New York Times Tries To Kill Downing Street Story
New York Times Tries To Kill Downing Street Story
In today’s New York Times, David Sanger tries to discredit the Downing Street Memo. His lede:
A memorandum written by Prime Minister Tony Blair’s cabinet office in late July 2002 explicitly states that the Bush administration had made “no political decisions” to invade Iraq, but that American military planning for the possibility was advanced.
Sanger presumes that “political decisions” refers to the actual decision to go to war. Based on that presumption, he concludes that the memo shows the Bush administration hadn’t decided whether or not to invade Iraq.
This is both sloppy journalism, and factually incorrect. The other instances where “political” is used in the memo suggest the memo’s author had a very different sense of the word in mind, one related to the shaping of public opinion and the construction of a legal edifice that would justify Britain’s participation in the U.S. attack.
Consider the other four references to “political” in the document. In the first, on page 1, the author speaks of the desire to “engage the US on the need to set military plans within a realistic political strategy,” which includes “creating the conditions necessary to justify government military action, which might include an ultimatum for the return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq.”
Here are two other (even more revealing) references to “political” on page 1:
The US Government’s military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace. But, as yet, it lacks a political framework. In particular, little thought has been given to creating the political conditions for military action, or the aftermath and how to shape it.
And finally, the kicker, on page 3:
An international coalition is necessary to provide a military platform and desirable for political purposes.
All of these uses suggest that “political decisions” had little or nothing to do with the actual decision to go to war. Instead, they dealt with the British government’s concern that the Iraq war would be deeply unpopular and/or potentially illegal. Now, with that in mind, read again the paragraph from which Sanger quotes in today’s story (and remember, he didn’t even include this sentence — just the phrase “no political decisions”):
Although no political decisions have been taken, US military planners have drafted options for the US Government to undertake an invasion of Iraq.
Frankly, this sounds like another way of saying: the U.S. has decided to go to war, is planning military strategies to do it, but has not figured out a way to sell it to the people or justify it legally.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Can anyone tell me why the NYT is considered the newspaper of record…?
June 13th, 2005 at 12:03 pmIndeed. In fact, the sentences after your last excerpt confirm your point:
>>
In a ‘Running Start’, military action could begin as early as November of this year, with no overt military build-up … A ‘Generated Start’ would involve a longer build-up before any military action were taken, as early as January 2003 … Currently the preference appears to be for the ‘Running Start’. CDS will be ready to brief Ministers in more detail.
>>
i.e. they’re going in, only question is How?
June 13th, 2005 at 12:07 pmYes, but Chelsea Clinton is the product of a violent rape!
June 13th, 2005 at 12:17 pmWe Can Win (With or without the NYT)…
June 13th, 2005 at 12:44 pmHave you ever felt like you were a part of history? Have you ever been caught by a wave so powerful that you become convinced that you won’t make it back to the surface?
Fascinating. What little reporting about the memo we are getting out of the NYTimes is being done by the flak catcher. Reminder: Please sign the Conyers petition.
June 13th, 2005 at 12:58 pmThe Odd Paranoia and Conspiracy Theories of Leftist Bloggers over the Iraq War
June 13th, 2005 at 1:25 pmConspiracy theories begin with a premise and then search for evidence of that premise. But as any C+ student of basic methodology can tell you, evidence does not equal proof. There is some evidence that the moon-landing was fake, yet…
Also, I can’t imagine a secret decision to invade Iraq ever being described as political. “Political” almost always refers generally to “appearances” and “pubic perception”. Politics is the science of getting people to follow you. The “political decision” here is clearly how to sell the war to the public.
June 13th, 2005 at 1:25 pmThe NY Enquirer?
June 13th, 2005 at 1:30 pm“This turn of events is unfortunate. We must accelerate or plans. Begin landing your troops.”
“My lord, is that…legal?”
“I will make it legal”
June 13th, 2005 at 1:32 pmThe Jawa Report  June 13th, 2005 @ 1:25 pm
A single piece of evidence may not be proof, but enough evidence can paint a pretty acurate picture of a situation. I believe the war in Iraq is a perfect example of this. There is sufficient evidence (documented minutes, etc.) that clearly demonstrate that a war was planned and given a green light long before the actual event. Despite the best efforts, the administration cannot run from this proof.
June 13th, 2005 at 1:32 pmJawa Report:
June 13th, 2005 at 1:42 pmConspracy theories do indeed proceed in that fashion–but what you’ve described is also known as ‘the scientific method.’
We have to read this tripe following yesterday’s obfuscation from Toner and Rosenbaum on social security being doomed by America’s aging population. One more big wet kiss to the Bushies. So much for the “liberal” media. Apparently the NYTimes thinks we’re all as stupid as the neocons do.
June 13th, 2005 at 1:45 pmAnd then there is always this is you think the CIA has a little bit too much to do with EVERYTHING an American presidential administration would rather you not know:
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/Media%20Readings/Berstein%20-%20CIA%20and%20the%20Media.htm
June 13th, 2005 at 1:49 pmUmm…instead of parsing words, you might want to note that the memo the NYT refers to was drafted BEFORE the July 22, 2002 meetig at whcih the Downing Street notes were taken down.
At that meeting, the Brits realized that a decision to go to war HAD been taken.
See my post for a breakdown of the facts.
June 13th, 2005 at 1:51 pmThe NY Times article is NOT about the Downing Street Memo! The Times artice refers to a different memo, one that just came to light and was posted on the Times of London website this weekend. The Downing Street Memo, with the “minutes,” is totally different. The “Think Progress” website has made an error.
June 13th, 2005 at 2:06 pmThe error is one of clarity, not fact. The NYT IS attempting to discredit the Downing Street Memo, through the use of another memo which, read in a certain way, seems to contradict the beliefs of the author of the DSM.
In thinkprogress’ view, the NYT’s reading of this second memo is faulty. You’ll notice the thinkprogress post properly compares the use of the word “political” within the document in question. It is not a comparison between the DSM and the new document.
I would like to point out that much of the current focus seems to be on the largely irrelevant question of whether “the intelligence was fixed around the policy” which had already been decided.
Far more explosive is the revelation, now incontrovertible in light of the totality of the UK document disclosures, that disarming Iraq was never a primary policy goal of the Bush administration (though it appears to have been in the case of the UK leadership.)
For more on this please see my own blog, http://apshort.blogspot.com/2005/06/more-downing-street-memos.html
June 13th, 2005 at 2:16 pmruss
This is a misunderstandement of most people. The paper of record is known as that for the simple reason that one can obtain a copy of any single edition ever published by the NY Times. There is a record of every edition. Simple really and quite meaningless also.
June 13th, 2005 at 2:42 pmClick my link, Jackson to find out how your implied argument is bogus.
yes, they are different memos. No, they are not unrelated.
The NYT memo was produced before the Juy22 meeting as a primer on it. The Downing Street “memo” was produced AT that same meeting, where a change in attitude was noted by the Brits oward the inevitability of war with Iraq.
The Brits went from thinking “no political decision had been made” pre-meeting, to “war is inevitable” post meeting.
June 13th, 2005 at 2:46 pmquoteth the article:
*****
“Although no political decisions have been taken, US military planners have drafted options for the US Government to undertake an invasion of Iraq.
Frankly, this sounds like another way of saying: the U.S. has decided to go to war, is planning military strategies to do it, but has not figured out a way to sell it to the people or justify it legally. ”
*****
Don’t you think that’s reading a bit too much into it? Military preparation could, should, and does take place before any decision to use it is made. Being prepared for an instance which even likely will not occur is common, like getting a flu shot or putting on your seat belt. While the analogy is not perfect, the truth is there.
June 13th, 2005 at 2:59 pmI think you overextended your analysis a bit at the end.
Here’s one proof. The story of Ansar al-Islam.
Bush and company whined for months about how this al Qaeda group was connected to Saddam… talked about chemical factories and the threat those factories might pose to us… yet they did absolutely nothing to knock Ansar out or even put a little scare into them.
The US and UK were using the no-fly zone to attack targets all over Iraq for months before the war to soften the defenses up. They never attacked the Ansar bases (bubbling over with al Qaeda and freshly made chemicals) until airstrikes a few days after the war began. They waited about ten days after to send some special forces up there with the Kurds.
Bush and his administration “fixed the intelligence” by never once telling the American people:
(1) that Ansar bases were located in the no-fly zone protected Kurdish north, within easy reach of our planes that were bombing other Iraqi targets many (sometimes many, many) times a month, and that he made the decision not to bomb them… reportedly as early as August 2002 (ABC News, NBC News and the Wall Street Journal all had reports before and after the war about Bush’s decisions not to bomb).
(2) they did not designate Ansar as a terrorist group until February 20, 2003 even though they had been using this group as the Iraq – Saddam – al Qaeda example for many months. Fifteen days before the designation Powell used them in his speech to the UN without once saying that the United States did not oficially consider the group a terrorist organization.
(3) Ansar’s leader was an elderly fellow who was in Norway receiving medical treatment and they did not seek his arrest extradition until well after the fellow publicly spoke out denying the US Saddam – al Qaeda charges (on, about, after the start of the public invasion).
They “fixed the facts” by not even dropping so much as a warning leaflet on Ansar, for some six months, so they could publicly cling to the straw of a link between al Qeada and Saddam.
June 13th, 2005 at 3:21 pmA political decision can be differentiated from a policy decision. As the Downing St. memo said, the intelligence was being fixed “around the policy”.
A policy decision was made to invade. The political decisions about how to position & sell that policy decision had NOT.
It’s like Wolfowitz said along time ago… they were just searching for the best alternative for selling the war, and WMD seemed the most powerful.
June 13th, 2005 at 3:23 pmWhat did you expect of Sanger, Nico? And I don’t know why the NYT is known as the ‘paper of record’ either, Russ R.!
June 13th, 2005 at 3:39 pmThe fact that the Times and right wing publications are trying to dismiss the evidence is evidence in itself.
BushCo is on the ropes!
VOTETOIMPEACH.ORG
June 13th, 2005 at 4:29 pmSorry, but the real news has been cancelled in America. You can read all you want about runaway brides and Michael Jackson, but nothing about RepubliThug war, lies, thievery and fascism.
Stained, blue dresses are vital to the national interest, but you’re supposed to ignore the BushCo police state. What’s good for Halliburton is good for you, and you’d better agree….or else!
June 13th, 2005 at 6:26 pmSome Bush monkey with a blog named The Jawa Report who is desparate for traffic and still thinks Saddam had WMDs and was implicated in 9/11 is calling lefty bloggers paranoid conspiracy theorists? He is exactly like the flat earth people, isn’t he?
June 13th, 2005 at 6:50 pmHi,
I sent your article to lots of people at the Times. I included your permalink.
Steve J.
June 13th, 2005 at 7:22 pmThis is Sanger’s e-mail:
David Sanger
June 13th, 2005 at 7:24 pmWhite House Corr, Economics dasang@nytimes.com
http://www.petitiononline.com/Dean/petition.html
June 14th, 2005 at 1:49 amSanger On The DSM
June 14th, 2005 at 7:01 amDiffering perspectives on David Sanger’s NYTs article on the Downing Street Memo. ThinkProgress is not impressed with Sanger’s interpretation.Sanger presumes that “political decisionsâ€? refers to the actual decision to go to war. Based on that pre…
If you actually just read the memos (Raw Story has the full text of several leaked British memos on its site), and leave out the bias for or against Bush, it seems pretty clear to me that the people who wrote the memos believed that the U.S. had already decided to invade Iraq. That leaves the question of whther that opinion was accurate–were the British right in their view that we were committed to war?
That opinion is buttressed by later events, like the administration’s public resort to claims of terrorism links that it already knew were dubious, claims of WMD stockpiles that it already knew were uncertain, and political pressure on intelligence analysts to reach conclusions that would justify war.
I don’t think this is a case of “he said versus this other he said” at this point. We were going to invade Iraq. Period. The only way we would have backed off is if Saddam resigned and we liked his replacement.
June 14th, 2005 at 10:19 amFrankly, I think the Times, and several other major newspapers have been so harangued by arch righties, that they are literally afraid to ask, “Why did we invade Iraq?” “Why are we reinventing a ‘Vietnam’ in the desert?”
Byt the same token, I think wingnuttia is running around, getting increasingly frightened that the way out right is now having to go on the defensive for the first time in years.
Bush lied, the troops are dying, and now the whole damn world knows it. Domestic news may try to pooh-pooh the revelations of the pack of lies that have killed so many, but the Iraq problem, and the aftermath of this fiasco will not go away. No matter how hard the wingnuts scream and shout.
June 14th, 2005 at 10:21 amI hope that Bush is on the ropes but what will they do with Cheney? If Cheney is impeached too, Dennis Hastart is no prize and down the chain of Republicans, many of whom were never elected but Diebold and others stole the election for them.
Does anyone know the process of removing someone who refuses to leave. I understand Bush has a small army protecting him wherever he goes.
Does anyone know who will have the nuclear football while bush/cheney are being impeached (indited)?
June 15th, 2005 at 7:24 amIf Bush and Cheney were to be impeached, it wouldn’t just be a victory for Democrats, liberals, progressives and everyone else that knows which end is up…it would be a victory for the USofA and indeed the entire world! It would be a great first step toward:
1. ending the oil grab in Iraq and removing our troops. It’s their oil, and you don’t just walk into the gas station, pump your tank full and drive off….you BUY IT like everybody else!
June 15th, 2005 at 9:49 pm2. Restoring our credibility with our allies
3. getting the Bush administration on trial where they belong
4. starting to reverse the disaster of an economy that these crooks have created
5. getting serious about R&D for alternative sources of energy.
6. restoring our democracy….etc, etc.
how to play back gammon rules object
Dali availabilities charting tyrannical doubtable divinities indicate backgamon msn http://www.postagepaid.net/backgamon-msn.html
December 28th, 2005 at 6:39 pmpenis pills
February 13th, 2006 at 4:37 amNice in here
February 14th, 2006 at 5:33 pmFound your site on google really great infos !! Thanks :)
February 18th, 2006 at 3:55 pmhttp://www.themasalavivds.info
wowo great site !! great infos !!
February 18th, 2006 at 3:56 pmThis is an excellent site one of the best i have ever seen…keep it up http://www.diamond-sales.info
March 5th, 2006 at 10:36 pmasasdas
March 15th, 2006 at 11:25 amHi, please visit my site too. Thank you.
April 2nd, 2006 at 12:23 pmTreat your erectile dysfunction with viagra and boost up your sex life.
April 4th, 2006 at 6:07 amadult dvd
April 10th, 2006 at 3:15 pmporn dvds
adult dvd rental
sex videos
info
December 25th, 2006 at 5:17 am