Downing St Memo: only 1 piece of puzzle. Don't put all eggs in 1 bas

[wiggs]

basket.

I want awareness of the Downing Street Memo to spread like wildfire. I want Conyers and Kerry to demand that congress focus on what the memo might mean and I want the media to start discussing it. But relying on one piece of evidence is risky and I caution against putting all eggs in the DSM basket. It doesn't take a lot to muddy the waters on one document by smearing the participants, coming up with contradictory evidence, etc. It was done on the AWOL stuff and the whole damn issue went away.....

THERE IS OTHER CORROBORATING EVIDENCE THAT NEEDS TO BE CONCURRENTLY PURSUED! Interview or subpoena Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, Karen Kwiatkowski, and others who know when Bush started talking about Iraq. Start talking again about who might have forged the Niger uranium letter and when the administration knew the info was bogus. We should develop multiple lines of offense so that the issue is not at risk from a narrow, single attack based on one piece of evidence.

There are many many sources saying the same thing as the memo and getting them out there too will help insulate the memo from an attach that is surely coming.

[RobertSeattle]

1. Has anyone ever tried to pin Retired General Franks down?

I love to know if someone asked him WHEN he KNEW Bush wanted him to invade Iraq.

[lonestarnot]

2. attack as they may ... there is now lying out of actual minutes.

[Singular73]

3. Thats the problem

I assume that MSM, among others (Kerry, etc..), are looking for coroberating evidence so they don't get "Rove'd" again.

[seabeyond]

4. absolutely wiggs

i came to that tonight too. dont just go in with one document. they have the stuff available to them to back up that document

[bonzotex]

5. Right on...

The Downing Memo is a nice kicker, but what it reveals is not exactly news. The whole Iraq fiasco needs to be spotlighted. Follow the money and follow the lies. The right wing disinformation and attack machine has to be overwhelmed with inquiries, investigations and truthful accusations so they can't spin out of solitary negative stories.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. Any other cliches

to regale everybody with?

[Nite Owl]

7. We need a tv ad

with all the quotes. Wonder if the corporate media would even air it?

[tmorelli415]

8. Good point, Wiggs!

we want a complete and transparent Congressional investigation of the matter revealed to us by the memo - not a debate over the memo itself.

Maybe we should put together a document that pulls all of the resources we have from the past, along with the memo info. Include Richard Clark, pertinent evidence from 'Uncovered' movie about Iraq, etc. It would definitely have the 'thud' factor if we had all thsi stuff but it would be an undertaking. I'd be happy to work on it if anyone is interested in helping.

[Al-CIAda]

9. PNA fucking C - THAT is a MOTHERLODE of smoking machine guns! n/t

[wiggs]

11. Yep.

The memo is the key to tying all these things together, an opportunity to roll out the PNAC proviso, talk about Bolton, Plame, the UN speech, the crappy adminsitration response to congress IWR conditions, drones hitting the US from Iraq, Ritter and Blix, "potential to pursue WMD related program activities", poor attempt at securing Iraq weapons sites, pulling out UN inspectors, and all the rest.

The memo puts a ton of stuff into proper perspective.

And for those who are willing to go there, it even sheds some light on 9/11...might be the biggest fact fixed around the policy.

[EFerrari]

12. I would like to know who gave the orders for the FBI to discredit

Ritter and Blix.

[hector459]

10. Bingo!! There is a whole chamber of "smoking bullets" in this "smoking gun

eom

[donkeyotay]

13. I'm having bad Rathergate memo flashbacks

It was a classic goper twofer:

1) Put out a questionable but tantalizing memo.
2) Do not deny its authenticity.
3) When used, use it to hang the messenger/reporter.
4) Let that "scandal" completely fog over the original issue.
5) Skate on the original issue and destroy an opponent. Twofer!

I went and checked UK newspapers today, thinking that this memo would be a big issue there with people calling for Blair's head. There's nothing, other than the hint that this was just a dirty political trick connected with their election.

I went back and checked the original story. It says that the documents were shown to "the London Times."

That paper is owned by Murdoch, and then I saw a piece today on Fox covering Kerry's plan to point this memo out to the Senate and media.

Now I'm worried that this is a planned twofer: 1) discredit Kerry and 2) hide the whole issue of lying for war behind the smokescreen of saying this particular charge isn't true.

Folks, there is a ton of evidence that they lied for war. Don't put all the eggs in this basket.

And thanks for posting this, wiggs.

[wiggs]

14. Exactly right

And this is something that Rove has done going back to early Texas days...planting defamatory flyers about his own candidate around town to create sympathy and discredit opponents. Not exactly the same like the AWOL stuff, but goes to show that underhanded tactics will work.

How else can the worst administration with the worst record still be standing?

[LSK]

15. this is not rathergate

Rathergate was covered by the MSM pretty good. This issue has not been covered at all. In addition, I was talking to people from Britian when Downing Street 1st came out and it was a big issue overseas. Blairs party lost big in the election and the only reason he won was because there was no alternative to him running.

[DearAbby]

17. Lets get a photograph and taped conversation of the meeting were Bush

says "Let's take Iraq! I want that sum-bitch Saddam...so what he had nothing to do with 9/11 and terra. I want him!" Yeah thats better.

It is was a Rove plant, the news would be all over this..polls down, a dirty trick about now would seal the Democrats. and this memo would be it...IF IT WAS ROVE. they are awfully quiet. and so is the media that lock-stepped us right behind it.

The Memo proves that Bush planned on Iraq long before telling the American people and Congress, Created intelligence to bring it about, LIED to the American people and Congress. People before have been shouting this, no one paid attention. We have proof that they Stepped up bombings and missions trying to goad Saddam into a fight...that didnt work...they had tried everything, finially they just LIED.

What do you want? A photograph and taped conversation?

[Frederik]

16. This "memo"

already had an impact on the British election and has severely stained Tony Blair's reputation. It was on the front pages of all the British papers, and the Blair adm. did not retaliate because THE MINUTES ARE REAL MINUTES FROM A REAL MEETING

So it's not a "questionable" "memo".

It was THE big issue in British newspapers BEFORE the election, for about two weeks. It did have an impact on support for the Labour party, but not as much as it would have if they voted for Blair directly, which they don't do in the British system. The pro-war Tories, which was the alternative, would have been no better anyway. Blair is expected to step down next year, because he has little "political capital" left, these minutes being the last nail in the coffin.

The elections being over, and Blair being expected to step down soon, there's not much point in calling for his head.

Do you think the London Times published the minutes on May 1 in order to discredit John Kerry, and that the British government is in on it somehow, damaging their own reputation as part of the game? A spokesman for Blair said the minutes were "nothing new", trying to downplay its significance, but did not dispute their authenticity.

[wiggs]

18. Not saying

I'm not saying the memo is forged...I'm saying that there are multiple ways to cast doubt on the meeting, meaning of the memo (remember the August PDB was just "historical" in nature), the impartiality of the writer of the minutes, etc. Perhaps another memo will surface claiming the opposite...I don't know, but I'm just saying there are a lot of other tools to use in this effort.

[Frederik]

20. Sure, I agree with you there

But I see these minutes as the smoking gun to get the ball rolling, so to speak...

[donkeyotay]

22. I'm not disputing the minutes, either. But it makes sense to use it ALL

The Office of Special Plans and the evidence on stovepiping.
The intelligence leaks disputing the way the administration framed it.
Fer instance, the centrifuge issue, that our own department of energy disputed.
The NYTs being used repeatedly to plant false stories.
The WMD that didn't exist.
The links to 9/11 that didn't exist... and so on.

You're right Wiggs, why not keep the wider frame JUST IN CASE the UK Minutes take an unexpected turn.

[donkeyotay]

21. Your post is fairly reassuring to me... but

And I hope I'm just being paranoid, but as to Blair and Bush in cahoots? Well, I don't think that's a stretch. And here's a link (for pay, so I didn't read the whole thing) but it makes one think of Carlyle (sp?) and how I don't think these defense/intelligence people really have a country, just a profit motive.

snip>>>

Former spy boss Dearlove goes on payroll of the firm with 'no names'
By Francis Elliott, Deputy Political Editor
22 May 2005


It's a powerful network with analysts worldwide, and one notable mission is in Libya. Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6, appears to found a home from home with his first business appointment as a "senior advisor" to the Monitor Group.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=640407

I might not be up to speed on this issue, but I am troubled that the seed of this is that a Murdoch paper was just "shown" the documents. we don't know specifically who, they haven't vouched for authenticity. All it would take is for someone like Dearlove to say, "those are a forgery" and it's off to the races.

[wiggs]

19. Here's a 2002 article that reinforces memo

From Will Pitt's PDA blog (good work and thanks):


Oct. 8, 2002, 10:47AM

Some administration officials expressing misgivings on Iraq
By WARREN P. STROBEL and JONATHAN S. LANDAY
Knight-Ridder Tribune News

WASHINGTON -- While President Bush marshals congressional and international support for invading Iraq, a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war.

These officials charge that administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses -- including distorting his links to the al-Qaida terrorist network -- have overstated the amount of international support for attacking Iraq and have downplayed the potential repercussions of a new war in the Middle East.

They charge that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary.

"Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books," said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

A dozen other officials echoed his views in interviews.

snip

There are many other sources of the same thing....get all of it out and on the table. All together, each reinforces the other and any one piece of evidence is less vulnerable.

COME ONE BABY...GET LEGS!!!