don't have that record of reporting, then yes, this IS something new. What's this "some say, but others say" nonsense?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
9. A lot of Conservatives listen to CSM
and take it as truth. This is a significant event.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Career Prole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
10. I e-mailed Tom Regan after reading it.
Dear Sir,

I appreciate your article on this subject.
Heck, I appreciate that anyone is willing to report the truth at all anymore.

Overall it was even-handed, but that's my complaint. This story doesn't call for even-handedness because, you see, that "everyone knew" that Bush intended to invade Iraq isn't the story.

The story is that even if it was common knowledge as some are claiming, the President of the United States and many of the top figures in his administration lied repeatedly and intentionally to the people of the U.S., to the Congress, and indeed to the entire world about his intentions.

That, sir, is the story.



I'm so sick of the "it was common knowledge" line...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shallah Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. "it was common knowledge" is just a way of dismissing facts
that are inconvienient so no one actually has to do a damn thing about them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Career Prole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. Tom Regan replied, and now I must say I'm not as frustrated...
He wrote:

Hi Rick

I know. But Daily Update is not a column, and therefore the need to
present a balanced view is part of the job. I can assure you if I had
written a column, it would have been much more like your opionion.

Cheers

Tom Regan


I'm still wicked pissed off at Dana Milbank, though. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
13. No, of course not.
Bush went to war as a last resort based on solid good intelligence, and we are still destroying WMD stockpiles in Iraq to this day.

Also, this is old news and everyone already knew this info so no one cares.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lindacooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
14. If it's 'old news' I want to see copies of news reports from 2002
talking about it.

I'm waaaaiiitttting!!

Can't find any?

Gee, what a surprise. IT'S NOT OLD NEWS!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MasonJar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
15. I wrote them to thank them for their coverage and asked them to
watch the rerun on C-Span and to do another article specifically on the Conyers' meeting. Please let them know what you think. Also write WP and let them know what you think of Millbanks' tripe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 10:50 PM
Response to Original message
16. What Michael Smith said
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/14/DI2005061401261.html?referrer=email

It is one thing for the New York Times or The Washington Post to say that we were being told that the intelligence was being fixed by sources inside the CIA or Pentagon or the NSC and quite another to have documentary confirmation in the form of the minutes of a key meeting with the Prime Minister's office. Think of it this way, all the key players were there. This was the equivalent of an NSC meeting, with the President, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, George Tenet, and Tommy Franks all there. They say the evidence against Saddam Hussein is thin, the Brits think regime change is illegal under international law so we are going to have to go to the U.N. to get an ultimatum, not as a way of averting war but as an excuse to make the war legal, and oh by the way we aren't preparing for what happens after and no-one has the faintest idea what Iraq will be like after a war. Not reportable, are you kidding me?

...

I think in journalistic terms we need to go back to the Pentagon papers, in terms of a U.S. context you have to look at the answer I gave earlier comparing that meeting to an NSC meeting. That is its significance, that is its equivalent. It is highly damning and some of the self-serving nonsense from people who should know better in some, and it is now only some, of the U.S. media is frankly depressing.

...

There are number of people asking about fixed and its meaning. This is a real joke. I do not know anyone in the UK who took it to mean anything other than fixed as in fixed a race, fixed an election, fixed the intelligence. If you fix something, you make it the way you want it. The intelligence was fixed and as for the reports that said this was one British official. Pleeeaaassee! This was the head of MI6. How much authority do you want the man to have? He has just been to Washington, he has just talked to George Tenet. He said the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. That translates in clearer terms as the intelligence was being cooked to match what the administration wanted it to say to justify invading Iraq. Fixed means the same here as it does there. More leaks? I do hope so and the more Blair and Bush lie to try to get themselves off the hook the more likely it is that we will get more leaks.

...

Edinburgh, U.K.: What do you think of the argument reported in Howard Kurtz's article that Sir Richard Dearlove may have came to his conclusion by reading the newspapers?

Michael Smith: This is the head of British intelligence, a man who has just had conversations with America's most senior intelligence and national security figures. He is reporting back at the highest level, to what is effectively a war cabinet and as I know to my own cost has no great regard for newspapers. He has made his own judgment, no-one better qualified to tell that meeting what was happening. No shadow of a doubt.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UpInArms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
17. This "old news" line is getting tiresome
Why wasn't it reported as "news" when it was occurring?

The snews organizations just piss me off :grr:

The Monitor gets a :thumbsup: for this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC