Editorial: Bush administration must respond to Downing memo

[Poiuyt]

From a conservative newspaper in Republican Northeast Wisconsin:

http://www.wisinfo.com/postcrescent/news/archive/opinion_21419196.shtml

It should bother the White House terribly that a few pages from the minutes of some foreign officials’ meeting seem to have eclipsed an independent American commission’s 600-page conclusion that pre-war intelligence on Iraq wasn’t manipulated.

The “Downing Street memo” recounts what was said during a July 23, 2002 meeting of high-ranking British officials on Iraq. According to the memo, one of the officials reported that, “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.”

The last, and most damaging charge, was refuted in a report released in April by a bi-partisan commission that investigated why U.S. intelligence agencies wrongly concluded that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It found no evidence that the administration had pressured agencies to spin information to support a pro-invasion agenda. The intelligence was just wrong. The commission predicted, however, that U.S. credibility was very badly damaged.

The traction the British official’s impressions, compared with the commission’s exhaustive report, have gained is evidence of how badly, and the White House’s response has been a pallid denial. Bush needs to put up a persuasive defense. Trotting out the old “Saddam was a bad guy” has never been enough, and it still isn’t.


Not the toughest editorial I've read, but this is from a paper that endorsed Bush last fall.

[goclark]

1. They are trying to test the waters

to see if ROVE will bit them.

What wimps.

[Inland]

2. Bush did respond. With a another lie. Why ask for more of the same?

He lied. He said it was false.

Why bother asking Bush to respond to anything, as if anything he says isn't just the BS du jour? To watch him stutter? Even if he slips up and tells the truth, the WH "clarifies" it the next day to basically take it all back. What's the point?

He's a liar. He was a liar when the DSM was made, and he hasn't become more truthful since.

[ovidsen]

3. The dam is slowly crumbling

Look how long it took for Watergate to topple Nixon!

June 17, 1972 - the break-in. For months, this was just a newspaper footnote, even in the Washington Post.

May 18, 1973 - Archibald Cox appointed independent counsel (special prosecutor). He was later fired on orders from Nixon. It didn't stop the scandal from growing wider and deeper.

August 9, 1974 - Nixon leaves the White House for good.

These are just the highlights, of course. The point is, the damage to * from the DSM will probably take time to bear fruit. But here's hoping it will, and the sooner the better.