The Downing Street Memo (Michael Smith interview Q&A today)

[rodeodance]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/14/DI2005061401261.html?referrer=email

Thursday, June 16, at 10 a.m. ET
The Downing Street Memo

Michael Smith
Reporter, Sunday Times of London
Thursday, June 16, 2005; 10:00 AM

Carlisle, Pa.: In your research, did you or any reporter you know come across War College or other military-academic research that indicated that Saddam Hussein likely no longer had weapons of mass destruction and that a foreign invasion of a country such as Iraq with a strong anti-American sentiment would be a costly venture? It seems the military academicians and intelligence reports had the facts right, but this information never filtered upwards to the White House or, if it did, it was ignorned, nor did the press ever consider any of it useful except for perhaps a one day news spin and then was quickly forgotten.

Michael Smith: I think it is clear from the documents themselves that the whole venture was widely viewed as being highly dubious with no certainty of what would come out of it. The administration ensured that it only got the answers it wanted. But they either ignored the advice they were getting on the likely cost or managed to filter it out with this highly pressurised regime of come up with the right answers, or we will be on your back to do so all the time. That is what resulted in the National Intelligence Estimated of October 2002 which was designed by George Tenet to get a questioning Congress off the President's back. Everyone has heard about the British "dodgy" dossiers but the actual intelligence analysis, the so-called JIC report, on which the main dossier was based spoke mostly of weapons programmes, ie production of the agent that would be put into weapons, rather than actual stockpiled weapons.The closest it came to saying there were actually any weapons was to say there "may be" 1.5tons of VX gas, a conclusion that went back to the conclusions of the UNSCOM weapons inspectors in 1998. The CIA's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on the other hand, said there were probably up to 500 tons of chemical weapons in Iraq. That gives you a feel of the kind of distortion that was going on. But as for the idea that he had very active programmes going on, well everyone, including the French and the Russians, thought that. There was a kind of group think that no-one was challenging. Long answer but I hope it's helpful.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: To what do you attribute the seeming lack of interest by the American public and main stream media, at least initially, in the revelations contained in the Downing Street Memo?

Michael Smith: Firstly, I think the leaks were regarded as politically motivated. Secondly there was a feeling of well we said that way back when. Then of course as the pressure mounted from the outside, there was a defensive attitude. "We have said this before, if you the reader didn't listen well what can we do", seemed to be the attitude. I dont know if you have this expression over there, but we say someone "wants to have their cake and eat it". That's what that response reeks of. Either it was politically motivated and therefore not true or it was published before by the US newspapers and was true, it cant be both can it?

The attitude they have taken is just flat wrong, to borrow an expression from the White House spokesman on the Downing St Memo.
lots more questions and answers..........

[terhuxtim]

1. Help us primary lieberman

http://www.dumpjoe.com

[Greyhound]

3. Gladly, but what does this have...

to do with the topic?

[evermind]

2. Great find! Thank you!

Some more good bits:

Michael Smith: I personally believe there are grounds for [impeachment] but not yet, not in the memos we've seen. It needs US reporters to get to work to take the documents and their implications forward. If the Brits said that there weren't enough preparations in place for what comes after, what was the reaction back in Washington. Who was it who overruled the arguments coming out of London. Whether or not we are into headhunting that person has a lot to answer for as the nightly television pictures coming out of Iraq are showing. We in the mainstream media are at a crossroads now. The internet has opened up a large number of challenges to us. We can allow the web news sites to sideline us or we can impose our largely better honed skills and show that we are the best at what we do. US journalists are world-renowned for their skills and attention to accuracy but you can be inaccurate just as much by ignoring something as you can by writing it up and getting it wrong.

--snip--

Michael Smith: Yes there are other facts you still don't know and the media should be using these public documents as a base from which to find them out because it is those facts that will really damage Bush. Some of the media already are ont eh case. Knight Ridder went in very early on in this story and I see is still going. The LA Times and the Washington Post and lots of smaller papers have all been doing their bit. They need to keep going. If the administration, as it claims, did nothing wrong, it has nothing to fear from journalists looking for the facts.

--snip--

Michael Smith: There are number of people asking about fixed and its meaning. This is a real joke. I do not know anyone in the UK who took it to mean anything other than fixed as in fixed a race, fixed an election, fixed the intelligence. If you fix something, you make it the way you want it. The intelligence was fixed and as for the reports that said this was one British official. Pleeeaaassee! This was the head of MI6. How much authority do you want the man to have? He has just been to Washington, he has just talked to George Tenet. He said the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. That translates in clearer terms as the intelligence was being cooked to match what the administration wanted it to say to justify invading Iraq. Fixed means the same here as it does there. More leaks? I do hope so and the more Blair and Bush lie to try to get themselves off the hook the more likely it is that we will get more leaks.

--snip--

Michael Smith: [...] the fixing of the intelligence is certainly one thing that many of us knew about already. But for anyone who didnt believe it the Bolton nomination hearings ought to have convinced them. We on the Sunday Times didnt focus on this point too much as we had already reported it. I personally think we have had too much foucs on the intelligence. It's a red herring. Saying it was faulty intelligence that led us to war let's Blair and Bush off the hook. It wasn't faulty intelligence that took us to war, it was them. This is why they have both been happy to set up inquiries, two by Blair and the Presidential Commission by Bush. These masquerade as inquiries into the war. In reality, Blair and Bush set out the terms of reference so that they only look at the intelligence. When they come back and say the intelligence was faulty, Blair and Bush both say how awful it was but hey we werent to blame for that and anyway Saddam Hussein has gone and that's a good thing. Focussing on the intelligence lets them off the hook.

[Straight Shooter]

4. Blame intelligence for September 11, blame intelligence for Iraq War.

You nailed it, Mr. Smith. The White House sets everything up so they can blame someone else, while they reap all the profits and suffer none of the consequences.

Good find. I wish Mr. Smith had been present at the hearing today.

[stickdog]

5. EVERYBODY MUST READ THIS! Recommend and keep kicked!!!

[stickdog]

6. Highly recommended reading. Tears all the naysayers a new one! (nt)

[Synnical]

7. Terrific interview

DU'ers will really enjoy this one. Thanks.

:kick:

[Synnical]

8. Yet another Kick n/t

[Spazito]

9. Great read!

Thanks for the link.

[lakeguy]

10. why does michael smith hate america?

:sarcasm: