Downing Street: Not the First Time Secret British Memos Were Ignored
Downing Street: Not the First Time Secret British Memos Were Ignored
The always-entertaining Dana Milbank over at the Washington Post wrote a little diddy about the media’s coverage of the Downing Street memo. To explain why the media has been so lax on this issue, he writes, “In part, the memo never gained traction here because, unlike in Britain, it wasn’t election season, and the war is not as unpopular here.” That’s not quite true on both counts.
First, the war is increasingly unpopular as evidenced by the Post’s own poll today showing nearly six in ten Americans say the war was not worth fighting. The poll suggests that the media should be grasping at this issue even more given its increasing salience.
Second, and more importantly, the media was given a golden opportunity during the campaign to show its aggressiveness when a series of secret British papers containing serious charges similar to those in the Downing Street Memo were released. On 9/18/04, the Daily Telegraph revealed documents that showed the pre-war evidence against Iraq was known to be weak and that Bush was failing to plan for post-war Iraq. The UK papers, like the Sunday Herald and The Independent and The Guardian, reported extensively on the papers. Guess who didn’t cover the secret memos? The American press. The presidential election did little to change that.
Those memos were arguably even more damaging than the Downing Street Memo because they were documents of high-level British officials who reported on their direct contacts with Bush officials, like Condi and Wolfowitz. The memos said the U.S. was “scrambling” to find links between Iraq and and al Qaeda, that Iraq’s WMD program did not “show much advance,” and that Bush was “underestimat[ing] the difficulties” in attacking Iraq.
Milbank’s analysis, similar to one done by USA Today, focuses on how the media has responded to the memo. No one has yet offered any investigative reporting on the matter. Recall that the memo is actually a recording of minutes from a meeting in which British intel official Richard Dearlove reports on his discussions with American officials. Who were the Bush officials in that meeting? Has anyone sought to confirm with U.S. officials whether Dearlove’s recollections were accurate? Has anyone tried to get in touch with Dearlove himself?
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Listening to Bush’s response at yesterday’s press conference, I’m afraid it’ll take something pretty dramatic to draw the attention of the public to this mess – one sometimes gets the impression Bush could jump around like a organ grinder’s monkey, scratching his butt, and folks would say he’s just being a regular guy.
hairytruth.blogspont.com
June 8th, 2005 at 3:24 pmI think this is being blown out of proportion. Blair denied it yesterday. What proof do you have that HE’S lying.
June 8th, 2005 at 4:15 pmbecause anal retentiveness never sleeps: it’s ditty.
Now I have to think about P. Diddy all day. But, Bush did lie – again – yesterday, and the press is still not doing its job.
June 8th, 2005 at 4:17 pmjeez, acting like haloscan.
ditty, a wee bitty ditty
June 8th, 2005 at 4:21 pmThe memo.
June 8th, 2005 at 4:23 pmIt’s amazing how quickly this story went from a story about a memo to a story about the story about the memo. As long as the story is framed as a story-about-the-story, people are allowed to dismiss it as so much sound and fury. Bush played into that by simply gainsaying what the memos implied. The story’s reduced to a he-said-she-said debate, and that’s what reporters report on. Bush has to be pushed into proving himself. Until then, we have stories about stories, and nothing changes.
June 8th, 2005 at 4:33 pmFaiz,
Can we please stop referring to the Downing Street Memo as the Downing Street Memo and start referring to it as the Downing Street Minutes?
I would like to think this will help people understand that the mythology of this being nothing more than a “memo” is crap and that these were the minutes taken in a meeting that were contemporaneous with the meeting in which they were taken, and when posted as the minutes of the aforementioned meeting, were never in dispute by any party who attended and were subsequently sent the minutes of the meeting.
So let’s drop the memo nonsense and call them The Downing Street Minutes.
Thanks, Faiz.
June 8th, 2005 at 4:40 pmMadmunk is exactly correct… and Leslie, if you think that memo is blown out of proportion, if the very idea, the possibility, that the facts were fixed to justify the war… if that doesn’t bother you even a little, then your conscience is not fully developed yet.
… and the fact is, what we know now to be factual supports the very assertion in the memo.
June 8th, 2005 at 4:41 pmMINUTES!
June 8th, 2005 at 4:42 pmSome of us wanted to go into Bagdad in 91. We don’t care if they lied. Deal with it.
June 8th, 2005 at 5:24 pmWhat stopped you? Couldn’t you afford the flight?
So much for fun. Neither Bush nor Blair are denying the memo, so let’s not try to deny it here. If you want to do that, go to redstate.org, they will happily help you with that and other conspiracy theories.
Gordon – asshat.
June 8th, 2005 at 6:00 pmOK, I’m sorry I called you an asshat Gordon. I won’t do it again. That isn’t to say I won’t say I disagree with whomever if I do. But I will try to not get all Jr High about it.
June 8th, 2005 at 6:05 pmWho’s Jr High? Check some of Gordie’s posts on other topics.
June 8th, 2005 at 6:12 pmMe skid, I called him names.
June 8th, 2005 at 6:47 pmMinutes, memo, who cares? NOT ONE OF THE PEOPLE I HAVE FLYERED ON THIS KNEW WHAT ‘MINUTES’ ARE.
Let’s look at how Conyers himself handled this terminology:
“A note from Rep. Conyers:
May 27, 2005
Dear Friend:
As many of you are aware, a classified memo was recently disclosed in Great Britain that I believe has serious ramifications for the integrity of the United States Government. Dubbed the “Downing Street Memo,â€? but actually comprising the minutes of a meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair and other top British government officials, the memo casts serious doubt on many of the contentions of the Bush Administration in the lead up to the Iraq war. With over 1,600 U.S. servicemen and servicewomen killed in Iraq, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and over $200 billion in taxpayer funds going to this war effort, we cannot afford to stand by any longer.”
And that’s true, we can’t — not that we’ve been ’standing by.’
But the ‘Bush has denied it’ meme, and the defeatist perspective that we somehow need something MORE, is just foolishness. This is PLENTY, with the facts in hand, to impeach. This is plenty to hammer the media. This is plenty to FLYER LIKE THERE IS NO END TO PAPER ON THIS EARTH.
We’re heading into the summer break, but September and its fatal attacks serving conspiracies on Penn. Avenue is on its way. Running around in circles proclaiming Bush’s virtuosity in lying is pointless. USE THIS SMOKING GUN, and use it often, and continuously. That’s how the Rs do it — they do not diverge from red meat evidence. They hammer it incessantly, and so must we.
June 8th, 2005 at 7:46 pmThe minutes are evidence for impeachment and Bushco will do everything they can to downplay them.
Dont’ stop talking about this, keep spreading the word,
the polls show that we are making a difference.
VOTETOIMPEACH.ORG
June 8th, 2005 at 7:59 pmI am an asshat!
June 8th, 2005 at 8:43 pmThe MSM are starting to fall all over themselves trying to explain why they haven’t adequately reported on the Downing Street Memo.
from the USA Today article:
USA TODAY chose not to publish anything about the memo before today for several reasons … it was disclosed four days before the British elections, raising concerns about the timing.
from the Washington Post article:
Dana Milbank over at the Washington Post wrote a little diddy … about the media’s coverage of the Downing Street memo … To explain why the media has been so lax on this issue … unlike in Britain, it wasn’t election season
So it looks like you can take your pick. No coverage because there was an election, or no coverage because there wasn’t an election.
Works for me.
June 8th, 2005 at 8:48 pmLiberal Blogosphere Surpasses Cable News
June 8th, 2005 at 11:25 pmWe would all like to see EVERYTHING bush43 has done get traction. I continue to hope it will. But let’s not have any illusions here. The Republican leadership in both houses of congress will NEVER bring up anything remotely close to impeachment. Apparently, their idea of national security and leadership honesty and integrity differs from one party to another. ie – presidents having adulterous relationships is a national discrace and qualifies for impeachment, while presidents knowingly lieing to their constituents about reasons to go to war against a country that did not threaten us is OK.
Go figure. & they wonder why liberals all seem so upset by this regime.
June 9th, 2005 at 10:18 am2006. Screw the WH. It’s a limp dick without a party majority in both houses of Congress. Hell, this WH is a limp dick even with that. 2006.
June 9th, 2005 at 12:34 pmPeople have said it before. And it still makes sense to me. King George doesn’t care about the implications of his actions because he doesn’t have to.
The Repugs have government sewn up tight. They have the media as their mouthpiece. They have money from corporatations “stay the course” and buy anything they want (including more war and access to vast oil fields). They have the Rabid ReichWingNut Christians to back them up socially (on the radio, in print, and on TV).
All the rest is just nonsensical mumblings to the masses. Keep ‘um confused. Keep ‘um fighting amoungst themselves. In the meantime FOB (Friends of Bush) will rob the country straight into the poorhouse, all the while blaming “liberals” for the mess the Repugs themselves have created.
Yes. Keep talking about the DSM. Keep talking about every evil corrupt self serving criminal thing Georgie Boy and Co. are doing. Its our only chance at reversing the current terrible course. Its our only glimmer of hope.
June 9th, 2005 at 1:42 pmThe lack of coverage of the Downing Street memo shows the true nature of today’s MSM. When a Dem is in the White House, Carter, Clinton, the media goes out of its way to press they to show that they(they media) are not biased. When Bushand the Reps. are in power, they run and hide instead of pushing the Reps. This way the Far Right won’t hunt the MSM’s feeling by calling them names. By now the MSM should realize the concerted effort the right is using against them and just be tough already. Geez.
June 9th, 2005 at 1:49 pmBTW, it must be real easy to be a Rep. today. If you don’t like a story written about you, fine, you just call the journalist “biased” to skirt the charge made against you. If you don’t like a ruling made in court, no problem, the judge is surly an “activist”.
Neither Bush nor Blair refuted the substance of the memo (aka “minutes”).
They BOTH stated that it was important to remember that it was written before the UN resolution took place.
And that’s important because …………?
June 9th, 2005 at 4:07 pmWhy should anyone doubt that Bush’s gang would change the facts to fit their aims? They just admitted that they changed the whit house report on Global warming to lessen the impact! They do it all the time cause no one stops them!
June 10th, 2005 at 2:58 pmAs with that infamous photo of Saddam Hussein shown only in his skivvies, could there be the equal likelihood for where the “Downing Street Memo” may actually be a forgery?
June 10th, 2005 at 3:01 pmi agree with about 90% of the comments made. bush43 was just areformed drinker,born again loser that shirked his duties to the national guards and never suceeded in anything but a propped up phony drilling company. all his political offices were bought by big oil and large backing by foreign bussinesses backing of bush41. the commercial major news media have completely blindsided the american elactorate by not exposing them to the real facts and truth about the bush regime. the damned party has the majority in all phases of the u.s. government whether they bought or stole it, why in christ name can`t they produce an agenda to help the majority of people in this country instead of cramming pig headed s.s ideas and unpopular all or non nominations down our throats. why is our faithfully well paid politicians working for big bussiness and foreign governments and not the majority of U.S.A. electorate?
June 10th, 2005 at 7:25 pmProgressive, huh? Its progressive to leave Saddam Hussein in charge? Progressive to kill babies, to harvest their stem cells? To keep America secure by allowing the UN a decisive role in our foreign policy? If you progressives were in charge Hussein would be planning to create stockpiles of Mustard gass and later on, nerve agents, to be used on Israel, then later on us!!!!!! I’ll take Bush’s extreme right-wing agenda over your progress, thank you very very much!!!!!
June 11th, 2005 at 12:14 amEd Scott is a wingnut.
“Spreading Freedom and Liberty� What a bunch of phony garbage echoed by the trained seals on the right.
“We liberated 50 million people.� More garbage.
“Would you rather have the rape rooms still opened?”…and more.
Whenever you hear crap like this fall out of the mouth of your local right wing nut job remind him the ultimatum Bush gave Hussein;turn over the weapons and we’ll leave you alone.In other words,turn over your weapons and we’ll let you continue raping Iraqi women and beating down the Iraqi people.It’s such a bogus motive the right tries duping the public with.
Same deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan.The right couldn’t have cared less about the Afghan people.
Comment by Patrick
June 11th, 2005 at 2:09 amCrap! It makes me sick to hear people go on about how moral Bush is. He panders to the conservative right Christians because it’s convenient. He’s lied right through his terms. His dad at the sense not to go to Baghdad in ‘91 because he knew he couldn’t come up with an exit plan. Too bad the son wasn’t as wise. This one is too arrogant to ever thing he is wrong.
June 11th, 2005 at 3:42 amThis is pretty funny stuff. A bunch of illiterates having orgasms over a misinterpretation of usage. ‘Fixed’ in this case does mean ‘changed’ or ‘altered’. It means the focus of intel gathering was related to the admins war plans, as it should be.
June 12th, 2005 at 3:38 pmIraq is the strategic linchpin to that portion of the ME-the logical place to disrupt the enemy’s efforts. AQ will be broken in Iraq.
Typo-read ‘does not’ in th above. thanks
June 12th, 2005 at 3:41 pmThis is pretty funny stuff. A bunch of illiterates having orgasms over a misinterpretation of usage. ‘Fixed’ in this case does mean ‘changed’ or ‘altered’. It means the focus of intel gathering was related to the admins war plans, as it should be.
Iraq is the strategic linchpin to that portion of the ME-the logical place to disrupt the enemy’s efforts. AQ will be broken in Iraq.
Comment by cris  June 12th, 2005 @ 3:38 pm
Typo-read ‘does not’ in th above. thanks
Comment by cris  June 12th, 2005 @ 3:41 pm
It must have been embarassing to have to pop back on to “fix” that. :)
June 12th, 2005 at 9:42 pmcris is right. This is pretty funny stuff. The irony of course is that it’s his stuff that makes it funny. Back to reality.
Under an OPEC agreement, all oil has been traded in US dollars since 1971. In 1999, Iraq broke ranks with OPEC and began selling oil for Euros. This decision was first laughed at by American analysts, but after two years when the Euro began to rise against the dollar, and Iran and Venezuela, the 4th largest oil producer, began thinking of switching too, the dollars grip on oil, and consequently America’s world economic dominance was under serious threat. (look up Geoffrey Heard, USA VS. EUROPE) The Downing Street memos are but a small piece of the puzzle, in support of tons of other evidence including forgeries and buying UN votes favoring war, that explain just why the White House was so hell bent on invading Iraq.
June 18th, 2005 at 5:37 pm