Downing Street Memo - No Smoking Gun according Wash. Post

[mikelewis]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/10/AR2005061001705.html

Although it is flattering to be thought personally responsible for allowing a proven war criminal to remain in office, in the end I don't buy the fuss. Nevertheless, I am enjoying it, as an encouraging sign of the revival of the left. Developing a paranoid theory and promoting it to the very edge of national respectability takes a certain amount of ideological self-confidence. It takes a critical mass of citizens with extreme views and the time and energy to obsess about them. It takes a promotional infrastructure and the widely shared self-discipline to settle on a story line, disseminate it and stick to it.


It takes, in short, what Hillary Clinton once called a vast conspiracy. The right has enjoyed one for years. Even moderate and reasonable right-wingers have enjoyed the presence of a mass of angry people even further right. This overhang of extremists makes the moderates appear more reasonable. It pulls the center of politics, where the media try to be and where compromises on particular issues end up, in a rightward direction. Listening to extreme views on your own side is soothing even if you would never express them and may not even believe them yourself.

So, cheers for the Downing Street Memo. But what does it say? It's a report on a meeting of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and some aides on July 23, 2002. The key passage summarizes "recent talks in Washington" by the head of British foreign intelligence (identified, John Le Carre-style, simply as "C"). C reported that "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. . . . There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

C's focus on the dog that didn't bark -- the lack of discussion about the aftermath of war -- was smart and prescient. But even on its face, the memo is not proof that Bush had decided on war. It says that war is "now seen as inevitable" by "Washington." That is, people other than Bush had concluded, based on observation, that he was determined to go to war. There is no claim of even fourth-hand knowledge that he had actually declared this intention. Even if "Washington" meant actual administration decision makers, rather than the usual freelance chatterboxes, C is saying only that these people believe that war is how events will play out.

--------------

[ixion]

1. spin, spin, spin all you want

but it doesn't change the TRUTH! :grr:

[forgethell]

8. But the TRUTH must be supported

by some kind of evidence, first-hand testimony, something, or we will have another Dan Rather situation where we wind up with egg of our faces. I smell the sly hand of Karl Rove behind this, and we will be foolish to push too far publicly without some strong evidence behind it. But we should also continue to look for the evidence.

[gratuitous]

9. Continue to look for evidence? Naaaaaah!

See, when you're the Amazing Kinznak, you can read a three year old memo, put on your turban with the flashy paste jewelry, and instantly divine that when the memo says Washington now sees war as inevitable, you can confidently state that this is a gloss on third- or fourth-hand information, not based in any sort of objective reality. Independent of all other indications to the contrary, the Amazing Kinznak knows that this bald statement hardly points a finger at the corrupt Bush administration, which never, ever shades the facts or tilts the discussion or frames the issue in a way that would mislead the public. Even after a public statement by the Secretary of Defense that the administration would do exactly that.

However, I will never underestimate the ability of this corrupt administration to seize on some unimportant or unrelated detail and blow it up into the Big Story, and the complicity of the major media to swallow whatever bullshit they're peddling and call it filet mignon.

[forgethell]

21. Exactly the point.

The evidence will have to be, well, unimpeachable

[ixion]

18. yellowcake: lie; aluminium tubes usage: lie; WMD capability: lie

these are all proven.

How much evidence is needed? All they needed to convene a grand jury against Clinton were the taped phone conversations of a bimbo.

[forgethell]

22. I don't know, but

I don't see any great groundswell of support for impeachment, so obviously the public has its doubts.

On edit: For all of the above that you have listed, the administration can say that the intelligence was faulty, they believed it, hence it is not a lie. And they are correct, at least if they honestly believed it. A mistake is not a lie.

So the question to be proven is that they didn't believe it. If we can prove that, we might have a case. If we can't, I don't see it happening.

[rodeodance]

2. this one person's opine!! editorial from yesterday.

No Smoking Gun

By Michael Kinsley

Sunday, June 12, 2005; Page B09

[mountainvue]

10. self delete.

[katinmn]

3. The writer is editorial and opinion editor of the Los Angeles Times.

Amazing! What a sell-out.

Seems he's been "caught" promoting Bush's lies all these years and this is his pathetic way of ditching criticism. Americans (lefty ones) are all wrong and misguided, eh Kingsley? Ha!).

Yes, Mr. Kingsley, you're busted and we don't need your brand of journalism. Why don't you go write newsletters for Halliburton? I bet the pay is 10 times better than what you're drawing now. Or maybe Halliburton is already paying you?

[dweller]

4. here ya go WAPO

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/11809605.htm


dp

edit: and just in case you are not convinced, here's more.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/7132720.htm

[JohnyCanuck]

5. Fuckin media whores shure have balls of brass. Got to give 'em that.

But even on its face, the memo is not proof that Bush had decided on war. It says that war is "now seen as inevitable" by "Washington." That is, people other than Bush had concluded, based on observation, that he was determined to go to war. There is no claim of even fourth-hand knowledge that he had actually declared this intention.

In the latest sign of a troubled American democracy, a large majority of U.S. citizens now say they wouldn’t mind if no weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq, though it was George W. Bush’s chief rationale for war. Americans also don’t seem to mind that Bush appears to have deceived them for months when he claimed he hadn’t made up his mind about invading Iraq.

As he marched the nation to war, Bush presented himself as a Christian man of peace who saw war only as a last resort. But in a remarkable though little noted disclosure, Time magazine reported that in March 2002 – a full year before the invasion – Bush outlined his real thinking to three U.S. senators, “Fuck Saddam,” Bush said. “We’re taking him out.”

Time actually didn’t report the quote exactly that way. Apparently not to offend readers who admire Bush’s moral clarity, Time printed the quote as “F--- Saddam. We’re taking him out.”

Bush offered his pithy judgment after sticking his head in the door of a White House meeting between National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and three senators who had been discussing strategies for dealing with Iraq through the United Nations. The senators laughed uncomfortably at Bush’s remark, Time reported. (Time story posted March 23, 2003)


www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2835.ht

[harrison]

6. It has nothing to do with the left or the right, but the truth.

And the truth is that the intelligence was thin and that the American people had to have something to sell them on the war. You know, it just amazes me that people like Kinsley can in good conscience write this shit. Thousands dead and wounded. Good God Kinsley, where are your scruples?

[Brotherjohn]

7. That's all besides the point. I think we've been mistaken to label it...

... as a "Smoking Gun". It IS a person's characterization of a several people's opinions.

But it is also the latest (and the most stunning perhaps only because it's in black and white, in a high level government document) in a LONG line of evidence showing that the Bush administration did indeed do everything its critics contend: use war as a first resort, manufacture a reason for that war, and mislead Congress and the American people.

It should be used as a tool to put all of the now accumulated evidence into that context.

[wiggs]

13. Exactly right.

Aside from that though, to dispute the WP point, there's no reason to fix the intelligence if you haven't decided to go to war.

[racaulk]

11. Geez, I can't take the hypocrisy!

A quote from the article:

"It takes a promotional infrastructure and the widely shared self-discipline to settle on a story line, disseminate it and stick to it."

That pretty much sums up the entire rationale for going to war with Iraq, now doesn't it? Geez, what an asshat!

[mikelewis]

12. The fact that the intelligence was being fixed around...

the policy makes the Downing Street Memo the Smoking Gun. It means that he lied us into war. It is irrelevant if he saw the possible war as inevitable, the fact that they were skewing the evidence means that the arguement for war was bogus. That makes the Downing Street Memo a very large smoking gun. It's verifiable proof that he the administration lied. Plain and simple.

[Supersedeas]

24. Bingo: it's an INTELLIGENCE memo--changing the subject to 'intentions'

does not one any good except maybe for the conscienence of journalist who support the Neo-Con regime.

[TahitiNut]

14. (nevermind)

(deleted)

[Village Idiot]

15. There is AN IMPORTANT SHRED of truth in this opinion piece:

"It takes, in short, what Hillary Clinton once called a vast conspiracy. The right has enjoyed one for years. Even moderate and reasonable right-wingers have enjoyed the presence of a mass of angry people even further right. This overhang of extremists makes the moderates appear more reasonable. It pulls the center of politics, where the media try to be and where compromises on particular issues end up, in a rightward direction. Listening to extreme views on your own side is soothing even if you would never express them and may not even believe them yourself."

This is what I pray that howard Dean is doing - setting himself up as a left-leaning foil for more moderate Democrats to help bring the Senate and (someday?) the government a little further back from the brink.

[cindyw]

16. I wonder if he wrote this before the 67 new memos were leaked?

The new ones make it clear this not the opinion of staffers, but that Bush himself was planning for war.

[Norquist Nemesis]

17. okeydokey! Let's review...

Here's a press conference with Bush and Blair on April 6, 2002 where they were specifically asked about military intervention in Iraq. I looked this up because a report stated that one of the DSMs was prepared for an upcoming meeting between Bush and Blair to take place on April 8, 2002 in Crawford. (I guess they moved the meeting date up a couple of days.)

entire remarks are here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020406-3.html

Here's where the Iraq questions began:
"Q Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: I don't know you well enough, Adam, to be able to sing your praises. (Laughter.)

Q Thank you. Mr. President, you have yet to build an international coalition for military action against Iraq. Has the violence in the Middle East thwarted your efforts? And Prime Minister Blair, has Bush convinced you on the need for a military action against Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: Adam, the Prime Minister and I, of course, talked about Iraq. We both recognize the danger of a man who's willing to kill his own people harboring and developing weapons of mass destruction. This guy, Saddam Hussein, is a leader who gasses his own people, goes after people in his own neighborhood with weapons of -- chemical weapons. He's a man who obviously has something to hide.

He told the world that he would show us that he would not develop weapons of mass destruction and yet, over the past decade, he has refused to do so. And the Prime Minister and I both agree that he needs to prove that he isn't developing weapons of mass destruction.

I explained to the Prime Minister that the policy of my government is the removal of Saddam and that all options are on the table.

THE PRIME MINISTER: I can say that any sensible person looking at the position of Saddam Hussein and asking the question, would the region, the world, and not least the ordinary Iraqi people be better off without the regime of Saddam Hussein, the only answer anyone could give to that question would be, yes.

Now, how we approach this, this is a matter for discussion. This is a matter for considering all the options. But a situation where he continues to be in breach of all the United Nations resolutions, refusing to allow us to assess, as the international community have demanded, whether and how he is developing these weapons of mass destruction. Doing nothing in those circumstances is not an option, so we consider all the options available.

But the President is right to draw attention to the threat of weapons of mass destruction. That threat is real. How we deal with it, that's a matter we discuss. But that the threat exists and we have to deal with it, that seems to me a matter of plain common sense.

Q Prime Minister, we've heard the President say what his policy is directly about Saddam Hussein, which is to remove him. That is the policy of the American administration. Can I ask you whether that is now the policy of the British government? And can I ask you both if it is now your policy to target Saddam Hussein, what has happened to the doctrine of not targeting heads of states and leaving countries to decide who their leaders should be, which is one of the principles which applied during the Gulf War?

THE PRIME MINISTER: Well, John, you know it has always been our policy that Iraq would be a better place without Saddam Hussein. I don't think anyone can be in any doubt about that, for all the reasons I gave earlier. And you know reasons to do with weapons of mass destruction also deal with the appalling brutality and repression of his own people. But how we now proceed in this situation, how we make sure that this threat that is posed by weapons of mass destruction is dealt with, that is a matter that is open. And when the time comes for taking those decisions, we will tell people about those decisions.

But you cannot have a situation in which he carries on being in breach of the U.N. resolutions, and refusing to allow us the capability of assessing how that weapons of mass destruction capability is being advanced, even though the international community has made it absolutely clear that he should do so.

Now, as I say, how we then proceed from there, that is a matter that is open for us.

THE PRESIDENT: Maybe I should be a little less direct and be a little more nuanced, and say we support regime change.

Q That's a change though, isn't it, a change in policy?

THE PRESIDENT: No, it's really not. Regime change was the policy of my predecessor, as well.

Q And your father?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I can't remember that far back. (Laughter.) It's certainly the policy of my administration. I think regime change sounds a lot more civil, doesn't it? The world would be better off without him. Let me put it that way, though. And so will the future.

See, the worst thing that can happen is to allow this man to abrogate his promise, and hook up with a terrorist network. And then all of a sudden you've got one of these shadowy terrorist networks that have got an arsenal at their disposal, which could create a situation in which nations down the road get blackmailed. We can't let it happen, we just can't let it happen. And, obviously, the Prime Minister is somebody who understands this clearly. And that's why I appreciate dealing with him on the issue. And we've got close consultations going on, and we talk about it all the time. And he's got very good advice on the subject, and I appreciate that. "

<snip on questions focusing on I/P affairs and Arafat>

Q Present company doubtless excepted, one could think of quite a lot of world leaders the world might be better off without.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you for the exception.

Q And I'm not sure necessarily whether the Prime Minister would agree with you on Yasser Arafat. But can I ask you, I think what Europeans have a problem with about expanding any war on terror to Iraq is linkage. They can see a linkage between al Qaeda and Afghanistan. They can't see a direct linkage to Saddam Hussein.

Would you accept that there isn't a direct linkage and how, therefore --

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I wouldn't accept that. But can't they see linkage between somebody who's willing to murder his own people and the danger of him possessing weapons of mass destruction, which he said he would not develop? I see the linkage between somebody who is willing to go into his own neighborhood and use chemical weapons in order to keep himself in power, and at the same time develop a weapon that could be aimed at Europe, aimed at Israel, aimed anywhere, in order to affect foreign policy through his -- you know, I can't imagine people not seeing the threat and not holding Saddam Hussein accountable for what he said he would do, and we're going to do that.

History has called us into action. The thing I admire about this Prime Minister is he doesn't need a poll or a focus group to convince him the difference between right and wrong. And it's refreshing to see leaders speak with moral clarity when it comes to the defense of freedom.

I intend to speak with clarity when it comes to freedom, and I know Prime Minister Tony Blair does, as well. And we will hold Saddam Hussein accountable for broken promises. And that's what a lot of our discussion over there on Prairie Chapel Ranch has been about. And, other than eating lunch, which we're fixing to go do, we're going to continue our discussions.

THE PRIME MINISTER: You talked about no linkage there. There is a reason why United Nations resolutions were passed, nine of them, calling upon him to stop developing weapons of mass destruction. I mean, there is a reason why weapons inspectors went in there, and that is because we know he has been developing these weapons.

We know that those weapons constitute a threat. Three days after the 11th of September when I made my first statement to the House of Commons in Britain, I specifically said then this issue of weapons of mass destruction has got to be dealt with. And the reason for that is that what happened on the 11th of September was a call to us to make sure that we didn't repeat the mistake of allowing groups to develop destructive capability and hope that, at some point in time, they weren't going to use it. They develop that destructive capability for a reason.

Now, we've made it very clear to you how we then proceed and how we deal with this. All the options are open. And I think after the 11th of September, this President showed that he proceeds in a calm and a measured and a sensible, but in a firm way. Now, that is precisely what we need in this situation, too.

And, as I say to you, never forget he knows perfectly well what the international community has demanded of him over these past years, and he's never done it.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all.

THE PRIME MINISTER: Thank you.

END 1:20 A.M. CST

----

Does anyone really believe they were saying anything other than we're going to war after this press conference?

[Brotherjohn]

19. I think most of you aren't quite getting Kinsley (though he CAN be more...

... than a bit obtuse).

Michael Kinsley is no defender of Bush. Michael Kinsley is an unabashed liberal and full-on Bush critic. He is just a rather dry, intellectual one (The George Will of the Left?). Read his past columns.

Of course, if you DO read his past columns, you find he can really get off into minutiae and use satire to such an extent that you aren't really sure what he means. Which is not to say he's a bad writer. He just often uses very dry satire that's hard to get.

I think what he is basically saying is this:
"So the DSM (based on a Bristich government official's characterization) says Bush was set on war months before it started, and was fixing the facts and intelligence to support it? Well, DUH!"

That being said, he does seem to harp on the "intended to go to war" aspect too much at the expense of the "fixing the facts and intelligence" aspect. But he also explicitly state that the latter is the Bush administration's M.O. for everything they do (thus, the "Duh!")

He provides quite a few (off-handed) compliments to the left, in that the extreme perhaps NEEDS to engage in these kinds of cohesive, aggressive, stay-on-point, tactics that the right has benefitted so much from.

But he also denigrates those calling the DSM a "smoking gun". Frankly, I agree, although I wouldn't be so hard on those who do cast is as a "smoking gun". In large part, it's all a matter of your definition. It in and of itself is not a smoking gun. It does not give specifics as to when, where, or how "intelligence and facts" were fixed, but only gives Rycroft's characterization of Dearlove's characterization that this is what was happening.

But of course, that's a LOT. And I would add, "How much frickin' more do we NEED?!"

So it doesn't PROVE it is what was happening (so no smoking gun). BUT if authentic (and every indication is that it IS), what it DOES is show that at the highest levels of British government, THEY at least THOUGHT that the Bush administration was guilty of everything its critics have charged.

And THAT, as they say on Letterman, is "something".

More, it provides context for those who failed to do so before (most of the country and MSM) to go back and look at all of the massive amounts of accumulated evidence that the Bush administration WAS set on war and DID in fact "fix facts and intelligence" to gain support for that war.

[Roland99]

20. Kinsley is slightly tainted by having his head up *'s ass.

Watch him praise the Propagandist here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/30/AR2005043000746.html

[senseandsensibility]

23. Michael Kinsley sucks

This is his opinion, not the Wahington Post's, unless I'm missing something. And who cares what he thinks?