Jump to content
Clubplanet Nightlife Community
Sign in to follow this  
destruction

Administration's Offenses Impeachable

Recommended Posts

Published on Friday, June 3, 2005 by the Bangor Daily News (Maine)

Administration's Offenses Impeachable

by Robert Shetterly

Let's consider an item from the news of about two weeks ago:

A British citizen leaked a memo to London's Sunday Times. The memo was of the written account of a meeting that a man named Richard Dearlove had with the Bush administration in July 2002. Dearlove was the head of the England's MI-6, the equivalent of the CIA. On July 23, 2002, Dearlove briefed Tony Blair about the meeting. He said that Bush was determined to attack Iraq. He said that Bush knew that U.S. intelligence had no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and no links to foreign terrorists, that there was no imminent danger to the U.S. from Iraq. But, since Bush was determined to go to war, "Intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy." "Fixed" means faked, manufactured, conjured, hyped - the product of whole cloth fabrication.

So we got aluminum tubes, mushroom clouds imported from niger, biological weapons labs in weather trucks, fear and trembling, the phony ultimatums to Saddam Hussein to turn over the weapons he didn't have and thus couldn't. We got the call to arms, the stifling of dissent, the parade of retired generals strategizing on the "news" shows, with us or against us, flags in the lapel, a craven media afraid to look for a truth that might disturb their corporate owners who would profit from the war. Shock and Awe. Fallujah. Abu Ghraib.

It was all a lie. Many of us have said for a long time it was a lie. But here it is in black and white: Lies from a president who has taken a sacred trust to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

So, what does it mean? It means that our president and all of his administration are war criminals. It's as simple as that. They lied to the American people, have killed and injured and traumatized thousands of American men and women doing their patriotic duty, killed at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians, destroyed Iraq's infrastructure and poisoned its environment, squandered billions and billions of our tax dollars, made a mockery of American integrity in the world, changed the course of history, tortured Iraqi prisoners, and bound us intractably to an insane situation that they have no idea how to fix because they had no plan, but greed and empire, in the first place.

What does it mean? It means that everyone in this administration should be impeached. It means that our Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and our Congressmen Tom Allen and Mike Michaud should call for immediate impeachment. They were lied to by their president, voted for war, and are thus complicit in the multiply betrayals of the American people unless they stand up now for the truth.

Richard Nixon was impeached for a cover-up of a two-bit break-in. William Cohen, a young Maine Republican, played an important role for the prosecution in those proceedings. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about sex with an intern. Now we have the irrefutable evidence that George W. Bush lied about the reasons for taking the United States to war. The intelligence wasn't flawed. The weapons weren't hidden. Our elected leaders were lying.

Democracy, like any sound relationship between people, is built on trust. We trust our leaders to tell the truth so that the consent that we give them is honestly informed. If the consent is won through manipulation, propaganda, fear, or lies, the basis of our democracy has been subverted. It is no longer democracy at all, but we continue to call it that because we have not the courage or stamina to demand its overhaul.

We live a lie when we fail to hold leaders accountable for their lies. By not calling now for impeachment, we are saying that we condone hypocrisy, pseudo-democracy, and murdering thousands of Americans and Iraqis for strategic control of energy resources that we have no right to. Patriotism demands that we insist on the ideals of democracy, not that we support the "leaders" who cynically destroy them.

What's curious is why anyone like me should have to even point this out. Don't our senators and congressmen feel betrayed? Are they content to continue the murdering rather than do what truth demands? Do they think they can lie to history, too. Do they think that this little Iraq problem will somehow just go away, that the courageous resistance to the United States occupation will give up and hand Bush the keys to the oil wells? Do they think that any of the grave crises facing the world now - energy consumption, global warming, species extinction - can be solved by lying about them?

We are living in an age of no accountability. It's also an age upon which may hang the survival of human life on this earth. One should not bet one's future on people who abjure responsibility. The first courageous step is to come to terms with what we know is true: America's president lied to America's people to create an unnecessary war. I ask Sens. Snowe and Collins, Reps. Allen and Michaud to take that step. Begin impeachment proceedings. It's really no more or less than their duty. It's also the first step toward restoring America's integrity.

Robert Shetterly is a writer and artist who lives in Brooksville, Maine.

© 2005 Bangor Daily News

I'd say no matter what your opinion is of the war, you'd think that a president that purposely misleads you is worth impeaching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not an impeachable offense Even if it was true which it is not based on a hearsay document that hasn't been coroborated by anyone yeah good luck. I'll donate a dollar to your cause.

Yup. It's good to know that when Clinton lied he gets impeached, but when Bush lies he's unimpeachable. :rolleyes: Way to play the double standard card.

Here's the official quote from the government memo that was leaked to the Sunday Times, which is owned by Ruppert Murdoch of News Corp. The same guy who owns Fox News, who also reported it and linked the same memo from their site to the Sunday Times:

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.

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

They committed to war even before they used up all other options and used false intelligence by taking old data and selling it off to the global community as new to justify their reason to go to war. This has been long since exposed and has already been debunked by Bush's own weapons inspector, Charles Duefer in his key findings. The WMDs Bush claimed were non-existant.

Key Findings. CIA document:

Key Findings

Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.

* Saddam totally dominated the Regime’s strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait), maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community. Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraq’s strategic policy.

* Saddam’s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections—to gain support for lifting sanctions—with his intention to preserve Iraq’s intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.

* The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.

* By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999.

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

* Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi officials considered Iran to be Iraq’s principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and influence in the Arab world were also considerations, but secondary.

* Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam’s belief in the value of WMD. In Saddam’s view, WMD helped to save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role in crushing the Shi’a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fire.

* The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.

-----> http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html#sect1

There is no question that he lied considering a documented memo coming from 10 Downing St., released by a Ruppert Murdoch owned newspaper and reported by a Ruppert Murdoch owned cable News Channel says he did.

Donations? I'll take any, large or small. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup. It's good to know that when Clinton lied he gets impeached, but when Bush lies he's unimpeachable. :rolleyes: Way to play the double standard card.

it isnt a double standard.

clinton lied while he was under oath. Bush was not under oath when he made his declarations about Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup. It's good to know that when Clinton lied he gets impeached, but when Bush lies he's unimpeachable. :rolleyes: Way to play the double standard card.

Here's the official quote from the government memo that was leaked to the Sunday Times, which is owned by Ruppert Murdoch of News Corp. The same guy who owns Fox News, who also reported it and linked the same memo from their site to the Sunday Times:

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

They committed to war even before they used up all other options and used false intelligence by taking old data and selling it off to the global community as new to justify their reason to go to war. This has been long since exposed and has already been debunked by Bush's own weapons inspector, Charles Duefer in his key findings. The WMDs Bush claimed were non-existant.

Key Findings. CIA document:

-----> http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html#sect1

There is no question that he lied considering a documented memo coming from 10 Downing St., released by a Ruppert Murdoch owned newspaper and reported by a Ruppert Murdoch owned cable News Channel says he did.

Donations? I'll take any, large or small. ;)

:jerkoff::jerkoff:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:jerkoff::jerkoff:

Translation:

I have not an arguement I am capable of defending. You are right.
:laugh:

Exclusively for Igloo...

Haven't read the memo have you, Igloo? British government officials acknowledge that Bush lied. Where did C get this information? The Bush administration itself.

May 01, 2005

The secret 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.

© 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)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_1,00.html

I have already pointed out who owns the Sunday Times in my earlier post and it's your favorite media mogul whose cable news channel Fox News also reported it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158228,00.html

it isnt a double standard.

clinton lied while he was under oath. Bush was not under oath when he made his declarations about Iraq.

To point out, Bush was president at the time this memo took place (July 23, 2002). Bush was briefed on August 4, '02 by CDS. He was under oath then as he is currently, therefore impeachable. He lied.

Hence the meaning of my earlier post.

:type:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Igloo replies with....

To point out, Bush was president at the time this memo took place (July 23, 2002). Bush was briefed on August 4, '02 by CDS. He was under oath then as he is currently, therefore impeachable. He lied.

Hence the meaning of my earlier post.

:type:

1. I'M NOT IGLOO!

2. Just becuase Bush is president, does not mean that he is constantly under oath. Was Bush on trial at any point during the administration? No.

There is nothing in your articles that suggest that he was under oath at any point during this administration. :confused:

I'm not disagreeing with you on whether he lied or not (i beleive he did lie) but there is no way that he can be impeached for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry about the confusion...

1. I'M NOT IGLOO!

2. Just becuase Bush is president, does not mean that he is constantly under oath. Was Bush on trial at any point during the administration? No.

There is nothing in your articles that suggest that he was under oath at any point during this administration. :confused:

I'm not disagreeing with you on whether he lied or not (i beleive he did lie) but there is no way that he can be impeached for it.

I have a tendancy to multi - quote so in the same message, I frame quoted, then quoted Igloo and in the same message quoted you at the bottom of the same the same message. In other words, I may quote more than one person in the same message. I like to take advantage of the UBB codes on this V Bulletin message board program.

I never said you disagreed with me that Bush lied otherwise you would have refuted my points in that area.

And what about this Igloo person. Is there something I need to know about him/her (or "shim")?

And I never said you were Igloo. Besides, Igloo isn't spelled bigpoppanils. You ought to be thankfully happy about that. :laugh:

That "article" is a memo from 10 Downing St. that was leaked to the Sunday Times. Don't expect the mention of the oath of office of the president of the US in a British memo. C'mon.., lol.

And to refute your point...

2. Just becuase Bush is president, does not mean that he is constantly under oath. Was Bush on trial at any point during the administration? No.

There is nothing in your articles that suggest that he was under oath at any point during this administration. :confused:

Article. II.

Section. 1.

Clause 8:

" Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

That is the oath of office. He is under oath for the duration of his presidency from the beginning of his term to the end of his term. Just like a witness and the defendant are under oath "to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" for the durations of their testimonies in a court of law. Everyone knows that.

Hopefully, the president takes THAT oath ("to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth") when he testifies in his own impeachment hearing. I hope for that day to come. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
my point is that it isnt a double standard when Bush's lies are compared to Clinton's lies.

Ok. I can see where you're coming from because Clinton was impeached over something that has nothing to do with his political record where Bush is impeachable because what he did has alot to do with his record as President.

which, thanks to the information you posted, is valid.

Anytime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Downing Street Memo Originals Destroyed

The so-called Downing Street Memo - which was presumed to be authentic when Bush administration critics began touting it last month as evidence the president committed impeachable crimes - is actually a manually recreated copy - with the source of the memo now admitting he retyped the document before destroying the originals.

British reporter Michael Smith, who broke the memo story in the London Times on May 1, revealed to The Associated Press over the weekend that "he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals."

Story Continues Below

Smith's admission means there's now no independent way to determine the accuracy of the Downing Street Memo, i.e., whether he made any typos or transcription errors that could have changed the memo's meaning.

The revelation has conjured up memories of the CBS News forged document scandal last year, where anchorman Dan Rather argued that damaging records he obtained from President Bush's National Guard file were essentially accurate, even though they had been faked by his source.

While British officials hadn't disputed the authenticity of the Downing Street Memo, a senior member of the Blair government who reviewed the memo in light of reporter Smith's admission could say only that its contents "appeared authentic."

That official, however, requested anonymity, refusing to make an on-the-record endorsement of the memo's accuracy.

New questions about the authenticity of the Downing Street Memo come at a particularly awkward time for Democrats in America. Only last week, House Democrats staged a mock impeachment hearing based on the re-created document.

Former presidential candidate John Kerry announced on June 2 that he intended to confront Congress with the Downing Street Memo, believing at the time that the document's authenticity was beyond reproach.

"I think it's a stunning, unbelievably simple and understandable statement of the truth and a profoundly important document that raises stunning issues here at home," he told a reporter.

Last week, a Kerry aide said his boss was sending a letter to President Bush demanding that he answer questions about the fake memo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok. I can see where you're coming from because Clinton was impeached over something that has nothing to do with his political record where Bush is impeachable because what he did has alot to do with his record as President.

Anytime.

you are so freakin ridiculous It's amazing If bush lied then so did Every european and egyptian intelligence agency not to mention the russians and the chinese. they lied too? you're just ridiculous you take the word of a document which happened to have the original destroyed discovered by michael smith of rathergate fame. cmon man I know you disagree with the war, but if you are gonna say that he lied you better have some proof less flimsy than a document that's a type written copy of a destroyed document of dubious origin. cmon man a type written copy that's what you make your case on.?

It's really easy for you to throw this he lied crap around with out any proof, you don't like the war I get it. but you're not contributing to the discourse by spewing unsubstantiated claims and then when you're proven wrong you just try to find some other wild charge to bring up.( and when I say you I mean you and your ilk)

All you care about it bringing shame on the current administration, you don't try to educate or change with any sort of relevancy or ingenuity.

shit's been discredited now shut up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Article. II.

Section. 1.

Clause 8:

" Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

That is the oath of office. He is under oath for the duration of his presidency from the beginning of his term to the end of his term. Just like a witness and the defendant are under oath "to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" for the durations of their testimonies in a court of law. Everyone knows that.

Hopefully, the president takes THAT oath ("to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth") when he testifies in his own impeachment hearing. I hope for that day to come. :D

Try reading the chemerinsky treatise before you start trying to interpret the constitution buddy. you're way off base.

Bush isn't getting impeached there are NO grounds none NONE!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you are so freakin ridiculous It's amazing If bush lied then so did Every european and egyptian intelligence agency not to mention the russians and the chinese. they lied too? you're just ridiculous you take the word of a document which happened to have the original destroyed discovered by michael smith of rathergate fame. cmon man I know you disagree with the war, but if you are gonna say that he lied you better have some proof less flimsy than a document that's a type written copy of a destroyed document of dubious origin. cmon man a type written copy that's what you make your case on.?

It's really easy for you to throw this he lied crap around with out any proof, you don't like the war I get it. but you're not contributing to the discourse by spewing unsubstantiated claims and then when you're proven wrong you just try to find some other wild charge to bring up.( and when I say you I mean you and your ilk)

All you care about it bringing shame on the current administration, you don't try to educate or change with any sort of relevancy or ingenuity.

shit's been discredited now shut up.

No one in bush/blair admin. is denying the authenticity

Bloggers who came up with the 60 minutes story discrediting Rather and co.(rightfully so) found out that the reporter from the london paper copied the 8 memos, thereby bringing the validity of the memos into question ...

so even if it is a question regarding such a major issue why the silence???

and your right bush wont be impeached because there ia a republican congress in power

but there is def. enough evidence to get an inquest into seeing if an impeachiment hearing is warranted

IMO

go ahead igloo get this one to drama as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why the downing street minutes not a big story

Igloo im cutting and pasting like a champ...GO ME

One of the features of the newfound media interest in the Downing Street Memo is a profound defensiveness, as reporters scramble to explain why it received so little attention in the U.S. press. But the most familiar line--the memo wasn't news because it contained no "new" information--only raises troubling questions about what journalists were doing when they should have been reporting on the gulf between official White House pronouncements and actual White House intentions.

There are two important points in the Downing Street Memo, and media apologists have marshaled slightly different--though equally unconvincing--arguments as to why each did not deserve coverage. The first point is that the White House was intent on going to war long before it announced the decision to invade Iraq; "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action," the memo states, citing British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

The Washington Post editorialized (6/15/05): "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." The New York Times reported (6/14/05) that "the documents are not quite so shocking. Three years ago, the near-unanimous conventional wisdom in Washington held that Mr. Bush was determined to topple Saddam Hussein by any means necessary." NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell similarly remarked on June 14 (Media Matters, 6/15/05) that you had to be "brain dead not to know" what the White House was doing.

But if everyone knew it was a lie when Bush and the White House repeatedly denied that they had decided to go to war (as with Bush's March 6, 2003 statement, "I have not made up our mind about military action"), why were reporters not exposing this bad faith at every turn? On March 16, 2003, for example, Andrea Mitchell referred to negotiations at the United Nations as part of "the diplomatic campaign to avoid war." If war was a foregone conclusion, why were such talks reported as if they mattered?

And how should reporters treat recent comments by George W. Bush that war was a last resort? "Both of us [bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair] didn't want to use our military," he said at a June 7 press conference. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option." If this is known to be a lie, why isn't it identified as such in news reports? If there's some doubt about whether he's lying, isn't the Downing Street Memo important evidence as to what the truth is?

The second issue raised by the Downing Street Memo regards the fixing of intelligence. On this question, media responses differ somewhat: The memo is inconclusive, some say, or investigations into intelligence tampering have shown that such claims are without merit. The June 15 Washington Post editorial claimed that "the memos provide no information that would alter the conclusions of multiple independent investigations on both sides of the Atlantic, which were that U.S. and British intelligence agencies genuinely believed Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that they were not led to that judgment by the Bush administration."

The investigations the Post is alluding to are irrelevant, since they did not specifically address the question of how the White House handled intelligence reports on Iraq. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence investigation was limited in scope; as the Washington Post reported (7/10/04), the panel "[made] no judgment on whether the administration distorted the intelligence it was given." A more recent review of intelligence practices was similarly limited--a fact also reported by the Washington Post (4/1/05): "The panel that Bush appointed under pressure in February 2004 said it was 'not authorized' to explore the question of how the commander in chief used the faulty information to make perhaps the most critical decision of his presidency."

More important, however, is the fact that the Downing Street Memo does suggest that the British government did not believe the evidence of Iraq's WMD programs was strong. As the memo states, "the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

The case for the politicization of intelligence is not difficult to make--it merely involves citing evidence the media ignored at the time. In its March 3, 2003 issue, Newsweek reported what should have been a bombshell: The star defector who supplied some of the most significant information about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction had told investigators that those weapons no longer existed.

Iraq defector Hussein Kamel--Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, who ran Iraq's unconventional weapons programs--was debriefed in 1995 about the status of those programs. Some of what Kamel said to the weapons inspectors would become very familiar: 30,000 liters of anthrax had been produced by the Iraqi regime, for example, and four tons of the VX nerve agent. These specific quantities were cited repeatedly by White House officials to make the case for war, and were staples of media coverage in the run-up to war.

But Kamel told the inspectors something else: that Iraq had destroyed these stockpiles soon after the Gulf War. "All weapons-- biological, chemical, missile, nuclear-- were destroyed," Kamel told the inspectors.

At the time, FAIR pointed out (2/27/03) that White House officials were misleading the public by selectively citing the Kamel interview: "Their repeated citations of his testimony--without revealing that he also said the weapons no longer exist--suggests that the administration might be withholding critical evidence."

Despite their obvious importance, the Kamel revelations were barely mentioned in the mainstream media. This fact is worth remembering when journalists claim that pre-war media coverage was remarkably prescient about the White House's intentions. The truth is that the Downing Street Memo is a reminder of how poorly the media served the public before the war-- which might explain their reluctance to take it seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What substantiated missdeeds have been proven. The Downing street memo was already denied back before the election when it came out. and it hasn't been mentions seriously since because it's not EVEN AN ORIGIONAL DOCUMENT It's not even a photo copy it's a type writen copy of what some guy claims he saw, and then destroyed. WTF? are you kidding me you don't find it the least bit Odd that he Destroyed a damning document. why was this document destroyed. you libs are ridiculous I swear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What substantiated missdeeds have been proven. The Downing street memo was already denied back before the election when it came out. and it hasn't been mentions seriously since because it's not EVEN AN ORIGIONAL DOCUMENT It's not even a photo copy it's a type writen copy of what some guy claims he saw, and then destroyed. WTF? are you kidding me you don't find it the least bit Odd that he Destroyed a damning document. why was this document destroyed. you libs are ridiculous I swear

Im hardly a lib

call me a centrist if you want...you know some one can actually from an opinion based on beliefs and facts etc ,and not having to tow the company line and decide issues based on if you are a right wing asshole or a left wing loon

and copied or not Id like to see georgie comment on the situation as it appears about 75% of america would like some answers too

and you gotta be kidding me as hard to the right as any one can be , how can you see that we were not totally misled into this clusterfuck that is iraq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Im hardly a lib

call me a centrist if you want...you know some one can actually from an opinion based on beliefs and facts etc ,and not having to tow the company line and decide issues based on if you are a right wing asshole or a left wing loon

and copied or not Id like to see georgie comment on the situation as it appears about 75% of america would like some answers too

and you gotta be kidding me as hard to the right as any one can be , how can you see that we were not totally misled into this clusterfuck that is iraq

This is the problem with the youth today you don't even know how to be consistent. let me give you an example.

I asked you to give me some substantiated proof that the president intentionally misled us. some scrap of evidence that he had knowlege that the intelligence that every other intelligence gathering nation in the world had and Belived was patently false and knew it.

I wonder what you would have thought about the clusterfuck of the revolutionary war. would you have told the french to get the fuck out of here and that we don't need thier help with the british? how is a new elected gov't a clusterfuck. how is people finally able to practice relgion with out fear a clusterfuck. how is a tripling of the GDP of a country a clusterfuck. you tell me on thing that the iraqi's do WORSE than saddam did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you are so freakin ridiculous It's amazing If bush lied then so did Every european and egyptian intelligence agency not to mention the russians and the chinese. they lied too? you're just ridiculous you take the word of a document which happened to have the original destroyed discovered by michael smith of rathergate fame. cmon man I know you disagree with the war, but if you are gonna say that he lied you better have some proof less flimsy than a document that's a type written copy of a destroyed document of dubious origin. cmon man a type written copy that's what you make your case on.?

It's really easy for you to throw this he lied crap around with out any proof, you don't like the war I get it. but you're not contributing to the discourse by spewing unsubstantiated claims and then when you're proven wrong you just try to find some other wild charge to bring up.( and when I say you I mean you and your ilk)

All you care about it bringing shame on the current administration, you don't try to educate or change with any sort of relevancy or ingenuity.

shit's been discredited now shut up.

1. Read the key findings in this actual CIA document by Bush's own weapons inspector Charles Duefer.

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html#sect1

He destroyed his WMDs in 1991.

2. Your article is pure propaganda and has zero substance to support the claims. Propaganda aren't facts.

3. Deal with the facts and shut up.

4. Owned!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the problem with the youth today you don't even know how to be consistent. let me give you an example.

I asked you to give me some substantiated proof that the president intentionally misled us. some scrap of evidence that he had knowlege that the intelligence that every other intelligence gathering nation in the world had and Belived was patently false and knew it.

I wonder what you would have thought about the clusterfuck of the revolutionary war. would you have told the french to get the fuck out of here and that we don't need thier help with the british? how is a new elected gov't a clusterfuck. how is people finally able to practice relgion with out fear a clusterfuck. how is a tripling of the GDP of a country a clusterfuck. you tell me on thing that the iraqi's do WORSE than saddam did.

misled is being lied to about why we went into iraq after starting the right war in afghanistan

youth of today pfffft dont be so full of yourself Bringing up the revolutionary war !!!!! dude your better than that.

your worse of a sheep than igloo if you think this things going well over in iraq and that we were not misled. George wanted saddam out of there

No entrance strategy no exit strategy . civil war , insurgency , billions of dollars misssing/stolen , thousands of soldiers deaths, 100 thousand civilian deaths

"coalition of the bribed errr willing" pulling out . 1/3 of the country refusing to vote. majority of our country now disapproving of the war

yeh I would say cluster fuck but you can say freedom is on the march

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×