WP:The Memo That Won't Quit -less a dud than a bomb with a long, slow fuse

[Pirate Smile]

The Memo That Won't Quit

By Dan Froomkin
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 17, 2005; 12:27 PM

Some two weeks after it was first leaked in London, a British memo about the run-up to war in Iraq is finally generating a serious amount of attention from the American media.

The memo, which is the report of a high-level meeting in July 2002, contains the assertion that the Bush White House was set on invading Iraq long before it was ready to say so publicly, and that it was in fact "fixing" the intelligence around its policy goals.

-snip-
Hedges and Silva write that the memo's "potentially explosive revelation has proven to be something of a dud in the United States. The White House has denied the premise of the memo, the American media have reacted slowly to it and the public generally seems indifferent to the issue or unwilling to rehash the bitter prewar debate over the reasons for the war."

But it's possible it's less a dud than a bomb with a long, slow fuse.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html?nav=pq

[fertilizeonarbusto]

1. Here we go.

The WP owns Newsweek. I bet they want revenge.

[Nashyra]

2. Media set up

The pentagon did not complain about the story when they reviewed it so that the WH could come out and try to discredit the print media, now when the memo story comes along and is gathering steam they will refer to the "untruths" told by the print journalist.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

8. Mmmmmmmmmmaybe

But remember, the WP corporation is defending their money now. You need some credibility to sell news magazines. This hits them where it hurts and I bet they will not take it lying down.

[calimary]

16. Add your two cents to the Washington Post:

Ombudsman phone # (202) 334 - 7582.

email [e-mail].

Really, folks, I think they're noticing this, and describing it now as a bomb with a long fuse, because they're hearing a constant under-murmur about these Downing Street Documents. It's the story that won't go away, sort of like a rash that doesn't respond to medicated lotion. And it'll keep gnawing at the national stomach lining until it breaks a hole all the way through. And it WON'T be OUR side getting all the ulcers, either! :evilgrin:

[fertilizeonarbusto]

24. I sent a CORKER

of a letter to Newsweek. The nicest thing I called them was "cowards." I agree 100% with you-in Puerto Rico we say "cachorro que no llora, no mama." "Pup that does not whine, gets no teat." Time to start making noise, gang!

[AuntiBush]

37. Wait til the "other side" begins to comprehend that 1 dreaded hint

of the word "draft." They'll be tossing out their bibles and Delay/Frist back-pattings for this story then - count on it.

How can any newspaper call themselves "journalists," and "news reporters" if they continue to ignore this story. It's all over Europe - what more can they do for us!?!

If true journalists want out respect again (and $$), they'll hit this story like they did w/regards to Clinton and a gal. Less WP enjoys losing revenue and respect.

[Roland99]

96. Thanks...I just sent something short and sweet

To whom it may concern,

I just read Dan Froomkin's article on this topic.

Don't let this story die! Woodward and Bernstein kept on Watergate until it brought down the Nixon administration.

The same will hold true again. It's not about the crime, it's about the cover-up and there is plenty being covered up!

[gavodotcom]

3. Great take...

Clever and plausible.

Wish there was an easier way to get the news out there other than insulting a media corporation.

[Pirate Smile]

4. Here is more from the article.

"Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was asked about the memo, and weighed in with a passionate but generic denial. And this week's New York Review of Books is out with an exegesis of the memo, sure to incite the intellectual left.

The liberal blogosphere has been insisting that the memo comprises a "smoking gun" -- which, of course, it doesn't. It's basically hearsay, albeit high-level hearsay.

But while that's not enough to convict, it's certainly enough to cause the press to revisit the issue."

[Frederik]

15. Hearsay?

Richard Dearlove, head of Britain's foreign intelligence service, had been in Washington and talked with the decisionmakers! He reported what they had told him! How on God's bountiful Earth can that constitute hearsay?!?

[magellan]

22. It's even tighter than that

It's not just one person making the assertions. Dearlove and Blair each discussed Iraq with different people on two separate occasions prior to the July '02 meeting; Blair with Bush** in April '02, and Dearlove with Tenet just prior to the conclave.

Yet they tell the same story regarding Bush**'s mindset and determination to invade Iraq. There is no contradiction between their words. It's only possible to invalidate their recorded statements by proving they both lied or both suffered from precisely the same misunderstanding of their respective US counterparts.

The premise that they lied isn't supportable. Why would they say it was Bush**'s deal if it wasn't, then spend most of the time worrying over how they could support the US in Iraq legally? And as for it being their shared misunderstanding of Bush** and Tenet on separate occasions, the odds are nil. They understood enough to get the rest right.

Logic is the enemy of this lying administration and its brainwashed supporters.

[Spiffarino]

109. Well, it is technically hearsay

But it isn't being tried a court of law. This is the court of public opinion, and it's proof enough if it comes from a highly placed source that they were plumping up intelligence to fit their plans.

Call it hearsay if you like, SCLM, but the gun is surely smokin'.

[democrat_patriot]

60. Not hearsay - actual meeting MINUTES have been released

Which are a step above 'memo's"

Yes, it is a smoking gun.

McLellan lied about it already, not under oath, but nevertheless....

Iraq will bite * in the ass. 46% approval? Wait until it's 30%.

[kath]

70. yes, the word "memo" minimizes its importance - it is MINUTES from a

high-level meeting, dammit...

[AuntiBush]

64. Britain/Tony Blair is "heresay?"

Since when was parlimentary reports coming straight from Blair himself, heresay!?! If that's not enough credibility I don't know what else is.

People should "thank God" liberal blogospheres won't let this story die, since our gutless, greasy, greedy media mega-machines won't touch this.

[TankLV]

79. Umm - they're not just "memos" - their official "MEETING REPORTS"

documents - transcripts - records - of meeting conversations and topic at the highest levels - all marked "super secret" or some other high-rated euphemism.

Highly hearsay.

Educate yourself on it.

You'll be amazed.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

129. I completely agree...

In all of our correspondence to keep this alive, we should start citing them as the Downing Street Documents or the Downing Street Transcripts or the Downing Street Reports to give them the greater weight they deserve.

[tk2kewl]

36. .

[UpInArms]

5. here's a site with a chronological list of lies

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/03/nwmd103.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/02/03/ixnewstop.html

Toby Helm tracks the way Tony Blair and George Bush have shifted their stance since concerns that Saddam had a hidden arsenal first came to the fore


What the Government said about the threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Before the war

Sept 24, 2002: The Government's official dossier on the threat from Saddam's weapons - Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, The Assessment of the British Government - is published.

It states: "Intelligence shows that Saddam attaches great importance to the possession of chemical and biological weapons which he regards as being the basis for Iraqi regional power.

"He believes that respect for Iraq rests on its possession of these weapons and the missiles capable of delivering them.

"Intelligence indicates that Saddam is determined to retain this capability and recognises that Iraqi political weight would be diminished if Iraq's military power rested solely on its conventional military forces."

Tony Blair, in his foreword to the dossier, wrote that the document "discloses that his military planning allows for some of his WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them."



...more...

[UpInArms]

6. better timeline: Complete timeline of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq&startpos=100

howing 101-200 of 663 events (use filters to narrow search): previous 100 next 100


October 28, 2001
The White House repeats its warning to the UN that the US will act if the UN fails to pass a stronger resolution. George Bush says: “Either the UN will do its duty to disarm Saddam Hussein. Or Saddam Hussein will disarm himself. In either case, if they refuse to act ... the US will lead a coalition and disarm Saddam Hussein.” And Ari Fleischer, the White House Press Secretary says, “The United Nations has debated this long enough. The time has come for people to raise their hands and cast their vote.”




Early November 2001
Wayne Downing, a retired Army general who is heading counterterrorism in the White House, is drawing up plans for a US invasion of Iraq on his own initiative.

People and organizations involved: Wayne Downing Additional Info




Early November 2001
According to a September 2002 USA Today article, the decision to invade Iraq is made at this time. Significantly, the decision is made independent of normal policy-making procedures—a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq was not requested, members of Congress were not consulted, and the concerns of senior military officers and intelligence analysts were ignored. Explaining why the White House did not request a NIE on Iraq, an unnamed US intelligence official explains it didn't want to detail the uncertainties regarding the threat Iraq allegedly poses to the US. And a senior administration official says the White House did not believe an NIE would be helpful. Notwithstanding, an NIE will be requested in September 2002 as a result of pressure from Congress. The classified version of the document will include many qualified and nuanced statements, but the shorter, unclassified, public version, which is given to Congress, will not include these uncertainties (see October 1, 2002).

People and organizations involved: George W. Bush

...more...

[Carla in Ca]

116. I posted this thread today...a must read

ties the 'memo' in nicely in the article.
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3754199&mesg_id=3754199>

[killbotfactory]

7. "It's basically hearsay, albeit high-level hearsay."

What a douchebag.

Hearsay that no british official can dispute.

[Pirate Smile]

9. I read the entire piece as saying reporters need to dive in to this and

see what they can dig up.

"How significant this memo may turn out to be is still to be determined. But the reaction to the failure to cover it, even with the hyperbole and worst assumptions about journalistic motives by some of the e-mailers, is understandable. It is a reminder of how powerfully the circumstances leading up to this war still reverberate within a sizable chunk of the population and why the press should not let go of any loose ends that may shed light on how this happened."

[rodeodance]

10. um.. this is really the first WP article isn't it?

[Pirate Smile]

13. The only other one that I know of was by the Washington Post ombudsman.

It seems weird that both pieces are on the journalistic implications, e-mail campaigns, blogs, etc. but not literally on the facts in the memo. :shrug:

He seems to be calmly screaming - "SOMEONE LOOK INTO THIS".

He isn't an investigative journalist, is he?

How many of those are there anymore? How many are going to be willing to stick their necks out after the Newsweek crap? How many government and military sources are now shut up after the source that pulled back on Newsweek?

[bpilgrim]

11. what would it take for our 'FREE PRESS' to call a LIE, a LIE?

they better stay focused if they EVER hope to redeem themselves :argh:

http://images.globalfreepress.com

peace

[killbotfactory]

12. They never seem to call anything by it's name

They just invite pundits on the show and ask them what they think. Then the pundits spin it anyway they want, and the viewer is left with nothing but BS.

"Recent reports state that the color of the sky should be blue, is this true? To find out we have invited Tucker Carlson to the show, Tucker"

"Golly, Thanks Wolf. The idea that the sky should be blue is just one of those environmentalist myths that people throw around. If your sky looks a healthy shade of brown or gray, don't panic, that's the way god likes it"

"Thank you Tucker"

It gets them off the hook for repeating lies this way.

[Blue Belle]

38. Great cartoon!

I love it!

[WhiteTara]

58. where is OUR George Galloway?

I fear that Howard, though wonderful, is drinking the Kool Aid, maybe just in little sips right now, but his statement that we need to stay in Iraq made me cry.

[kymar57]

14. Things that make you go hhmm.

I'm struck by this line from the memo"There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." hhmm?

[halobeam]

53. To me, that line sounded very much like this one:

"They only wanted to learn how to take off, Not how to land."

[xchrom]

17. we'll see -- the msm is part of the republican political

noise machine.

i guess i'm skeptical they'll do anything of value with this.

[Pirate Smile]

18. kick

[MasonJar]

19. Just e-mailed them.

[stlsaxman]

20. MaClellan is un-friggin-believable-

this quote- "McClellan's response: "I don't know about the specific memo. I've seen the reports, and I can tell you that they're just flat out wrong"

Pardon my shouting but-

EVERYONE SHOULD PRINT OUT A COPY OF THE MEMO AND MAIL IT TO HIM AT THE WHITE HOUSE!

Dear Press Secretary McClellan,

I have enclosed "the specific memo" for your convenience. Please take the time to read it. It might help you answer questions from The Fourth Estate as to exactly why The United States is at war with Iraq....

[renaissanceguy]

31. Dear McClellan:

Fuck you, and resign.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.21326152

[johnaries]

33. Don't forget to include a print-out of Olbermann's blog saying Scotty

should resign. Maybe that will strike a chord.

[Zorra]

21. kick

[Cassius23]

23. I almost forgot about that reason for disliking Bush&Co

I mean, the whole theocracy thing and the know-towing to big industry and killing the environment thing, that wasn't enough.

I'm becoming more and more of a two fisted liberal every day.

Jim Jones
is working on his first book about a typical guy being broken by Bush's economic policies and it leading to his and his family's death. Think a political version of CSI. :)

[annabanana]

25. Good! We need all the "two-fisted liberals" we can get!

There is SURE no shortage of reasons for disliking this treasonous crowd, is there?

Oh, and Welcome to DU
:toast:

(Cassius was my grandfather's name)

[Jackpine Radical]

39. I second the welcome

...and the attitude.

[Cassius23]

41. Thanks, and you wait..

The right's gonna look back longingly at the days of Howard Dean's rebel yell.

[Supersedeas]

26. the Media has decided that the Public doesn't care even before the Public

knows about it!!!

Karl Rove must be delighted at the 'independent' media's conclusions.

[Pacifist Patriot]

30. Frighteningly true.

I mentioned this a few days ago, but Saturday night I spoke with some newsroom personnel at a social event. When I asked why some important stories weren't being covered I was told, "our marketing department decided the readers weren't interested." What utter bullshit.

Ignorance desguised as apathy. Why should people care about something they don't know about?

[Jackpine Radical]

40. The press operates on the theory that saying it makes it so.

Just like the Bushies.

And it's the JOB of the media to manipulate and control the attitudes of the public, so saying it's so had BETTER make it so.

[chlamor]

27. It is time for us all to advance this issue-Need one more Nomination

Press on this issue with sustained determination.

Nominated

[ooglymoogly]

34. kick nominated nt

[Bigmack]

28. David Horsey cartoon...

He's trying... too bad the rest of the media is deaf and dumb.. really dumb.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/index.asp?hotlink=David+Horsey%27s+Cartoon+Gallery

[Pacifist Patriot]

29. I'd like to know what happened to the British article alleging

additional document that included not just memos, but meeting minutes. It was up this morning and then...poof! A memo is all well and good, but I want minutes released. There's the end of the fuse.

[Pirate Smile]

32. I don't know what the deal is but the person who posted the Diary

on DailyKos deleted it twice and now has reposted it.:shrug:

Here is a link to the new Diary - for however long it stays there
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/18/115427/494

[progressivebydesign]

35. no! We're NOT indifferent!!

We are not indifferent, contrary to what Hedges and Silva might think! It's just that the American public has seen their right to info about the White House has been smothered to death with the pillow of corporate greed and mediocrity.

[0rganism]

42. "rehash the bitter prewar debate?" THERE WAS NO PREWAR DEBATE!

The anti-war protestors were completely marginalized by the MSM. Few in congress dared to stand against the prevailing winds of billigerence, racism and zealotry blowing in the aftermath of 9/11/2001. Those who did were persistently attacked ad hominem and ad nauseum.

As Chomsky wrote in an essay concerning the first Gulf War, "The funny thing about the debate is that it never happened."

[AndyTiedye]

46. Also Anthraxed, Diebolded, and Wellstoned

Paul Wellstone won't be debating no mo. :cry:
Max Cleland still can, but not in the Senate :-(

..and all of the Democrats in the Senate got less combative after
Daschle got the anthrax in the mail. :scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared:
Funny how they never seemed to be in any hurry to catch the guy who did it.

[killbotfactory]

43. MORE DOCUMENTS (Iraq, Tony and the Truth - Panorama Broadcast)

Transcripts available at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4332485.stm

Timeline highlighting leaked documents available at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4336727.stm

"against the background of our desire to re-integrate a law-abiding Iraq into the international community, we examine the two following policy options:

* a toughening of the existing containment policy, facilitated by 11 September; and
* regime change by military means: a new departure which would require the construction of a coalition and a legal justification.

A full opinion should be sought from the Law Officers if the above options are developed further. But in summary CONTAINMENT generally involves the implementation of existing UNSCRs and has a firm legal foundation. Of itself, REGIME CHANGE has no basis in international law.

Despite sanctions, Iraq continues to develop WMD , although our intelligence is poor. Saddam has used WMD in the past and could do so again if his regime was threatened, though there is no greater threat now than in recent years that Saddam will use WMD.

All options have lead times. If an invasion is contemplated this autumn, then a decision will need to be taken in principle six months in advance..."

8 March 2002
Defence and Overseas Secretariat (ODSEC), Iraq: Options Paper, marked "Secret UK Eyes Only"

I had dinner with Condi on Tuesday; and talks and lunch with her and an NSC team on Wednesday (to which Christopher Meyer also came).

We spent a long time at dinner on IRAQ. It is clear that Bush is grateful for your support and has registered that you are getting flak. I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was very different than anything in the States. And you would not budge either in your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the right result. Failure was not an option.

14 March 2002
David Manning to the Prime Minister, marked "Secret - Strictly Personal"

Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, came to Sunday lunch on 17 March.

On Iraq I opened by sticking very closely to the script that you used with Condi Rice last week. We backed regime change, but the plan had to be clever and failure was not an option. It would be a tough sell for us domestically, and probably tougher elsewhere in Europe. The US could go it alone if it wanted to. But if it wanted to act with partners, there had to be a strategy for building support for military action against Saddam. I then went through the need to wrongfoot Saddam on the inspectors and the UN SCRs and the critical importance of the MEPP as an integral part of the anti-Saddam strategy.

If the UK were to join the US in any operation against Saddam, we would have to be able to take a critical mass of parliamentary and public opinion with us.

18 March 2002
Christopher Meyer to Sir David Manning, marked "Confidential and Personal"

I am relieved that you decided to postpone publication of the unclassified document. My meeting yesterday showed that there is more work to do to ensure that the figures are accurate and consistent with those of the US. But even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW fronts: The programmes are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up.

The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programmes, but our tolerance of them post-11 September. This is not something we need to be defensive about, but attempts to claim otherwise publicly will increase scepticism about our case.

22 March 2002
Letter from Peter Ricketts to Jack Straw

There is no doubt that a new UNSCR would transform the climate in the PLP .

regime change per se is no justification for military action: it could form part of the method of any strategy, but not a goal. Of course, we may want credibly to assert that regime change is an essential part of the strategy by which we have to achieve our ends - that of the elimination of Iraq's WMD capacity: but the latter has to be the goal.

25 March 2002
Jack Straw to Tony Blair, marked "Secret & Personal"


And here's that turd of a man, Bolton:

... let there be no mistake... our policy... insists on regime change in Baghdad and that policy will not be altered whether the inspectors go in or not... we are content that at the appropriate moment we will have the requisite degree of international support.

"But if you don't have it, and all the indications are that at the moment you won't, then what?"

We will have it Mr Humphries.

3 August 2002
US Under Secretary of State, John Bolton on the BBC's Today programme


Also See:
Butler Report outlining the shaky evidence before the war:
http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/report/

[snot]

146. If you appreciate the BBC as we've known it, PLS go to this link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=376080&mesg_id=376080

[Generator]

44. I wish we had a leader that would take this on

And this is the frame. Yes, we are in Iraq-can't change it now.

But this Bush Jr. never gets to be trusted again-thus stopping outright anymore little invasions-because he lied, used false information to decieve the American people-and a few allies for awhile-into supporting this war.

The war is a disaster and Bush Jr. is the president that cried wolf and can never be trusted again. He cannot be trused to defend the American people. That's the frame. The trust is LIES. Buckets of lies.

It needs to be pounded day after day. Call it the Monica principal. Find us a leader-an attack dog of truth-and we can at the least-make this admin IMPOTENT.

[Zorra]

47. Dem senators still silent. n/t

[kath]

71. yes, where the #^&! are the Dems on this?!?!?!

[TankLV]

80. I wonder if our Carl Levin is "troubled" with this as he seems to be with

the exposure of repuke lies and dem complicity and excuses leading up to the Bush's Iraq Invasion?!?!

Nice bunch of dems we have fighting on "our" side - NOT!

[Dr Fate]

50. DEMS blowing it- failing to destroy Bush's/GOP's political capital...

...instead they rely on tempory victories concerning "safe" issues.To pull them through- I hope it works.
Will folks will forget ALL about Bolton, DeLay, fillibuster, etc- come 2008? Bet they will.

I think all this is a HUGE strategical error.

[Al-CIAda]

68. Agree with your analysis. Yes it is. n/t

[fishwax]

45. we do always seem to be a few steps behind on this side of the pond

that's been pretty obvious over the last couple of years, as people on DU know about the "bombshells" from reading and posting BBC/Guardian/etc. stories weeks before they really gain any traction in the states. I'm cautiously optimistic that this story will get even half the attention it deserves.

[stepnw1f]

48. This Memo Won't Die

No it won't... too bad Freepers.

[oasis]

51. I'll kick to that.

[LightningFlash]

49. Rice was bumbling over it again in the press...

She couldn't even speak straight. Keep bombarding the memo everywhere as it's certainly getting out.

[Catfight]

52. Put Bush under oath and investigate the memo! nt

[atommom]

55. .... and do NOT allow Papa Cheney to go in with him ...

AND, pat him down first so he can't wear his mysterious cheating device!

(Of course, he'd never agree to any of this. But his temper tantrum would be entertaining to see.)

[Zorra]

54. kick

[Al-CIAda]

56. .

[NJmaverick]

57. republicans control the media

bush can do whatever he pleases, the press will not report it.

[ray of light]

62. You have to be the media.

[AuntiBush]

65. What don't they control, besides 2/3rd's of our minds.

I believe it's not the majority of true journalists, rather the media-owners to blame.

[Dr Fate]

104. Do they control Dean, Kerry or Reid? They have been silent too.

????

[Zorra]

59. kick

[jahyarain]

61. kick

[AuntiBush]

63. Boy. It must be 1 Super-Long Fuse, at that.

[kath]

72. yeah, what is it, 18 or 19 days long now...

[BigBearJohn]

66. Thank you for posting all this. It is much appreciated!! kick!!!

[Zorra]

67. kick

[RBHam]

69. My letter to the Post:

So the Wahington Post finally decideds to report on the Downing Street Memo. "The Memo That Won't Quit" -Froomkin, May 17th. The contents of the memo, never challenged by British PM Tony Blair or his Cabinet, leaves little doubt that the Iraqi War was justified by what British "Respect" MP George Galloway has called "a pack of lies".

What remains an embarrasment is that it has taken two weeks for the Post to finally feel the need to report on it. Mr. Froomkin calls this news potentially a "bomb with a long, slow fuse." If that is true, it's only because of the American Media's refusal to hold their own leaders accountable.

After the Post's complicity in selling the Bush Administration's Lies of Mass Destruction I thought you'd decided that your credibility was important.

I guess not.

R.B. Ham
Saskatoon. Saskatchewan, Canada.

[meppie-meppie not]

138. GO Canada!!!

:-) :yourock:

[Zorra]

73. kick

[Zorra]

74. kick

[thebigidea]

75. "the American media have reacted slowly"

I love how they talk about "the media" as if they aren't fucking part of it.

[Zorra]

76. kick

[Zorra]

77. kick

[Catrina]

78. The memo story will get around

without the media, imo. I believe that is the reason they are even mentioning it now.

The Internet, emails and other indymedia sources are being used more and more while MSM is being used less and less as far as news is concerned.

This week, several of my Bush supporting family members told me they are shocked by what is going on and this morning, I heard from another rightwing, Bush-supporting friend, saying the same thing. Up to now, I couldn't say anything against him without getting into a huge argument, but I took the opportunity of their sudden (if a little late) awakening, to mention the 'memo' amongst other things.

The only reason it is a 'long fuse' rather than a 'bombshell' is because of the means of delivery. If we actually had a free press it would have been a bombshell, but long fuse or bombshell, it's getting around, and sooner or later, imo, combined with all the other 'should-have-been' bombshells, it will all come out. How could it not?

[Zorra]

81. kick

[Zorra]

82. kick

[Zorra]

83. kick

[ray of light]

84. Send it out to your whole email list. Even if they are Bush supporters

they need to know. Little by little we need to get active and spread the word. This is like Watergate, but the difference is WE have to be the media.

[Zorra]

85. kick

[Zorra]

86. kick

[EndElectoral]

87. kick...keep it out there..maybe it will get to the TV media eventually

I wrote to Russert...he ignores it...I wortye to Scheiffer..he ignores it...I've written to all of the main TV news organizations, and it gets NO SERIOS coverage..WHY!

[demo dutch]

88. NYT, said it was "old news"

[evermind]

89. Memo was mentioned in WH press briefing from yesterday

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050523-9.html
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
The James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

(about 3/4 the way down)

Q: Scott, last week you said that claims in the leaked Downing Street memo that intelligence was being fixed to support the Iraq War as early as July 2002 are flat-out wrong. According to the memo which was dated July 23, 2002, and whose authenticity has not been disputed by the British Government, both Foreign Minister Jack Straw and British Intelligence Chief Sir Richard Dearlove said that the President had already made up his mind to invade Iraq. Dearlove added that intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. Do you think these two very senior officials of our closest ally were flat-out wrong? And if so, how could they have been so misinformed after their conversations with George Tenet and Condoleezza Rice?

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me correct you on the -- let me correct you on the characterization of the quote you attributed to me. I'm referring to some of the allegations that were made referring to a report. In terms of the intelligence, the -- if anyone wants to know how the intelligence was used by the administration, all they have to do is go back and look at all the public comments over the course of the lead-up to the war in Iraq, and that's all very public information. Everybody who was there could see how we used that intelligence.

And in terms of the intelligence, it was wrong, and we are taking steps to correct that and make sure that in the future we have the best possible intelligence, because it's critical in this post-September 11th age, that the executive branch has the best intelligence possible.

Not a very clear answer to the question, it seems.

[demo dutch]

90. Avoiding the real question!

[Amonester]

91. And avoiding the real answer...

BUSH LIED: TENS OF THOUSANDS DIED

:boring:




:kick:

[evermind]

106. Blog from the journalist asking the question, other apropos articles.

There's a blog entry, apparently from the journalist asking McClelland the May 23 question, at http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/index.php?p=953 "White House does not dispute substance of Downing Street Memo" (when this shows up in google news search, it is tagged as "satire", but it doesn't seem to be satirical.)

According to the short article, McClelland says he said that (in an answer to CNN, May 16) claims made about the memo, not claims made by the memo were "flat-out wrong".

Meanwhile, in another article stemming from the same WH press briefing response, Think Progress have attempted to "take the McClelland Challenge", and following McClelland's suggestion, "look at all the public comments over the course of the lead-up to the war in Iraq" to see "how the intelligence was used by the administration". For example:

INTEL: A September 2002 DOD intel report found "no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has – or will – establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.”
HOW IT WAS USED: In October 2002, Bush claimed, without doubt, that Iraq “possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons.”

The article is at: http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=951

Of course, if the intelligence was "fixed around the policy", it's rather a side issue as to how it was used in making public statements, once "fixed". What's interesting is how it was arrived at. It would be very surprising if information about "fixing" sensitive intelligence were available on the public record.

But anyone interested in the intelligence question might like to view the Iraq pages at http://www.middleeastreference.org.uk/ , in particular the page at http://www.middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html which summarises a 1995 interview between "Gen. Hussein Kamel, the former director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation in charge of Iraq's weapons programme", who "defected to Jordan on the night of 7 August 1995, together with his brother Col. Saddam Kamel" taking with him "crates of documents revealing past weapons programmes" which he donated to UNSCOM.

From that article:

Kamel's defection has been cited repeatedly by President Bush and leading officials in both the UK and US as evidence that (1) Iraq has not disarmed; (2) inspections cannot disarm it; and (3) defectors such as Kamel are the most reliable source of information on Iraq's weapons.

• Prime Minister Tony Blair in his statement to the House of Commons on 25 February 2003, said: "It was only four years later after the defection of Saddam's son-in-law to Jordan, that the offensive biological weapons and the full extent of the nuclear programme were discovered."
  
  
• President Bush declared in a 7 October 2002 speech: "In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions."
  

...

Hussein Kamel was not in the process of providing excuses for the Iraqi regime. Much of the interview is taken up with his criticisms of its mistakes: "They are only interested in themselves and not worried about economics or political state of the country. [...] I can state publicly I will work against the regime." (p.14). And yet, when it comes to prohibited weapons, Kamel is unequivocal: Iraq destroyed these weapons soon after the Gulf War.

The full transcript of Kamel's interview is available from the linked page.

[Zorra]

92. kick

[ElsewheresDaughter]

93. kick

[Zorra]

94. kick

[Zorra]

95. kick

[Zorra]

97. kick

[Zorra]

98. kick

[Roland99]

99. Kick^2

[Zorra]

100. kic k

[74dodgedart]

101. Good, recent article --New York Review

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18034

[redqueen]

102. Yay!

:kick:

[Dr Fate]

103. Still no official word from Dean, Kerry, Reid, Hillary etc.

They seem to want to ignore this story just as much as Bush or the MSM.

Seems fishy that they are so silent- but I guess there are "more important issues" than a multi-billion dollar, endless war based on fraud and lies...

[ourbluenation]

105. Punt

[Zorra]

107. kick

[Zorra]

108. kick

[Zorra]

110. kick

[Zorra]

111. kick

[Zorra]

112. kick

[Zorra]

113. kick

[calimary]

114. KICK!

Again.

[FourStarDemocrat]

115. Watergate began with a tiny article on page 19 or one of the back pages

So, I also have hope that this can take off, even if rather slow. Of course we're living in a different world now, with the largely corporate/corrupt press, so it's hard to tell...

[goclark]

119. It's up to us to keep it alive - we can do it!

Let's get those email addresses and faxes and letters rolling like we did for the election.

What we did then was effective!

The problem at that time was that BUSHCO stole the votes.

The strategy works.
We must continue to let our voices be heard.

If there is anyone who has not responded to the Conyers Memo - DO IT NOW!

[SlavesandBulldozers]

117. kick

:kick:

[HeeBGBz]

118. Can someone answer a question for me?

"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."

In this part of the memo that is being quoted, who is "C?" Who is this quote attributed to?

[Vyan]

127. C is

Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6 - the British equal to the CIA. It's like in James Bond when he calls his boss "M", that was based on an actual british custom.

Vyan

[usregimechange]

120. Kick!

[FourStarDemocrat]

121. kick

:kick:

[Zorra]

122. kick

[Zorra]

123. ^^^

[Zorra]

124. ^

[pscot]

125. kick

n/t

[BlueIris]

126. Kick.

And grrr...

[BlueIris]

128. And again.

[kwyjibo]

130. kick

[Zorra]

131. kick

[Zorra]

132. kick

[Zorra]

133. kick

[Zorra]

134. kick

[Zorra]

135. kick

[Zorra]

136. kick

[Zorra]

137. ^

[Zorra]

139. ^

[Karenina]

140. HA! HA!

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

DOWNING STREET MINUTES - OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT MINUTES OF AN OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT MEETING

[Zorra]

141. kick

[Zorra]

142. ^

[Zorra]

143. kick

[Zorra]

144. ^

[Zorra]

145. ^