USA Today: ‘Downing Street memo' gets fresh attention - MAJOR BREAK!

[paineinthearse]

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20050608/a_memo08.art.htm

‘Downing Street memo' gets fresh attention
By Mark Memmott
USA TODAY

A simmering controversy over whether American media have ignored a secret British memo about how President Bush built his case for war with Iraq bubbled over into the White House on Tuesday. At a late afternoon news conference, Reuters correspondent Steve Holland asked Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair about a memo that's been widely written about and discussed in Europe but less so in the USA. It was the most attention paid by the media in the USA so far to the “Downing Street memo,” first reported on May 1 by The Sunday Times of London. The memo is said by some of the president's sharpest critics, such as Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, to be strong evidence that Bush decided to go to war and then looked for evidence to support his decision.

The Sunday Times said the memo is the minutes of a meeting that British Prime Minister Tony Blair had with some of his top intelligence and foreign policy aides on July 23, 2002, at No. 10 Downing Street, the prime minister's official residence. The story said the memo indicates that Blair was told by the head of Britain's MI6 intelligence service that in 2002, the Bush administration was selectively choosing evidence that supported its case for going to war and ignoring anything to the contrary. The war began in March 2003. “Intelligence and facts were being fixed” by the Bush administration “around” a policy that saw military action “as inevitable,” the newspaper quoted from the memo. “There's nothing farther from the truth,” Bush told reporters as Blair stood at his side. “Both of us didn't want to use our military,” Bush said in response to a question about the memo. “It was our last option.” Blair added, “The facts were not being ‘fixed' in any shape or form at all.” Bush said that at the time the memo was written, no decision had been made about going to war. He pointed out that it was written two months before he went to the United Nations and asked for a Security Council resolution calling on Saddam Hussein to give up his weapons of mass destruction or face “serious consequences.”

The Sunday Times' May 1 memo story, which broke just four days before Britain's national elections, caused a sensation in Europe. American media reacted more cautiously. The New York Times wrote about the memo May 2, but didn't mention until its 15th paragraph that the memo stated U.S. officials had “fixed” intelligence and facts. Knight Ridder Newspapers distributed a story May 6 that said the memo “claims President Bush … was determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policy.” The Los Angeles Times wrote about the memo May 12, The Washington Post followed on May 15 and The New York Times revisited the news on May 20. None of the stories appeared on the newspapers' front pages. Several other major media outlets, including the evening news programs on ABC, CBS and NBC, had not said a word about the document before Tuesday. Today marks USA TODAY's first mention.

<snip>

Ombudsmen at both The New York Times and The Washington Post have been critical of their newspapers for not covering the story more aggressively. USA TODAY chose not to publish anything about the memo before today for several reasons, says Jim Cox, the newspaper's senior assignment editor for foreign news. “We could not obtain the memo or a copy of it from a reliable source,” Cox says. “There was no explicit confirmation of its authenticity from (Blair's office). And it was disclosed four days before the British elections, raising concerns about the timing.”

====================================================================

Originally posted as "Looking for USA Today article related to corporate media coverage of DSM". Edited to add the USA Today article.

CSPAN Journal read an article in today's paper that

1. Mentioned the 3 major 6PM network news shows for the FIRST TIME mentioned the DSM. It was as a result of a question "Steve" asked at yesterday's brief *-Blair press conference.

2. The editor explained the reason USA Today had not given it any ink is that they
A. Could not obtain a copy and verity its authenticity, and
B. Publishing an unverified document before the British elections could have had an adverse impact. (Duh, didn't the Guardian publish it first on May 1?)

The only USA Today piece available on-line is http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-06-07-g8-africa_x.htm All it says about DSM is "Also at the news conference, Bush and Blair were asked about the "Downing Street memo," reported on May 1 by The Sunday Times of London. The Sunday Times story said the memo indicates that the head of Britain's MI6 intelligence service told Blair that in 2002 the Bush administration was choosing evidence to support its case for going to war with Iraq. The leaders denied that any facts were skewed to make the case."

I believe the host mentioned the article is on page A8.

If anyone has a hard copy, can you post the relevant passage(s)?

[wurzel]

1. This memo proves two things.

This memo proves Bush lied. The refusal to address this memo by the media proves it's bias toward Bush.

[blm]

12. Exactly. And they didn't squeak until Kerry pointed the finger at THEM

last week.

Which shows that Democrats have to BLAME THE MEDIA when appropriate because they won't report a damn thing against Bush unless they are FORCED to by them and by US.

[Spectral]

40. That explains the presence of the "Swift Boaters" now

They are attacking Kerry's credibility and forcing him to defend himself and losing DSM in the process.

[second edition]

63. You are correct on both accounts-Kerry and the media! n/t

[Singular73]

19. Pure intimidation of the media...

They wont report anything anymore -- they are afraid of getting "Newsweeked".

[Tux]

32. BBC style

I think we need to copy the BBC model of broadcasting. Let it be in the interest of the public and not politicians. It'd cost more but at least we'd have some control over it, politicians couldn't mess with it like they can CPS, and we'd get real journalism and better shows. Just how can it be done though?

[Gloria]

60. Wasn't PBS supposed to be in the "interest of the public" once upon

a time????

[Tux]

61. Yes

But it has ties to gov. I say break all ties and make it a public corporation like BBC. We control it and no one else.

[FreedomAngel82]

33. Yep

Liberal media my ass. If the media was liberal it would've been all over Bush since May 1st. We could be having hearings by now I think.

[MsUSA]

43. Or the liberal media would have been all over the fiasco in the

Florida 2000 election and in Ohio & Florida's 2004 election. Liberal media my arse.

[flpoljunkie]

2. Here is the link to the story in today's USA Today.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-07-bush-blair_x.htm

'Downing Street memo' gets fresh attention

By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY

A simmering controversy over whether American media have ignored a secret British memo about how President Bush built his case for war with Iraq bubbled over into the White House on Tuesday.

At a late afternoon news conference, Reuters correspondent Steve Holland asked Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair about a memo that's been widely written about and discussed in Europe but less so in the USA.

It was the most attention paid by the media in the USA so far to the "Downing Street memo," first reported on May 1 by The Sunday Times of London. The memo is said by some of the president's sharpest critics, such as Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, to be strong evidence that Bush decided to go to war and then looked for evidence to support his decision.

The Sunday Times said the memo is the minutes of a meeting that British Prime Minister Tony Blair had with some of his top intelligence and foreign policy aides on July 23, 2002, at 10 Downing Street, the prime minister's official residence. The story said the memo indicates that Blair was told by the head of Britain's MI6 intelligence service that in 2002, the Bush administration was selectively choosing evidence that supported its case for going to war and ignoring anything to the contrary. The war began in March 2003.

"Intelligence and facts were being fixed" by the Bush administration "around" a policy that saw military action "as inevitable," the newspaper quoted from the memo.

more...

[Alizaryn]

42. Email the article to show

interest in the memo coverage. My understanding is that they keep tabs on the # of times a story is emailed.

[flpoljunkie]

3. Article ends with their utterly lame excuse why they had not covered it.

USA TODAY chose not to publish anything about the memo before today for several reasons, says Jim Cox, the newspaper's senior assignment editor for foreign news. "We could not obtain the memo or a copy of it from a reliable source," Cox says. "There was no explicit confirmation of its authenticity from (Blair's office). And it was disclosed four days before the British elections, raising concerns about the timing."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-07-bush-blair_x.htm

[knight_of_the_star]

4. It raises a legit concern

But that they are waiting for confirmation from Bliar's office is a blatant dodge. Bliar wouldn't give confirmation on something that damning.

[paineinthearse]

5. Poppycock

Their reason for not publishing was not good journalism, it was to shield * and hope the issue would fade away.

The blogosphere insured that did not happen!

[Imagevision]

21. I totally agree, they simply figured the DSM would fade away like

other relevant questions and scenario's of this rogue administration.

[Pacifist Patriot]

26. At least they didn't fall back on that ridiculous..

"it's not a primary source" excuse.

I agree. Very lame.

1. Pick up the phone and call the London Times.
2. You're idiots if you think Blair is going to comment on it.
3. The timing of British elections has nothing to do with investigating the minutes from a distinctly American perspective.

You were lazy and covering Bush's ass, just admit it.

[stickdog]

55. Has Blair directly denied its authenticity? Well, what does that tell you,

Einstein?

[kentuck]

6. Perhaps my memory is faltering but....

as I recall, Bush went to the UN at the urging of the British, because they wanted to go that route before any military operations. Bush was ready to invade without going to the UN. He used the time before the UN presentation to build up the forces in Kuwait for the ultimate invasion. In fact, Bush was "persuaded" by the British to go to the UN, as I recall the reporting.

[Al-CIAda]

8. Yes, you are correct -but moreover, once it was clear that

the UN was going to REJECT his lies, Bu$hco pulled out w/o going for a UN vote.

So, until Blair begged Bush to go to the UN once more, he had been in 'war president' mode. Blair forced him, so he fained a 'cards on the table' moment...but he backed down before it was revealed he had a losing hand.

[Spazito]

9. In the BBC video, it is clear Blair had already agreed to join

bush in an invasion of Iraq BEFORE they went to the UN. Blair wanted a UN resolution only to make the already decided-upon invasion legal because, unlike the US, Britain is a signator to the ICC and, therefore, open to persecution of war crimes unless it was 'sanctioned' by the UN.

It was very clear from that video there was NEVER any intent to divert from the original decision to invade Iraq, the only difference between Blair and bush was that Blair wanted 'cover' from the UN and bush went along only to appease Blair, imo.

The manipulation of the facts was as much to hoodwink their citizens as it was to try and get the UN to provide 'cover'.

[ellenfl]

44. kind of explains why bushco dumped the icc. eom

[sandnsea]

11. UN 1441 in Nov 2002

The UN voted to stay seized of the Iraq matter, get inspectors back in, have Iraq document its weapons programs, etc, and that there would be serious consequence if Iraq didn't comply. Bush wouldn't go back to the UN in 2003, but he did in 2002. DSM proves he manipulated the UN too, which is why he wants somebody like Bolton in there to help do his bidding in the future.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement

[kentuck]

13. And Bush back-slapped the UN and refused further negotiation...

with UN or anyone else and made the decision to invade, once all the troops were in place? Is that correct? I appreciate the comments above and wonder why the MSM doesn't report in the same perspective?

[sandnsea]

17. In 2003, yes

I was simply reminding the poster that Bush did get a new resolution from the UN. Not having our facts straight isn't helpful. In fact, I think 1441 is more helpful to prove how far Bush is willing to go with his new Bush Doctrine of Preemptive Wars. That's the real issue, the one we need to be hammering away at. Especially since he's started making yammering noises about democracy in Central America. Every one of their free market extravaganzas has failed, from S America to Saipan to Samoa to Iraq. How in the world does the disaster on the Marianas help spread the idea of freedom, democracy and market economies? They're lunatics and their maniacal plans don't work.

[Vickers]

7. I think the whole Dan Rather thing has everybody gun shy

Not excusing them entirely, but I think they are checking things a little more carefully.

The upside to that?

The more they check, the more slime they will see attached to all facets of this regime.

Silver lining, baby!

[candice]

18. Dan Rather "memo" a Karl Rove tactic to intimidate the media

...make a fake copy of what would have been in the real memo and get it out to the media. After the media reports on it, slam them on the veracity of the memo (a controlled leak), which detracts from the truth of Bush's "service." Stop the investigation into the affair right then by attacking the reporter.

Didn't Rove try that with the fake photo of Bush dancing naked on a bar counter during his run for governor in Texas? That was enough to stop the chatter about Bush's substance abuses.

Since all real information has to come through a planted Deep Throat now (the White House itself is busy with Jeff Gannon-like questions and propaganda), even Deep Throat has been co-opted. Karl Rove has a "beautiful mind." Too bad he ever fell for that "sexy walk" when he first laid eyes on Shrub. (According to Time Magazine, Rove regales everyone with his first meeting...it changed his life and the country's.

[tallahasseedem]

57. Someone needs to get a hold of Gannon....

and somehow get him to spill the beans. I would love to know what he does. Over 100 visits to the White House, even overnight. Holy Moly! There is good stuff there.

[warrens]

10. “There was no explicit confirmation of its authenticity from (Blair)

Gimme a freaking break. That Blair hadn't denied it was all they needed. This is so lame.

What I would be worried about is that it might be another Rove trap. And I bet that is what they mean, but won't say.

[Catrina]

14. The only way to answer

all the questions now surrounding the minutes/memo, is to put all those involved under oath. If Bush and Blair have done nothing wrong, they should be asking to be placed under oath themselves so they can clear the matter up. Wasn't that the RW theory regarding Clinton, eg?

If the press is worried about being 'Dan Rathered', all they have to do is to report on the controversy, stating that 'many believe it raises some serious questions', and ask, without concluding anything, when there might be hearings on the matter.

[Zen Democrat]

22. Like the WP wouldn't have gone with Deep Throat unless Nixon confirmed?

[KansDem]

56. "That Blair hadn't denied it was all they needed"

Perhaps the staff at USAToday should watch "All the President's Men" and particularly the part about confirming something by not denying it.

If I recall correctly, Robert Redford* said "I'll count to ten...If you don't stop me, I will accept that as a confirmation the story is true..."

_______
I forgot what character he was playing.

[PurityOfEssence]

15. Let's just talk about the quibbling with the phrase "fixed around"

Fine; as Churchill famously said, we're two countries divided by a common language.

What this article tries to do is make the British wording seem more odious by an American interpretation. Claiming that the predominant connotation of the phrase in England would mean "bolting around", or "affixing something" to the general contention, whereas to an American's ears it would sound like the act of a political "fixer" or essential distortion. So what? Even if this is true, the British interpretation would be fastening on some kind of cloak of justification to an already determined plan. Since the VERY PREMISE of the initiatives against Iraq were to use diplomatic means first, strapping on some kind of ginned-up cover stories is effectively the same as cooking the books.

This is semantic greasiness of the worst sort. Even if they're merely affixing a cloak of propriety to an already determined--and misrepresented--plan to go to war, they're still fudging the whole thing. To my ears, it still sounds like they were cherry-picking whatever would serve their fearmongering purposes, quashing anything that didn't, and lying about their intent to use peaceful means.

This is revolting.

[wiggs]

23. It is revolting and it will work to a degree just like always

It becomes harder for the administration to discredit and ignore the minutes the more that opposition leaders and the media bring out corroborating information from all kinds of other sources.

If we start quibbling about words, we've lost again.

Bring out the big guns...lots of reinforcing information out there that doesn't need to be rehashed here again.

The oppostiion party has been lousy at taking winning issues and discussing them on appropriate turf. I would like to believe that this one will be different...so far I'm not encouraged by everyone's determination to ignore all the other evidence (of WMD lying and deceipt, of going after Iraq even before 9/11, etc) and focus on the memo.

[al bupp]

45. Good points, POE & wiggs

I was just about to mention the graph near the end of the story which makes this apparently reasonable assertion about differing understandings of the phrase, "fixing around".

I think the way we should read this is as a message to the faithful about how to try and frame the issue so as to defuse it, as POE says turn attention away from the essential questions.

I agree w/ wiggs that the right way to counter this is draw in as much of the corroborating evidence as possible. If taken in isolation, it will be relatively easy for people to argue for dismissing the minutes based on arguments about semantic interpretations.

[Supersedeas]

16. the MEMO in contaxt of Richard Clark/Joe Wilson/John Bolton

when will the Media draw these pieces together.

[AuntiBush]

20. NYTIMES: Go To http://johnconyers.com - A Congressman!

What more creditability do that BA$tards need!?!?!?

Wussy CIA's!

How do you beg Deep Throat 2 to come out?

[paineinthearse]

24. NYT's Elisabeth Bumiller

See related post, you'll want to :argh: (of course, I would never incite without offering a solution).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1838385

[fooj]

25. Is there a reason they always say "the so-called DSM"???

It drives me crazy!:banghead:

[Pacifist Patriot]

27. It's annoying, but true.

The document is not technically entitled the Downing Street Memo/Minutes so it is correct to refer to it as the "so-called" or the "dubbed" or the "commonly referred to..."

Tedious and totally unnecessary.

[Imagevision]

28. Honor our dead - demand the truth! what does this say about america?

[babylonsister]

29. Thank you again, pita! I just sent USA Today some

positive feedback and encouragement to start an investigation. May not help, but couldn't hurt!

[Toots]

30. I wonder to whom he was referring when he made this statement

" Publishing an unverified document before the British elections could have had an adverse impact"
An adverse impact to whom. Certainly not the voters. They need all the information possible to make an informed decision so who would be effected adversly? Blair that's who.

[understandinglife]

31. Thank you for posting. Other coverage summarized here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3811785&mesg_id=3811785

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[Hissyspit]

34. They were blatantly LYING all through that press conference yesterday.

It made the hair stand up on the back of my neck. It was utterly unfailingly CREEPY to watch that, knowing what I/we know. They have been lying all the time, but to see them do it so blatantly and together in front of the whole world was surreal.

[Spectral]

35. The British media certainly had it

But maybe they are not a reliable source?

[Hissyspit]

36. I would like to see more now about the Canary Islands meetings...

with Bush and Blair right before the war. (It was the Canary Islands right?) The meetings were supposedly about last-minue diplomacy but were clearly about final planning for the war/propaganda. I was never more disgusted by the U.S. MSM when they reported it as diplomacy - the White House talking points - when anyone with half a brain could see what they were up to... the fait accompli.

Would love to see minutes from those meetings.

[Spectral]

39. I'll second that

:)

[Maraya1969]

37. Can you even imagine what the families of our dead soldiers

are going to think when they realize their father, mother, daughter, son, uncle, aunt, cousin died because they followed orders that were lies?

Can you bring a civil suit on the president?????

[LunaC]

38. I wrote and asked them ONE question

On January 26, 1998, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, Richard Armitage, and John Bolton (among others) signed a letter to President Clinton issued by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) urging an attack on Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power. All of the aforementioned signators were elevated into the Bush Administration hierarchy immediately after the 2000 Election.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm


It is obvious that the PNAC-populated White House intended to attack Iraq years before the actual event.

Why isn't the PNAC policy being connected with the Downing Street Minutes?


For further details on the PNAC see:
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/PNAC_101

[Spectral]

41. That is a perfect question

And they will never answer it

[LunaC]

46. But they'll know that WE know! n/t

[Coexist]

47. You go!

Maybe someone will cover it eventually

[Disturbed]

49. The Bush Regime LIED!

"Bush was "persuaded" by the British to go to the UN." Yes. Also, Colin Powell pressed for that then went to the UN and lied and lied.

The Amerikan Corp. Media has mostly ignored the DSM because they have been complicit in the illegal Iraq Invasion.

[Dr Fate]

48. If "star" Democrats like kerry, Dean, Hillary etc would only speak up.

Then the media would have no excuse to not cover this.

I blame Dean, Kerry, Hillary, Reid, Obama, etc. for "playing it safe."

They have access to the media, but are too frightened to speak up and turn this into a story.

[blm]

53. Kerry sent a statement yesterday, press didn't include it in their reports

THE SMOKING GUN?
Kerry, Bush, and the Downing Street memo
BY DAN KENNEDY

<snip>

In a statement e-mailed to the Phoenix on Tuesday, Kerry spokesman Setti Warren said, "Senator Kerry believes every American deserves a thorough explanation of the Downing Street memo. The Administration and the Washington Republicans who control Congress insult Americans by refusing to answer even the most basic questions raised in this memo about pre-war intelligence and planning for the aftermath of war. That’s unacceptable, especially with the lives of America’s sons and daughters on the line. John Kerry will demand answers in the Senate. Stay tuned."

[Dr Fate]

54. It's merely a "release"- but it is a start.

I would prefer an appearance in front of cameras, or an interview to another "letter" or "release"- but I'll sit back for another day and see what else happens.

[laugle]

50. If we can start sinking Bush,

the media will follow. It always happens. They are like sharks to a piece of meat!! You can already see pubs not giving bush his way on everything. They smell blood!

[Ksec]

51. Keep pounding !! Dont let up the pressure !!

This is proof of what we already knew, but were accused of being antiAmerican over.

Dont stop. Keep pressuring . We will be vindicated.

[Tom Rinaldo]

52. Story is on Yahoo's home page. Rate it up!

It's showing on the home page: http://www.yahoo.com/

but not inside when you open up the news page. This needs to be rated up!

[Fire Walk With Me]

58. Bin Laden irony alert!

"it was disclosed four days before the British elections, raising concerns about the timing.”

Just like a videotape from our favorite boogie man! BOO! Vote for Bush!

[Spectral]

59. Oh yeah! Interesting how Bin Laden shows up at certain times

Hmmm...

[Vinca]

62. Why does it seem the "story" is turning into the nonreporting of the memo

rather than the memo itself???? The media is twisted, but at least its making print/air one way or another.

[Pryderi]

64. DSM won't have a "major break", until it's on the front page.