Media ignored, underreported NY Times disclosure of explosive Bush-Blair memo
SUMMARY: Since a March 27 New York Times article confirmed that a leaked British memo appears to contradict President Bush's repeated claim prior to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq that he wanted to avoid war, media have failed to note the full significance of the document and in some cases ignored the story altogether.
Since a March 27 New York Times article confirmed that a leaked British memo appears to contradict President Bush's repeated claim prior to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq that he wanted to avoid war, media have failed to note the full significance of the document and in some cases ignored the story altogether. For instance, major newspapers have yet to feature articles on the memo, and Fox News has not once mentioned the document. CBS and ABC have limited their coverage to several brief mentions of the story. And numerous other reports have failed to contrast the memo's depiction of Bush with his public statements prior to the war.
In the Times article, headlined "Bush Was Set on Path to War, British Memo Says," staff writer Don Van Natta Jr. examined in detail a five-page memo summarizing a January 31, 2003, Oval Office meeting between Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The memo, written by then-chief British foreign policy adviser David Manning, had been previously disclosed in a February 3 Guardian article, as well as in the book Lawless World: America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules (Viking, October 2005) by international law professor Philippe Sands. The document portrays the leaders as skeptical that sectarian violence would follow an Iraq invasion and describes them discussing the possible assassination of Saddam Hussein and considering a proposal to paint a U.S. surveillance aircraft in U.N. colors in the hopes of provoking an Iraqi attack. Moreover, the document proves Bush "was determined to invade Iraq without the [United Nations] second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons," as the Times reported:
At their meeting, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair candidly expressed their doubts that chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would be found in Iraq in the coming weeks, the memo said. The president spoke as if an invasion was unavoidable. The two leaders discussed a timetable for the war, details of the military campaign and plans for the aftermath of the war.
[...]
At several points during the meeting between Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, there was palpable tension over finding a legitimate legal trigger for going to war that would be acceptable to other nations, the memo said. The prime minister was quoted as saying it was essential for both countries to lobby for a second United Nations resolution against Iraq, because it would serve as "an insurance policy against the unexpected."
[...]
Mr. Bush agreed that the two countries should attempt to get a second resolution, but he added that time was running out. "The U.S. would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would twist arms and even threaten," Mr. Bush was paraphrased in the memo as saying.
The document added, "But he had to say that if we ultimately failed, military action would follow anyway."
Bush's positions as reported in the memo -- that U.N. inspectors were unlikely to find weapons, that military action would occur with or without the U.N.'s backing, that the war was unavoidable -- directly contradict many of his public statements in the weeks leading up to the invasion. Between that January 31 meeting and the start of the war on March 19, 2003, the president repeatedly told the American people that he was doing everything possible to avoid military action:
- On February 10, Bush said, "If war is forced upon us -- and I say 'forced upon us,' because use of the military is not my first choice. ... But should we need to use troops, for the sake of future generations of Americans, American troops will act in the honorable traditions of our military and in the highest moral traditions of our country."
- On February 13, Bush said, "Military force is always this nation's last option. Yet if force becomes necessary to disarm Iraq and enforce the will of the United Nations, if force becomes necessary to secure our country and to keep the peace, America will act deliberately, America will act decisively, and America will act victoriously with the world's greatest military."
- On February 20, Bush said that the U.S. will act decisively "if military force becomes necessary to disarm Iraq." He further stated that the nation would liberate the people of Iraq "if war is forced upon us."
- On February 25, a reporter asked Bush, "What would it take at this point to avoid a war with Iraq?" Bush answered, "Full disarmament."
- On March 6, Bush said, "I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully."
- On March 8, Bush said, "We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq."
- On March 16, Bush said, "Saddam Hussein can leave the country, if he's interested in peace. You see, the decision is his to make. And it's been his to make all along as to whether or not there's the use of the military."
- On March 17, Bush said, "Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it."
In light of these statements, the January 31 memo -- and the Times' verification of it -- is obviously significant. Nonetheless, numerous news outlets have failed to cover the story at all, or in some cases failed to cover it adequately. Fox News has ignored it entirely. A Media Matters for America survey of Fox's full March 27 coverage (6 a.m.-11 p.m. ET) and partial March 28 coverage (6 a.m.-noon ET) failed to turn up a single mention of the memo.
Similarly, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, and USA Today all declined to run articles on the memo in their March 28 editions. Both the Associated Press and Reuters have failed to report on the story thus far. By contrast, United Press International ran two articles on March 27 -- one on the memo and one on the White House's reaction to the Times piece.
The major networks covered the Times' disclosure of the memo, but their reports varied greatly in the degree to which they conveyed its significance. On the March 27 edition of the CBS Evening News, for instance, anchor Russ Mitchell asked CBS' chief foreign affairs correspondent Lara Logan about the document after her report on recent sectarian violence in Iraq. Logan noted that, according to the document, Blair and Bush believed that there was "unlikely to be warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups in Iraq." But even though the Evening News noted the document in this context, the newscast failed to report the other aspect of the memo: that it contradicted Bush's public claims that he wanted to resolve the Iraq issue diplomatically. Earlier in the day, however, CBS Morning News anchor Susan McGinnis noted the Times' disclosure of the memo and described Bush as "reportedly determined to invade Iraq no matter what the outcome of diplomatic efforts."
On the March 23 edition of ABC's World News Tonight, anchor Elizabeth Vargas simply reported that the memo "paints President Bush as eager to provoke Saddam Hussein into war." While she referred to Bush and Blair's discussion of ways to prompt an attack from Hussein and their reported lack of concern about sectarian violence following the Iraq invasion, Vargas made no mention of the document's broader relevance.
By contrast, that morning on ABC's Good Morning America, host Robin Roberts briefly mentioned the memo in her rundown of the day's news and noted that it portrayed Bush as "bent on invading Iraq no matter what." Similarly, on the March 27 edition of NBC Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams introduced a report on the story as follows: "In the weeks before the invasion of Iraq, as President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said they were pursuing all options for avoiding a war, a leaked British memo strongly suggests something very different was going on behind closed doors." In the subsequent report, NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell noted that Bush and Blair "were officially on a diplomatic track, but a secret memo now reveals they were determined to go to war six weeks before invading Iraq."
CNN's coverage of the memo consisted of a single segment by national security correspondent David Ensor. In the report, which aired three times -- twice on the March 27 edition of The Situation Room (see here and here) and once more on the March 28 edition of American Morning -- Ensor said that the memo described Bush and Blair "talking privately on that day as if they assumed war was inevitable." But rather than note the contradictions between Bush's statements in the memo and his subsequent comments in the weeks following, Ensor focused instead on the leaders' discussion of the possibility of Saddam being assassinated, the idea of provoking an attack on a U.S. surveillance aircraft, and the chances of sectarian violence in Iraq.
Of the three cable news networks, MSNBC devoted the most airtime to the British memo and repeatedly emphasized its relevance. On the March 27 edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews, correspondent David Shuster reported that, according to the document, Bush and Blair were "determined to invade Iraq, whether the U.N. approved it or not and regardless of the results of international arms inspections." Later in the show, host Chris Matthews said that the memo showed that the leaders were "set on an unswerving path to war, even as they publicly kept the door open to negotiations at least six weeks before the war began." Matthews then interviewed Philippe Sands, who said of the memo, "[T]his goes to issues of competence and why, frankly, I think in both Britain and the United States, there needs to be a full investigation of the road to war."
Later in the evening, on MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann went further, contrasting the memo's contents with Bush's statement that "[n]o president wants war" -- made in response to a question from Hearst Newspapers columnist Helen Thomas at a March 21 press conference. Olbermann said: "Tonight, more evidence to suggest, at least in his case, that might not have been true." He subsequently interviewed Andrea Mitchell, who said that the memo indicated that "whether or not they found weapons of mass destruction, whether or not Saddam Hussein turned anything over, whether or not there was further action by the U.N., none of that was going to matter."
Media Matters previously noted the print and broadcast media's failure to coverage the so-called Downing Street memo in June 2005.
...of all the cable news coverage of a stained blue dress. If only something that important had happened with these boring memos. Memos aren't "sexy" enough I guess.
... which are so inconvenient to the Rightwing Mainstream Media, will get a fair playing after November, when a majority Democrat Congress will begin impeachment procedures.
JUST ONE alleged "lie" ... and not even about public policy ... is now the threshold set for impeaching a president, as set in precedent by the GOP.
If a "lie" about a hummer is sufficient to call for removal from office, surely serial lying that has led to thousands of deaths and serious injuries will satisfy the requirement.
In order to be impeached like Clinton was, there has to be a crime committed. Unfortunately, lying to the American people is not against the law (but it should be), but lying in court IS (that depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is, I know). The spying program is much more indictable, as was the whole Enron debacle (if only they handed over those notes, que sera). And as much as I'd love to see this President leave office asap, I think I'd be even more unsettled to have Cheney or pretty much anybody else in the first, oh, 4 or 5 spots on the chain after him in office. It's like first Bush all over again, yeah Bush is bad but Quayle? GASP!
Several points:
1. An impeachment is just an accusation. As you may recall, the Republican House Managers charged many things, including PERJURY, for which they had no compelling evidence. Still, Clinton was impeached.
2. FROM THERE, the investigation uncovers the facts, as they exist. Subpeona power coupled with the ability to compel testimony under oath (and the ability to imprison those who don't cooperate) has a wonderful way of clearing away any fog.
3. Clinton was the MOST INVESTIGATED man in history, and Bush is the most UNINVESTIGATED. With a little digging, there will be plenty of legal -- read "violation of oath of office" -- reasons to bring a removal.
4. Cheney will not be a problem if his secret service detail is compelled under subpeona to testify about his shooting incident (the GOP has cleared away any objection to such testimony in their behavior against Clinton). Again, this administration has avoided investigation, so far able to get away with acts that mere mortals would be scrutinized over.
5. Here's a "starter" list of areas to be investigated/charged:
1. Bush lied to Congress and the American public about the reasons for invading Iraq.
2. Bush conducted illegal wiretaps of American citizens.
3. Bush violated International Law by invading a sovereign country for illegal purposes.
4. Bush violated the Geneva Convention by torturing prisoners of war.
5. Bush held prisoners without formal charges and without legal representation. 6. Bush used government funds for domestic political propaganda.
7. The Bush team used uniformed military personnel for Republican party political purposes.
8. Bush was negligent in his slow response to help victims of Hurricane Katrina.
9. Bush shows contempt towards our Constitution and our democratic ideals.
10. In "signing statements" attached to laws passed by Congress, Bush has stated he is not bound by those laws. (Bush is bound to uphold the Constitution. If he believes a law violates the Constitution by infringing on presidential powers, it is his duty to NOT SIGN such an unconstitutional law. To sign it is a violation of his oath of office.)
Impeachable offenses don't necessarily need to rise to the level of being illegal under U.S. law. "High crimes and misdemeanors" are basically whatever the House considers them to be and for which the Senate is willing to find the accused guilty. There are certain offenses for which the Constitution requires removal from office if found guilty.
I agree, the line of succession to Bush is not comforting. However, I still believe that impeachment could serve to shed light on the full extent of legal and Constitutional violations by the Executive. Perhaps this would be enough to reign in the Executive and convince Congress to reclaim their responsibilities.
That Bush is a baldfaced and unrepentent liar should hardly be news to ANYONE who has been paying attention. I suspect this like all the other inconvienient facts will quietly go away. Mores the pity. The day will come when the appellation W will be synonomous with LIAR.
Maybe if MM had spots on American Idol,they might pay attention. Can you imaging what would happen if the media did their jobs and told the whole truth. Could the Rowe factor been in effect all ready? Everyone is afraid of the pink slip, from the top down. The bullying fron the reps must be horrendous,how else do you explain the US media? have they all fail the meteorology test.
That Bush is a baldfaced and unrepentent liar should hardly be news to ANYONE who has been paying attention.
What's more, this new memo just further confirms what those few of us who do pay attention already knew. This deals with events as they stood six weeks before the U.S. attack on Iraq--we've got info going back much farther than that.
The pre-Bush-administration desire of the neocons to attack Iraq is well-documented.
The first post-election discussion of this, as we know from former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, took place in their first weeks in office, in Jan. 2001.
Immediately following the terrorist attacks, on Sept. 11th, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld was so giddy at the prospect of the possibilities opened by those attacks that, within five hours of the attacks, he suggested using it as a pretext to invade Iraq, and suggested linking Iraq and al Qaida, directing his people to consult with his toadie Paul Wolfowitz on the matter. This was recorded in the contemporaneous notes of DoD staffers Victoria Clarke and Stephen Cambone. Bush, himself, also began, that same day, leaning on his advisors to come up with something to link Iraq to the attacks (this was related by Richard Clarke, his counter-terrorism chief).
Only six days after the attack, Bush signed a directive ordering the Pentagon to begin planning an invasion of Iraq (Washington Post, 01/12/03). On the 19th and 20th, Rumsfeld assembled the Defense Policy Board for a series of meetings where they "animatedly discussed" the need to attack Iraq, to use the words of the Washington Post (same article).
By March, 2002, Bush had signed a secret directive ordering the CIA to recruit and train special units, dubbed "Scorpions" to act as a paramilitary force inside Iraq when the U.S. invasion began (Washington Post, 08/03/05).
By April 2002--nearly a year before the invasion, and five months before Bush and co. would begin hyping the prospect--the decision to invade was firm--Bush had sought and received a British commitment to the coming operation (London Sunday Times, 05/01/05).
By May, an escalating bombing campaign, designed to provoke an Iraqi response to use as pretext for war, had been initiated and would continue until the invasion (London Sunday Times, 05/29/05).
The "Downing Street Memo," from July 23, 2002, describes, in blunt and unmistakable language, the conspiracy to try to provoke Hussein into some action that would act as a pretext for war.
This new information only confirms that Bush's decision to attack Iraq at all costs was just as firm six weeks before the war as it was a year before the war.
Nevertheless, as Media Matters has, today, ably documented, Bush would continue to insist no decision had been made, and that the Iraqis could avoid conflict, a line to which he held until the very eve of starting the war, and a lie to which he's held, even after all of these revelations
The really startling aspect of your chronology of Bush's dogged pursuit of war is that, at every step, they were well aware they had no justification for going to war.
The finding of "INTENT" in a criminal charge requires a showing of premeditation, an indication that the perp KNEW what he was doing was wrong, and did it anyway. Attempts made to cover up or desguise a crime are prima facie evidence that 1. the criminal KNEW right from wrong, and elected to do WRONG, and 2. the act was premeditated.
From Tony Blair to Colin Powell, this Administration was told that starting a WAR without valid provocation was WRONG. In the Geneva Conventions, it is considered the ultimate act of moral treachery.
The only way America can become once again a LEADER in the world, promoting the virtues of justice and fair play, freedom and morality, is if we hold our leadership accountable when they veer us into warmongering imperialism.
I actually heard THIS [NY Times] story on our LOCAL morning News show [WBZ-Boston] and went searching to see IF I'd hear or read it elsewhere. I found it on the Drudge Report (not as an headline but buried among a zillion other small headlines). It was featured as a BOLD headline on the Raw Story site--but of course that is a Liberal site. NOTHING on CNN or FOX's websites. Eventually I found it BURIED on the MSNBC website. Heard it NO WHERE else on TV or radio--didn't find it in the newspaper.
Now I would have thought that THIS was HUGE BREAKING NEWS and THE SMOKING GUN...or at least the ONE that would FINALLY shoot more than blanks.
WHY was it ignored? Well I've got TWO theories. ONE-the Press is just TOO DAMN LAZY or INTIMIDATED to dig further into anything that would finally bring down the Bush Presidency....or TWO the Illegal Immigration story took CENTER STAGE and once again Bush lucked out by everyones attention being elsewhere.
I'm hoping THIS STORY has simply been back-burnered temporarily...IF this memo proves true then there can NO longer be ANY more doubt that George W. Bush took our country to war based on lies&manipulation of intel. He invaded a sovereign country for REASONS based on falsehoods.
Shouldn't someone be calling for Impeachment? War Crimes? Something????
Perhaps Bush had an ulterior motive when he withdrew the US from the World Court Treaty in 2002--eh?
"Shouldn't someone be calling for Impeachment? War Crimes? Something????"
We have been, because this memo is just another piece of evidence - albeit a strong one - that the entire war was based on lies. The conclusions that this memo takes us to have been reached long ago, mainly through the DSM. If that wasn't a "smoking gun", why would this be? This is exactly what I've told people who pointed to the DSM as unreliable or weak evidence because no action was taken about it. Just because people don't do anything about it doesn't mean that they shouldn't. Sadly, this memo will probably pan out the same way, even though it's no less persuasive or credible than the DSM.
Shouldn't someone be calling for Impeachment? War Crimes? Something????
I'll do you one better. Rancorous partisans fond of hyperbolic rhetoric throw around the word "treason" quite easily, but no one seems to have caught on to the fact that what Bush did in Iraq arguably fits the literal legal definition of the charge, as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
The major outlets will claim they had previously reported on the highlights of this story when it was first revealed in the British press weeks ago and that there was nothing new in the NYT piece. That isn't true, but it will be their argument. As for FOX, I am sure they will report on this story as soon as the RNC can work out the talking point for it. Maybe I can help....how about: This story shows how closely President Bush worked with PM Blair and that proves that Bush didn't come to office wanting war with Iraq. Or: 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11....repeat
Analysts from the CIA have just concluded extensive tests on the 'memo' in question, in particular an analysis of the 'type font' used in that 'memo', and have determined it is a forgery.
It has further been determined that the typewriter used to forge this 'memo' belongs to Helen Thomas.
A warrant has been issued for her arrest (although they claim they really don't need a warrant to do stuff like that).
END OF BULLETIN.
Cuz that's comedy gold.
Well,
What can WE make of the latest betrayal of the Fourth Estate chartered by our FOUNDING FATHERS to be the watchdog of government? Haven't WE been here before?.......... Downing Street Memo anyone? If this latest caper doesn't convince anyone with the IQ of a turnip THAT the MSM is beholding to the very interests WHO are PROFITING from this illegal, unconstitutional, and disastrous waste of life, treasure, and reputation NOW bestowed upon the American people for what no doubt will be a trans-generational CURSE , Well, Please go back to reading Harry Potter for it is a fitting portayal of what one so disposed sees as 'REALITY' today.
However, I am more interested in the dynamic now revealed in this latest expose' between 'El Presidente' Bush and the Lilliputian lapdog in the personage of Tony Blair Who happens to be a Laborite Leader in the service of an anachronistic dynasty reminiscent of the 'Age of the Divine Right of Kings' or is that Queens, Whatever??????????????
So, Conspiracy, defined as: 1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. 2. Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action. 3. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design
So here we have a clandestine plot, schemed in well, ....let's make it a West Wing story. Two professed leaders of the 'Free World' deciding upon a criminal venture in contravention of International Law, International Treaties and in defiance of all agreed upon norms of the civilized world when it comes to the engagement of hostilities. Bush, the chief protagonist is 'enabled by the co-dependent Blair whose mutually agreed upon decisions shrouded in secrecy WILL affect hundeds of thousands of human beings, wreak havoc upon the constituencies they claim to represent and cause each nation's reputation to be be tossed into the realm of contempt by the international community.
I mean this reads like a modern-day Shakespearean tragedy.
. . . but it should also be credited for being the first major U.S. paper to run the Phillipe Sands revelations, back on February 11. I didn't save the URL, but the reporter was John Daniszewski, and the headline was Book Casts Doubt on Case for War. The story was picked up by the Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, Detroit News, and a number of smaller papers.
I'm referring to this sentence in the Times article:
"At their meeting, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair candidly expressed their doubts that chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would be found in Iraq in the coming weeks, the memo said. "
During that time period, the US was sent and was still sending intelligence about suspected WMD sites to the UN inspectors in Iraq. This included satellite intelligence as well as human intelligence Bush and Powell claimed to be reliable. For Bush to have known on January 20th that nothing was likely to be found, he must have known his intelligence was seriously flawed or even wrong. The flawed intelligence was sent on anyway.
From CBS News 2/20/03:
"Inspectors Call U.S. Tips 'Garbage'"
(snip)
"U.N. arms inspectors are privately complaining about the quality of U.S. intelligence and accusing the United States of sending them on wild-goose chases."
(snip)
"So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage." In fact, Phillips says the source used another cruder word. The inspectors find themselves caught between the Iraqis, who are masters at the weapons-hiding shell game, and the United States, whose intelligence they've found to be circumstantial, outdated or just plain wrong. "
So that intelligence was wrong, Bush knew it was wrong, and unless Bush wants to pretend he was off on some other planet, Bush knew CBS announced that WMD intelligence given to inspectors was wrong.
The subject of the discrepency between what the Bush administration was claiming and what the UN inspectors were finding came up during Congressional hearings after the war. When asked why, having learned from the inspectors that the WMD intelligence was wrong, did the Bush administration still believe there were WMD? The administration answered that not all the intelligence was turned over. The best was withheld. When asked, "Why didn't you turn over all the intelligence, the weapons posed a great danger to American troops," the Bush adminstration answered, "We turned over all the intelligence."
While those questions still remain, we do know now that the president knew he was taking us to war on faulty intelligence well before the start of the war. The memo proves it.
From the German memo,"curveball" to the new Downing St,memo, makesall the discussions about inspectors ,wmd,democracy,ects ,very boring and banal. Since we know that most of this war is a lie,why are peoples still trying to make it a forum talk. 2 Brits are on trial for leaking a memo,"Bush wanted ElAZ t.v. station bombs". The last I heard,the station file a suit in London against Bush. I think that a lot of US officials were given false info,to think that none of elected pions have the nerves to tell the truth,now that they have the facts!!!. They all look good on C-Span, They are all on the same page at the end of the day. Going back to my first thought.Investigation! Ask General Frank about his soldiers in Afg, all of a sudden going to Iraq? Why do you think he retired? why are we still in Afg? no army
This is more damning evidence that the Downing Street Memos or the lies that led the USA to this point in the end of January.
The Bush administration was pushing the USA towards war. And they were using lies and distortions and taking advantage of misperceptions, but most Americans and almost all the members of Congress and previous administrations thought that Saddam had WMD's.
But as this memo shows, they were not swayed by the newest evidence that had become available with the reports from the weapons inspectors that there was almost certainly no WMD's in Iraq. Add this to the report about the CIA informant who told them back in September or October, 2002, that there were only old chemical weapons and no nuclear or biological weapons.
This is what should sink his administration. I fear it will not, but it sure should!
To me three things have to happen. First, the mainstream media has to stop enabling this administration. It's really sad and, as someone with a degree in journalism, I'm getting sick of it. Infotainment sucks. Let's bring back the Fairness Doctrine if we have to.
The second thing that needs to happen is for the Democratic party to pounce on this. The Democrats have to realize that these people do not play nice. Have some of their heavy weights get on the talk shows and denounce this administration and at the same time demonstrate that they have a better plan in waging the so-called war on terror. At the same time get on the blogs and the internet and get the word out that way. But get a plan together and get it out quick before Bush and company do something to distract us away from the ever growing pile of corruption like bombing Iran.
The third thing, and perhaps the most important thing that needs to happen is for some good and decent Republican leaders to step forward and take back their party. Let them demonstrate to the American people that these neoconmen have hijacked this country. Throw the bastards out. And then never ever let people like Bush and Cheney destroy this country ever again!
"good and decent Republican leaders to step forward and take back their party"
The Republican Congress has ignored its responsibility to be a check on Presidential power. None of them currently in office now can be trusted to do what is right for the country. They have shown over and over that they believe the President has the power to operate outside the constitution and I believe they won't ever lift a finger. Oh, and what you see now IS the Republican party. There is no taking it back. They have always been like this. All that talk about fiscal responsibility and states rights was a bunch of BS just to get votes.
This administration is basically warmed over Reagan and Bush I administrations. So when did we have these good and decent Repugs... let's see, before that was... NIXON, right? No? Are we talking Goldwater now????
No, there aren't any good and decent Repugs -- that's a contradiction in terms.
We've really gotta slow down, take a breath, and stop pulling out the torches every time something like this happens. The media doesn't make a big deal out of this stuff because they don't believe it gets much traction. They don't think it brings ratings. Babies stuck in various wells, missing hot white women (especially when we might think they've been abducted by non-whites!), crackpot disaster theories (remember the "what if a meteor hits us?" craze?), these are things that the media loves to show us. It isn't because they're all conservatives, or because they're all bowing to special interests, it's because they love _money_.
They know that very few people will be surprised by the general ideas contained in this memo. Most of the blind Bush supporters will say "So what? I wanted to take down Saddam since 1991!" and the same people on the left (it's us, surprise!) will see it as basically just another Downing Street Memo and say "See? I told you so!" again. And the rest of America will have no idea what to think, as usual.
That all being said, I think it's ridiculous that the aforementioned topics get more play than the real issues. The problem is not right-wing bias as much as it is profit-wing bias. If the media was a public service like it used to be, instead of an entertainment industry like it is now (thanks, Reagan!), nobody would be interested in punditry, they'd only be interested in the things that really matter, like ACCURACY.
Seems like the "going to war on a lie" story would be sexier than an uninformative story about a vaguely shady real estate deal. And yet Whitewater sure got lots of press.
And that's the polite word for it.
Michael Moore proved that there is a HUGE market for people who want to hear the truth.
The MSM is not interested in presenting the truth. It is not all that interested in getting more viewers or readers. It is primarily interested to be as propaganda arm for conservatives as much as it can be. The MSM doesn't even care if it begins to lose credibility.
The "money-making" argument is a lie, unless you admit that the money-making is from being a propaganda outlet.
I am surprised to read that the American media is reporting about the Downing Street memos NOW. This side of the Atlantic, they have been the talk of the town for month. Just as it was a widespread opinion in Europe at the time, that Weapons of mass destruction were invented - and what had in fact been there some 15 years earlier had been destroyed (mass distroyed) a long time ago. Sometimes I wish someone would explain this constant blindness.
I saw the original report the other night, and I was like, "Wow!", they're finally talking about the LIE that put us in the war with Iraq. They had their minds made up before the UN was finished looking for wmd, before the UN could pass resolutions, and BEFORE Congress ultimately gave president Bush the power to wage war. Downing St memos proved it already to those of us with eyes open, but here is more PROOF and except for NBC, the MSM ignores the message. What a shame.
The story by Andrea Mitchell also revealed the nefarious plan to paint a CIA spy plane with the U.N.'s colors to try and provoke Saddam into an attack which could justify an invasion. What was a rumor is now reported as fact and can no longer be ignored as the illusions of conspiracy theorists.
Yes, the immigration story has overshadowed this news, because thousands of protesters and a controversial new bill in Congress can do that to a story that isn't too fresh. I'll be interested in seeing if any follow-ups will be forthcoming.
The lack of attention to this major story by the MSM other than NBC, tells me that this is another example of the "dumbing down" of American journalism. Like a bad parent who feeds one's child endless fast food junk, the fat child is starving for a nutricious and balanced meal.
that's "nutritious"
that's laughable.
Weren't the pre-invasion anti-war protests much larger?
The networks have shown that they're perfectly capable of ignoring huge protests -- if the president would prefer them downplayed.
Hell yes those anti-war protests were marginalized by the MSM and you had to look hard to see video of the events. C-span had coverage.
You'd think that with the obvious failure in Iraq, finally NOW they would have some of those anti-war voices on.
Nope... they're STILL shut out.
Well, folks,
Can't possibly add to this commentary:
[link to informationclearinghouse.info]
"Eric Haney, a retired command sergeant major and founding member of the elite Delta Force commando unit, charged Monday that the president’s policy is based on cultural arrogance and corporate greed rather than sound military strategy.
“I understand the people who are doing this and where they’re coming from,” the veteran said. “Delusional ideology is a big factor, and there’s a huge amount of venal corporate activity. Halliburton and other companies are making so much money that they don’t want to see it changed.” "
--------------------------------------
"Haney said his concerns are military, not political, and he is surprised more “dyed-in-the-wool” Republicans are not speaking out.
“I don’t care if it was the pope in charge; wrongdoing does not recognize partisanship,” he said. “I had the same problem with (former President) Clinton and the Democrats — you should clean up your own mess.” "
---------------------------------
" “At every turn, in the upper levels of our administration, they refused to listen to what they did not want to hear,” Haney said. "
[link to informationclearinghouse.info]
Helen Thomas was right!
I can't wait to hear all the apologies!
That's the Liberal Media for ya...
...to suggest that the administration wanted to invade Iraq all along. One anecdote noted the President barging in on a staff meeting, gleefully state that they were going to get Hussein, then exiting. My recollection is that this incident occured in the Summer of 2002.
What I honestly couldn't say before was whether Bush lied about WMDs, irresponsibly ignored contrary evidence due to being predisposed in favor of invasion or was just plain lazy and never really read the intelligence. Now we have the smoking gun for both his being predisposed to war and that he lied. (Of course, it's also possible, even probable, he lied, ignored and was lazy.)
The only remaining question I have at this point is where can I sign a petition calling for Bush's impeachment?
[link to www.impeachbush.org]
This is a story about the media's failure to cover a story that means something to seventy percent of the nation. Impeachment is nonsense. It would cost us a fortune and divide us even more. Take a look at next seven or eight people in line for the Mr. Bush's job. They are all nightmare options. There is no way that impeachment would help the country. If the media would tell people the truth about our nation's government we might see more transparency and less corruption in the future because our population would be activated enough and informed enough to change things with their votes.
if they know the Decoycrats will run away from impeachment. You got perfectly backwards.
I don't understand how a media that overreports everything continually underreports and minimizes the biggest story since September 11, 2001.
I was listening to Gary Hart talk about his conversations with Richard Clarke, the ex-anti-terrorism specialist. Mr. Hart said Mr. Clarke would stop government entities in hallways to show them his reports on Bin Laden and his plans months before 9/11, and all the people would say is 'Saddam, find a connection to Saddam..'. This invasion was planned well in advance.
There was an AP story produced in early February, based upon the Guardian report and Lawless World (and possibly mentioning the independent report by Channel Four in the UK, though I can't recall precisely what the AP report included).
Otherwise, a good summary of what is being reported now. We at DowningStreetMemo.com were on top of this story when it broke nearly two months ago; shame that bloggers are so far out in front of the US media, yet again.
Ok, so our media outlets are avoiding the obvious truth, and our President had an agenda prior to the attacks of the WTC. Will this new revelation take any flight? Or will it be so spun out of control; leaving Bush, once again the victim and unaccountable for any wrongdoing.
As long as the major newspapers are owned by those who travel in the same circles as the President we will never hear the truth from those newspapers. The investgative reporter of the past cannot get published without being threatened with jail or loss of job. This is exactly where the up crust of society wanted things to be when they embarked on their exclusion journey some 30 years ago.
If ever there was a smoking gun for impeachment, here it is. Just like the "good old days" of Nixon, we have the most obnoxious, narrow minded , devious person ever to trip around the white house. He had every intention of invading the country, never mind the ramifications of what he was doing. He has lied and helped dend over 2000 men and women to their deaths, and now created the worst sort of time bomb which will explode, and we're right in the middle of it. That's what happens when you don't take daddy's advice and stay the hell out of there!!!!!
I remember this was briefly touched on in Jan. I recall that Blair was against war until he met with Bush, at the White House. If you check the footage, he and Bush addressed the press and Blair did a complete turn around. Was the suicide of an official, in London, connected to this?
I get my news from the BBC and Cspan 1 and 2. You are right, Keith Olberman is the only anchor that has guts enough to report on all matters.
Keep up the good work. I will continue to e-mail these chickens and ilinformed. Nancy J.
we've had smoking gun after smoking gun regarding Bush's pre-war intentions... nothing has happened, where legal proceedings should automatically begin when something like this happens, whether a majority party wants it or not... I have lost faith that truth and justice are the American way... with apologies to Clark Kent/Superman/Kal-El