The mainstream media organizations deny there's any news in the news from Downing Street.


Date published: 6/23/2005


THE SMOKE HAS just about cleared following the small brush fire caused by the Downing Street memos, and responsible observers agree that we can ignore them.

Perhaps I shouldn't have said smoke. I didn't mean to imply that the secret British documents are smoking guns that show the Bush administration made up its mind to invade Iraq as early as March 2002 even though the intelligence did not support such action.

These memos certainly aren't smoking guns. In fact, they don't even tell us anything new, and if you had any sense you'd know that, just as you'd know that our leaders choose war only as a last option, that we invaded Iraq because we were attacked first, and that the Iraqi insurgency is in its last throes.

The wise folks on The Washington Post's editorial board summed up the irrelevance of the British documents in an editorial last week: "The memos add not a single fact to what was previously known about the administration's prewar deliberations. Not only that: They add nothing to what was publicly known in July 2002" (when the latest memos were produced).

The Post's editorial writers are authorities on all this prewar stuff. After all, they could see that Colin Powell's February 2003 presentation to the United Nations amounted to an "irrefutable" case against Iraq. As they put it then: "It is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction."

They also could see that Saddam and al-Qaida were in cahoots and that an invasion of Iraq was "an operation essential to American security"

But if you really need a second opinion about the Downing Street memos, how about The New York Times? They're real smart, too. After Powell's U.N. speech, the Times said the then-secretary of state "may not have produced a 'smoking gun,'" but his presentation left "little question that Mr. Hussein had tried hard to conceal one."

See, these people know a few things about smoking guns. And the Downing Street memos aren't smoking guns. Or, as the Times put it in a news analysis last week, "the memos are not the Dead Sea Scrolls."

That's right. If it's the gospel on Iraq you're seeking, you should listen to your government, or to those who serve as loyal operatives of your government, such as former Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi, who taught Times reporter Judith Miller everything she needed to know about those scary WMD that Saddam's mad scientists were making.

Like the Post's editorial writers, the Times noticed nothing new in the Downing Street memos. "There has been ample evidence for many months, and even years, that top Bush administration figures saw war as inevitable by the summer of 2002," the paper said.

See? A lot of yapping about nothing--that's what this Downing Street flap is. So you can stop reading this column right here and go find something more interesting, like another story about Tom Cruise and whoever that schoolgirl is he's supposedly marrying.

But since I have to fill up the rest of this column space, I will run through some of the current hysteria surrounding the Downing Street memos.

Those waving the memos around and yelling for impeachment proceedings to begin say it is, too, news that the United States' closest ally thought the case for war was "thin" (British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw's assessment, according to one document) and that it nervously sought to concoct some sort of legal cover for an invasion.

The memoheads also wonder why, if everything in the documents was "publicly known" by the summer of 2002, the Post's and Times' news coverage and editorials were not much more skeptical of the Bush administration's prewar claims and machinations.

To buttress their charge that the decision to invade Iraq was made well before the president said it was, some of the memoheads have begun citing reports about the increase in U.S. and British bombing attacks against Iraq in the months preceding the ground campaign.

One recent article in The Sunday Times of London (which first broke the story about the Downing Street memos) said there was a spike in bombings in May 2002 and that the purpose was not to defend no-fly zones in Iraq but to goad Saddam into retaliating so there would be a pretext for all-out war.

Like the Downing Street memos, this war-before-the-war story has gotten quite a bit of attention in Britain, yet not much over here. But I'm sure the reason the story has been ignored by the likes of the Post and the Times is that it is old news.

Heck, the Post probably even did that story before the war, and it's not their fault if you didn't happen to see it on Page A20 below a piece on the plight of Tanzanian goat herders.

The Downing Street memos controversy points out a definite contrast between the U.S. and British media. It's no wonder one of the memos stated that the British government "had to manage a press that was very different than anything in the States."

All I know is that I'm sure glad I live in America and not over there, where my judgment could easily be clouded by a bunch of hyperventilating journalists out to sensationalize the most trivial things.

Say, did you see the ring Tom Cruise gave that little teeny-bopper?



RICK MERCIER is a writer and news editor for The Free Lance-Star.


Date published: 6/23/2005

---

www.boincsynergy.com

OH, SHUT UP ....

Nah, ....... uh uh, ..... we all have our preferences, siran... I'll exercise mine, as you can exercise yours....

....instead of 'shutting up', ......I prefer to offer some more old news that sheds a little more definitive picture of the scope of the deceit that the Bush administration practiced to 'grow support', (read.... instill unfounded fear....), for their predetermined invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Add this old news to the latest revelations and the pattern is clearly observable....

Much as you don't like hearing it, ..... I sense there's more old news and new news to come.....


........this story isn't over. Won't be for quite some time.....

---

.... Deleted because of the spread of deceit....

<p align="center">OH, SHUT UP WILL YA....</p>

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr XO - L L & P _\\//
USS Vre'kasht NCC-33187
Winders 10 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath

[font='courier,courier new']I can't wait until SETI Classic is killed off...
[Image Link][/font]

---

What’s your Point..... Paul No one cares

My point is clear, tim.... culpability shoud be recognized and the same kinds of mistakes should not be allowed to happen again.

.....it's unfortunate that no one cares about what you like to term as 'old news', .....maybe next time, clearer heads will prevail and 'faith-based' presidential decision making will be sufficiently reviewed before a similar railroading can be pulled off.

Regretably, now that it's too late to change what we all will eventually have to own up to, ...at the very least, full accountability should be addressed and the record properly reflected.

Not to make light of, or lessen, the impacts of your own and your family members plight, but we all have a stake in this fiasco. Each of us.

Condi Rice just said we have taken on a 'generational' commitment, ......that's not close to what was 'sold' to the nation such a short time ago...

Over 1700 of our servicemen and women are now dead and we lose an average of two more a day... that's two more shuttered houses each and every night, two more families without a mother, father, son, daughter, sister or brother.

Untold thousands of Iraqi families are facing the same stark reality....

Next time, we should all care a little more beforehand ........

This time, we should own up to the truth about where we are today and where we will be for some time to come.

---

So One last time Paul, Go away set up your own blog and not in these forum's.

Maybe just Maybe your Buddy Howard Dean will Visit your site.

Adieu Paul.....

Tim, as I have pointed out many times, and as his post confirms, Pauly-poo doesn't understand the English language, at least not on a level that either you or I could write anything he might follow. Invariably, he will misquote, get the ideas wrong and generally miss the point of anything others write (including the Downing Street minutes themselves). I only mentioned his name in my post as an example of someone who doesn't understand the written word--apparently, he took it as a challenge.

What’s your Point..... Paul No one cares and I for one would rather us fight the war in their back yard that ours.....Remember it's your yard too (although I wonder who's side you are really on) Paul your constant negative posts
against our government and leaders... it's tiny small itsy bitsy way actually help the terrorist and by helping them you are killing our boys and girls.

I have a direct stake in this I have 2 children that have had thier lives turned upside down since 2001, Both have served in Afghanistan and Iraq, My Youngest will be returning for another tour (I can't say when, I Don't want to help out the terrorist) The oldest the damage has been done. Divorced and his career suffered so much he has had to start over.


So One last time Paul, Go away set up your own blog and not in these forum's.

Maybe just Maybe your Buddy Howard Dean will Visit your site.

Adieu Paul.....

---

Who cares....

---

Account frozen...

The Downing Street memo shows the Brits were worried about the illegality of an invasion carried out by the US either with their complicity or cooperation.

The Downing Street memo shows the Brits at least had the presence of mind to insist an 'alibi' was concocted through the UN to justify this predetermined war.

The Downing Street memo shows that the Brits acknowledged that public 'support' for the war would have to be generated through guile and deception.


Though tom's humorous attempt to devise a new 'reality' deserves some credit for valor in trying to whitewash the damning evidence of Bush's lies, it won't stand up to the evidence.

Here is the text of the Downing Street memo.... it's a pdf, read it yourself.

(contrary to his accusations.... I have read it. ....and much more. ... Fact of the matter is, .....I feel no need to speculate on what he may or may not have read.... that's an odd game he plays for his own personal cravings...)

So read it yourself, ....you decide what it says or doesn't say.... whether it shows 'prudence and planning of the type tom advances.....

text of the Downing Street memo

There are many quotes worthy of mention besides the ones tom mentions, when you view them in context instead of seperated out as tom wishes to portray them, the gist of the message is clear.

There are a number of supporting documents which have been leaked or obtained through the Freedom of Information Act since the Downing Street memo came out and they all support the conclusion that the 'war' was predetermined and that the conditions would be constructed to justify the action.

One is the Options paper:

Another is the Ricketts memo:


It's a gallant front you put up in defense of your heroes, tom,
but ..... alas, it's all hat and no cattle, as they say in Texas.

As to prudence and planning? Let's review a little more info to shed some light on that lack of both.....

The Straw memo and the Downing Street memo show no prudence or planning for after the initial invasion..... None...

Straw Memo: "We have also to answer the big question — what will this action achieve? There seems to be a larger hole in this than on anything."

Downing Street Memo: "There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

We are all aware of the very real consequences of this lack of planning....

Bush and Co. insisted and loudly proclaimed that the aftermath of the Iraq war would be a walk in the park.... that we would be welcomed as liberators... that Iraq's oil would pay for the war... (now $250 billion and counting) They figured to just install their puppets and walk..... remember, Bush was against elections in Iraq before Sistani forced his hand.

To this day there is nothing but happy talk from the Bush administration about the future of Iraq..... any talk of the reality is not found in the public announcements of Bush or his handlers....

****************************************

Additional evidence supporting the predetermined invasion is revealed in this UK Times article.

It's premise is that..... MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.

The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal.

This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action.

Backing up that assesment.....?

here

here

here

here

**************

All this shows that the Brits, while complicit in the deception, at least had the sense to demand a proper show of 'respectability' ...... ( or, in other words, the sense to attempt to cover their ass when questions arose )

As to tom's suggestion that the only dissent is coming from dismissable anti-war groups or Bush haters....?

That assertion ignores this Letter signed by 122 US Congressmen and 560,000 Americans. (you can sign on also).

He is also ignoring any number of Republicans and Democrats who have publicly spoken on the issue.

(all in all? ....... it's a weak argument that tom advances...... but if you want to stay in his 'good graces', you'd best agree and show your appreciation for his highly illogical ...er, logical 'insight'..... ......know what I mean?)

---

Much has been made of the so-called “Downing Street minutes” in an attempt to show that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair conspired to go to war. A careful reading of the memo shows that is not true. Those who claim that the minutes of a private, off the record meeting reveals some dark plan have either not read it, don’t understand it (this would be people like Zippy) or take parts of it out of context.

A reading of the entire memo shows that it was attended by leaders of two countries concerned about the state of the Middle East, the safety of their citizens and the state of the world. Given the increased concern about security at the time of the meeting, it only makes sense that these two governments should be preparing for what they believed to be an inevitable war. These two governments would have been derelict in their duty (as other nations were) if they did not prepare for a war that appeared certain to occur.

Putting aside for a moment that people attending such a private meeting should not have to be concerned that their words will be picked apart at some future date and should be free to say whatever they want to say; there’s just no reason, looking at the minutes as a whole, that the antiwar activist’s claims are true.

The single sentence most commonly quoted from the minutes says, “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” Taken out of context, this appears to indicate that the United States was manufacturing intelligence about WMD in Iraq. On its face however, it could also be seen to say that the most interesting and relied upon information about WMD was that which supported a decision (not yet made) to go to war. Or this could just have been the opinion of an attendee (it was simply stated in the minutes, not ascribed to anyone). Which interpretation is correct depends on the context of the minutes themselves.

If intelligence was being made up about WMD to support going to war, then the following quotes from the memo make no sense:

1) 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 . . .

2) 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.

3) Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD .

4) . . . what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began?

5) [From the Conclusion Section]: (e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

If “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”, then why would spikes of activity be needed to put pressure on the régime (quote #1 above)? Why are the people at the meeting speaking about WMD as if they are a given fact (quote #2, 3 and 4 above)?Why does the conclusion have John Scarlett sending the Prime Minister an intelligence update (quote # 5 above)? Why is there nothing in the conclusion (the conclusion contains policy determined at the meeting) about a policy to make up facts to support the war?

I’m sure I will be accused of “spinning” this memo, but keep in mind that the people at that meeting should have felt free to say anything they want, including speculation and opinions, whether based on facts or not. Those doing the spinning about this memo are the antiwar, anti-Bush, anti-commonsense group who have taken some of the sentences of this memo out of context to try to embarrass Tony Blair (just before his election).

Some ask why the mainstream media hasn’t jumped on this story. Perhaps it’s because, in light of the fake documents that CBS News and Dan Rather relied on for his discredited story, the media is looking at memos like these more critically. If there is an official statement of policy (not a simple memo of things discussed) that says the war would have begun no matter what Saddam did, that would be something to consider. But the official position of our government was stated before the war when President Bush went on record, saying that Saddam had to comply with UN weapons inspections completely or there would be consequences. [Edit: Despite what is said about the meaning of these minutes, the US and Britain followed the policy set out by Bush and Blair, and did not begin military action until Saddam violated the ultimatum.] Saddam did not comply with that ultimatum and the consequence was the military action in Iraq as part of a larger war on terrorism. Though not everything in the Iraq war went as planned, it is good that the leaders of the US and Britain did try to plan for actions that looked inevitable.