Why the leaked Britins memo has been a "dud"

[paineinthearse]

The Christian Science Monitor attempts to explain why the leaked British memo - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html -, which contained the damaging assertion that the intelligence and facts about Iraq were "being fixed around the policy," has not gained more attention. In its round-up of the media coverage on the memo, the paper writes, "There may have been a point at which the US news media would have been all over a story about a British official's report that the Bush administration appeared intent on invading Iraq long before it sought Congress' approval.… But May 2005 is apparently way past that point."

Excerpt" "I am not surprised at the duplicity. But I am astonished at the acceptance of this deception by voters in the United States and the United Kingdom. I've seen two US presidents go down the drain – Lyndon B. Johnson on Vietnam and Richard Nixon in the Watergate scandal – because they were no longer believed. But times change – and I guess our values do, too."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0517/dailyUpdate.html

World > Terrorism & Security
posted May 17, 2005, updated 12:43 p.m.

Why has 'Downing Street memo' story been a 'dud' in US?

A mid-2002 British memo saying US was planning to 'fix' intelligence to fit plans to invade Iraq has not been big news.

By Matthew Clark | csmonitor.com

There may have been a point at which the US news media would have been all over a story about a British official's report that the Bush administration appeared intent on invading Iraq long before it sought Congress' approval – and that it "fixed" intelligence to fit its intention. But May 2005 is apparently way past that point. Days before British Prime Minister Tony Blair secured a third term in the country's parliamentary election earlier this month, The Sunday Times published a "secret Downing Street memo."
05/16/05 - Uzbek ruler: a new Saddam Hussein?
05/13/10 - Iran and North Korea: headed for the Security Council?
05/12/05 - Cuba wants 'terrorist suspect' returned from US

<snip (the article describes the content of the memo, WH denial of the premise of the memo, the LA Times' call to "move on", and some growing indignation>

In a piece published on the Political Gateway, a website which "tries to bring input from all sides of the political arena to allow free and open discourse on a range of subjects," columnist Bud Beck writes that the British memo story "isn't news by any stretch of the imagination." This is not the Watergate burglary and it is not a fabricated Gulf of Tonkin incident. It is nothing new, just a new version of something that is old - so old it has become all but too boring. The critics of the war, all of them Democrats, have accused Bush and his top aides of misusing what has since been shown as limited intelligence in the prewar period. The notes of the meeting between Dearlove and Blair now prove it. So what? The same critics have been unsuccessful in getting an investigation into the misuse of the intelligence and as long as they are in the minority they never will. What are they expecting to happen here that didn't happen in Britain?

<snip - Washington Post ombudsman's Michael Getler' quote "amazed that The Post took almost two weeks to follow up on the Times report.">

The key line in the leaked memo, in my view, is the assessment by British intelligence, after a visit to Washington, that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." That kind of assertion has been made by critics and commentators, but it has not been included in official post-invasion assessments here about how the country went to war under what turned out to be false premises about weapons of mass destruction and other matters. Investigating that assessment, coming from the key US ally in the war, certainly seems journalistically mandatory. Indeed, while official US commissions and committees have documented just how bad US intelligence was, they have stopped short of assessing what happened to that intelligence after it was prepared.
Hearst Newspapers columnist Helen Thomas lamented last week that Britons and Americans – in her judgment – no longer care about the credibility and accountability of their leaders.

<snip>

But Thomas Patrick Carroll, a former officer in the Clandestine Service of the CIA, suggests in the conservative Front Page Magazine that those dwelling on the memo may be missing the forest for the trees. It is simply inexcusable for opinion makers and public intellectuals (e.g., those who made such a fuss about the 'revelations' in the Downing Street memo) not to grasp the strategic imperatives behind what we are doing in Iraq and elsewhere. It's certainly okay to disagree with our strategy, but for supposedly sophisticated commentators to miss the entire point and continue raving about WMD and UN sanctions is simply beyond the pale.

[dbonds]

1. That bushfish is painful everytime I see it.

[paineinthearse]

4. I agree. time to divest.....

brb

[atommom]

2. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around this phenomenon.

HOW can the public not CARE about this? :shrug:

[Al-CIAda]

3. The 'opposition' ignores it, the press pretends it doesn't

exist. Where are our leaders? Where is the fourth estate?

Complicit.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

5. If someone that the general public has a chance of hearing would

actually MENTION it once in a while, the public might get concerned.

Unfortunately, too many of the Dems are compromised on this issue, and the mass media are too busy covering the opening of the new Star Wars movie. (That was the big headline in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune this morning.)

[bpilgrim]

6. easy, we have no FREE PRESS, we got M$MW.

Thank GORE he 'INVENTED' the INTERNETs :bounce:

http://images.globalfreepress.com

peace

[mogster]

7. This was very good material

It is worth noting that it's not longer enough to have good news from an accurate source, credible evidence from that source, and an outlet to publish it, to blow a story that would rattle the administration; it will not be picked up by the MSM, but be left as untouchable. (Or it will, maybe, eventually, reluctantly, but only after it's left until harmless).

It is the link between the informal source and the formal, respected publisher that is dysfunctional. The info is after all public available material on the net in most cases (often in abundance, with graphics attached). Most likely this dysfunctionality is caused by several things; one part is for sure corruption, another part is the natural aversion to counter the Govt. when at war. Like: as we are used to, the old order scenario. But we're many lightyears past the point where anybody can see that there is something extraordinary going on here, so I rule that out.

Or rather change it, because that's where a third factor starts; when the aversion goes past what's natural, there must be some hard pressure at work OR the corruption must have escalated. Or both. There is no other explanation.
Result is; the old stick and carrot balance seen in fascist and communist regimes of the past century. And also present in a free press, of course, but then to a lesser degree. I think it is horrifying that not one or two majoer outlets, but all media silently agree to not let vital news break into the MSM public space. It is a treason towards the society that trusts the media to be that link between the undercurrent info and their TV screens.
Equally horrifying is the fact that it's been known for years that the media is outside any 'normal' control because of it's delicate nature - still this hasn't been adressed and debated as a continous process to control and verify, but instead left to sort itself out. With a little help from the Corps.

It seems to me the media desicion process should be made more transparent, it's as important as opening up the Govt. in general to scrutiny from the citizens IMHO.

[SmokingJacket]

8. Actually... it's not news because media outlets are PUNISHED

for making a big deal over this stuff.

That simple.

[mogster]

9. I agree very much to that

They know that the propaganda apparatus will gear up to full speed, and what else have you.

The reason they can be punished is their lack of unity and trust towards each other. No one wants to be the first, because they know this administration will try to hurt them - financially, careerwise and possibly even worse. And the single media outlet doesn't know anymore if their colleagues will pick up on the news and make them stronger by showing unity.
The MSM loses it's ability to harm by being so split up.

And don't forget the carrot, money is a strong incentive. This is fascism in a nutshell; play with us and you'll be rewarded, protest and you'll be destroyed.

On second read, I'll have to say I find the last paragraph in the OP most disturbing.

[Disturbed]

10. Also, the only Congress person to talk about this

is Rep.Conyers. The top Dems are silent. If they don't care why should the public?

[wiggs]

11. A thought from John Perkins

I believe the author John Perkins (Confessions of Economic Hit Man) is on to something in this excerpt...maybe the reality is more complex than this, but his idea may explain real reluctance by the American public to acknowledge this Frankenstein's monster we've created:

"It would be great if we could just blame it all on a conspiracy, but we cannot. The empire depends on efficacy of big banks, corporations, and governments -- the corporatocracy -- but it is not a conspiracy. The corporatocracy is ourselves -- we make it happen -- which, of course, is why most of us find it difficult to stand up and oppose it. We would rather glimpse conspirators lurking in the shadows, because most of us work for one of those banks, corporations, or governments, or in some way are dependent on them for the goods and services they produce and market.

snip

How do you rise up against a system that appears to provide you with your home and car, food and clothes, electricity and health care -- even when you know that the system also creates a world where 24,000 people starve to death each day and millions more hate you, or at least hate the policies made by representatives you elected? How do you muster the courage to step out of line and challenge concepts you and your neighbors have always accepted as gospel, even when you suspect that the system is ready to self-destruct?"