National Review tries to discredit DSM as "old news"

[paineinthearse]

Nothing to see, move along.

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200506060801.asp

June 06, 2005, 8:01 a.m.
Causing a Commotion
“Downing Street Memo” is old news.


It is July 2002. A British report notes that Prime Minister Tony Blair had “decided Britain must back any US assault and had ordered defence planners to begin the preparations for a new war in the Gulf.” The report claims “President Bush has already made up his mind. This is going to happen. It is a given … What we are waiting for is to be told the details of how and when and where.” A shocking secret document recently leaked from Whitehall? No, it is the London Observer, in an article published July 21, 2002, p. 2. Two days later nearly identical language would be recorded in the so-called "Downing Street Memo," the minutes of a British cabinet meeting recorded by foreign-policy aide Matthew Rycroft and published “gotcha!” style days before the recent parliamentary election.

The memo raises three issues dear to the hearts of President Bush's critics — the timing of the decision to go to war with Saddam, the WMD rationale, and the use (read: abuse) of intelligence to create the casus belli. One paragraph in the memo conveniently contains all three:

" reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. 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."

This and other excerpts have caused a furor on the American Left. Ralph Nader is calling for impeachment (again), and John Kerry has vowed to bring the matter to the Senate floor. Of course, the memo simply contains the impressions of an aide of the impressions of British-cabinet officials of the impressions of unnamed people they spoke to in the United States about what they thought the president was thinking. It is sad when hearsay thrice-removed raises this kind of ruckus, especially since a version had been reported three years ago. As smoking guns go, it is not high caliber.

more.......

[babylonsister]

1. Yes, old news that has never been discussed,

examined, addressed, by anyone, National Review included apparently. :eyes:
It truly blows my mind that this hasn't been a 'big deal' since hitting the internets. :banghead:

[patdem]

2. Well, I guess ALL the evidence of WMD's were impressions of impressions

since they all came from someone other than Cheney himself..I guess the Cheney et all impressions were WRONG...these impressions at least are BACKED UP BY FACTS ON THE GROUND NOW AND O'NEIL AND CLARK!

[Jack Rabbit]

3. The memo came to light on May 1. Old news?

Mr. Buckley, you should be ashamed yourself for allowing the National Review to abuse the English language like that.

[wallwriter]

4. Maybe if we could get Linda Tripp to say it, then

it would be gospel truth.