Why isn't there more talk of the smoking gun memo?

[Dinner]

Last month the Times of London published a “smoking gun” memo on President Bush’s lies leading up to the Iraq war. Six months before the invasion the administration admitted to British officials that, contrary to what the American public was told, the White House was determined to go to war and was “fixing” intelligence on WMDs to justify the move. This memo to the British Prime Minister has been front page news for the last month in the rest of the world but the US networks have hardly made a peep about a damning piece of eviedence which directly PROVES not only that Bush had decided to invade Iraq no matter, that Bush was actively lying to the American people about both his plans for war and his justifications for war, and lastly that the administration was actively engaged in falsifying intelligence reports in order excuse Bush's war.

This is damn stuff and the secret memo comes from Bush's closest friend and only real military ally for the Iraq war. The rest of the world has this as big news but this memo has been either ignored or buried in the back pages by the US media. What gives? One would expect written proof that the President is a lying sack of dog crap would be front page news. Luckily, a few reporters are finally beginning to do their job.

The San Francisco Chronicle continues to prove that it is one of the last newspapers in the country which will dig up its own original stories instead of just running prepackaged stories off of the wire. Yesterday it ran an article about the Downing Street Memo and Bush's lies.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/10/EDGMMD62O01.DTL

CNN's "Newsnight With Aaron Brown" spent most of last Thursday's show discussing the memo and emphasing primarily the lack of response stateside compared to the uproar abroad, as well as the potential explosiveness of it's contents.

Ironically, the lead report of the evening was one concerning the "fixing of the facts" by senior White House aids on Global Warming, which has lead to the resignation of senior members of the White House's Council on Environmental Policy.

Could this "fact fixing" be the indication of a pattern?

[Dinner]

Washington confronts 'memogate'

By Tony Allen-Mills, Washington correspondent of The Sunday Times, for Times Online

President George W. Bush has finally responded to a question that much of America has been asking: did a secret memo prove that Washington was gearing for war in Iraq months earlier than the White House has admitted?

The Downing Street memo on US preparations for war in Iraq was revealed in The Sunday Times five weeks ago. But it wasn't until Tony Blair's visit to the White House this week that the resulting controversy made waves in Washington, and revived a long-dormant American debate about President Bush’s march to war from the summer of 2002.

It has also provoked embarrassed questions in the US media as to why so many newspapers and broadcast outlets here ignored the story for so long.

.....

Yet now the controversy is out in the open and there is no further doubting of the memo’s authenticity, or excuse for media foot-dragging. The original Sunday Times report was widely quoted in leading newspapers this week. A Democratic senator entered the memo into the record of a meeting of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee.

<>

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1647332,00.html

[BlackCat]

Do you have some more relevant links instead of this hopelessly political infested one ?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Oerdin


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...647332,00.html

Two times poitical nonsense doesn't make a case - please deliver links to the damn memo instead of som journalists fantasing about it (don't misunderstand me, they may be right, but there are no substance in your current links).

[Dinner]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

Times online

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2511

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting's web site.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=2486

Tom Dispatch is a favorate blogger of mine.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700474.html

Washington Post just recently started to write about it but they're still treating it like a back page story.

BBC and others have links if you look themup at their site.

[Dinner]

Here is the original text of the Downing Street Memo:

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY





DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C 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. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT

(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)

[BlackCat]

Are this to be taken seriously ? In best case that is something that a newreporter may write, in worst case what some conspiraciy addict could produce.

[Slaughtermeyer]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Are this to be taken seriously ? In best case that is something that a newreporter may write, in worst case what some conspiraciy addict could produce.

Can you post any links from any reputable, or even non-reputable sources that cast doubt on the memo's authenticity?

[Ted Striker]

Oerdin,

It is really mind boggling. The whole country should be in an uproar, first about the lack of weapons of mass destruction, now this. But nobody gives a damn. I used to think the charge that corporate media were not telling the whole story was a joke, but now I see it.

This memo has been out for a while. Bush wanted to invade Iraq the moment he came into office and everybody knows it.

It's like an ostrich with its head in the sand.

This is the most dishonest Administration in the history of our country.

[DRoseDARs]

It's the Shame Factor: People know about this memo and what it implies, but can't bring themselves to admit they were bamboozled by a chimp wearing a fez cap and his organ-grinding handlers. No one likes admitting they've been played like a fiddle, especially one so badly out of tune with reality, so feigning disinterest in the matter is an attempt to save face. It's hard to predict if enough people will grow spines to start a snowball effect, leading to mass-anger and protest. When people realize just how transparent the deceptions and lies have been for 5 years, there's no way to be certain if they'll lash out or simply write-off as a loss all the snake oil they bought so eagerly, pretend it never happened, and probably vote Jeb (or whoever) in 2008 secretly hoping the next Republican candidate will be better.



It's the waiting I hate...

[Ted Striker]

DRoseDARs,

I'm with you. I'm tired of the waiting. I really hope someone, ANYONE emerges that can offer new hope. This nation has gone to the crapper.

[DRoseDARs]

Nixon had Deep Throat...

...Bush should have Goatse

[Ted Striker]

[Dinner]

Blackcat: This is main stream news which even Tony Blair has come on record as saying the memo is real though he claims the conclusions weren't well written.

In the UK this has been big news for a month and Democrats in Washingon have been trying to speak out about this story but Fox News has blacklisted it while CNN has given it a total of one show and that came a whole month after the memo was released! MSNBC has done a bit better journalism but not by much.

[Ted Striker]

I heard a press conference in which Blair was asked about that memo, and he completely sidestepped the issue.

He tried to talk about going to the UN to talk Saddam down, but that happened LONG after this memo was issued.

The ONLY reason Bush went to the UN was because Colin Powell asked him to.