The Right's Argument re: DSM (from KO)

[Broken Acorn]

Last night on Keith Olbermann, a fill in interviewed the White House reporter for the WashPO.

He said that the DSM is only significant in the fact that historians have a document 'on paper' that proves what everyone already knew.

That this is nothing new and that the whole controversy surrounding the DSM in the media is more about why it was never covered instead of its actual contents.

He said 'everyone in the news' knew that * was going to war and that it isn't a big secret that he had been planning this for awhile (even if it meant fixing the intel).

Basically what he is saying that there is nothing in the minutes that is newsworthy or important. This is the BS that we are going to deal with now.

The media saying nothing new here, move along. This PoS from the WashPO should have been slapped around by KO, but conveniently he was gone last night.

I guess even when the * Administration breaks the law, commits high crimes and treason, it is no big deal because 'everyone in the news' already knew about it and apparently it is acceptable.


Can someone wake me up soon from this 5-year nightmare I am having?

[cthrumatrix]

1. for the 10th time -- the Post's job has been to "piss on DSM"... obvious

nothing to do with facts .... just spin

[rox63]

2. It's still a crime

And all this says is that the press were complicit in that crime.

[indie_voter]

4. Exactly.

It doesn't matter if it was an open secret, it is a CRIME against the constitution.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?!!

Our founding fathers would weep if they could see the state of the Union.

[Internut]

5. It's a crime if there was proof -

that is, if you had some US government documents/tapes/whatever that would show what the memos say. The memos mention what a British government official thought of his meetings in Washington. That is not proof. That is hearsay. If you find proof, then you have something.

Hell, even a statement by that Brit government official that would say who exactly he talked to and what exactly was said would be a lot stronger than what is in the memos.

[sellitman]

3. Everone knew Bill got a BJ too...

So why did the media & the Pukes continue the witch hunt?

:banghead:

[myrna minx]

6. Then why did he claim that he had "no war plans on his desk" ?

13 June 2002

TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER
THE HON JOHN HOWARD MP
JOINT DOORSTOP WITH PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH
WHITE HOUSE, WASHINGTON DC

Subjects: Australia/US relationship; Middle East; environment; free trade.


http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/2002/interview1704.htm
PRESIDENT BUSH:

Yes, I told the Prime Minister there are no war plans on my desk. I haven't changed my opinion about Saddam Hussein, however. He is -- this is a person who gassed his own people, and possesses weapons of mass destruction. And so as I told the American people, and I told John, we'll use all tools at our disposal to deal with him. And, of course, before there is any action -- military action, I would closely consult with our close friend. There are no plans on my desk right now.

[flpoljunkie]

9. Dubya: "F*ck Saddam. We're taking him out" reports Time Magazine in 2003.

http://cnn.allpolitics.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=CNN.com+-+First+Stop%2C+Iraq+-+Mar.+24%2C+2003&expire=-1&urlID=5798268&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2003%2FALLPOLITICS%2F03%2F24%2Ftimep.saddam.tm%2F&partnerID=2001

First Stop, Iraq

By Michael Elliott and James Carney

How did the U.S. end up taking on Saddam? The inside story of how Iraq jumped to the top of Bush's agenda --and why the outcome there may foreshadow a different world order

"F___ Saddam. we're taking him out." Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase.

The Senators laughed uncomfortably; Rice flashed a knowing smile. The President left the room. A year later, Bush's outburst has been translated into action, as cruise missiles and smart bombs slam into Baghdad.

But the apparent simplicity of his message belies the gravity at hand. Sure, the outcome is certain: America will win the war, and Saddam will be taken out. But what is unfolding in Iraq is far bigger than regime change or even the elimination of dangerous weapons.

more...long article written in 2003

[rocktivity]

7. But if he lied to Congress to start the war, HE COMMITTED A CRIME

and if lying to Congress about a sexual indiscretion is impeachable, how can lying to Congress about a starting a war NOT be???

:shrug:
rocknation

[gkhouston]

8. they were also striving to give the impression

that blivet** was looking for a way to go to war because he believed that there was an imminent threat (WMD), based on faulty intelligence which he had legitimate cause to believe true. In reality, blivet** decided he wanted to go to war and the "intelligence" was cherry-picked to fit a preordained conclusion -- rather like the global warming "research". blivet** has an alarming tendency to confuse spin with reality and the two are not always interchangeable, no matter how often you insist that up is down.

[kentuck]

10. It's worse than we thought !

The media knew. They are involved in the coverup also. Because I didn't know and I'm sure a lot of people did not know. But they knew???

[eallen]

11. Strangely, I half agree with that view. But where he's wrong is important.

I think it has been clear since it occurred (1) that US interaction with the UN and weapon inspectors prior to the invasion was a complete charade, and (2) that Bush intended to invade Iraq all along. In that sense, I think Keith Olberman is correct.

Where he goes wrong is in claiming that this view is universal. First, it was and still is hotly denied by the adminstration. If Olberman's view is correct, it proves, if nothing else, that the Bush administration corruptly initiated the war, and is still lying about that. As others here have pointed out, these lies constitute serious crimes. "Oh, but everyone knew we were lying" is no defense. Second, I don't believe the lies were clear to everyone. Large numbers of Americans took the administration at face value. That, after all, was the reason for the lie. It's worth noting that among those who took the administration at face value was the major part of the right-wing press. It might be that today only a small minority still believe those lies. But that's only because they have become more and more untenable as time passes.

Perhaps the most important thing we can do is make sure that this administration stays tied to its past claims. It is not "old history." It was not just mistaken intelligence. It was deceit, pure and simple.

[Ignoramus]

12. Tonight we interview ourselves about why we don't report on

the so called downing street memo:

Bob why is it that we don't report on the downing street memo?

Well, Susan, it's not so much that we don't report on it as that we only report about ourselves not reporting on it...

The idea that it's not news worthy, because it just confirms what people already knew, is an idiotic remark. That must be why there was so little news about say Michael Jackson, or Monica Lewinsky?

[Broken Acorn]

14. Exactly

That interview was so funny.

KO fill in: Why haven't we covered this topic before?

WP Dumbass: Well, everyone in the news already knew about the content of the DSM, but we never reported it

KO fill in: So, besides us now, will this be reported in other places?

WP Dumbass: There seems to be alot of anger about not reporting it, which is what most of the fuss is about. So we are now reporting about how we didn't report it last month when it came out.

KO fill in: So, will there be more reporting about this DSM stuff?

WP Dumbass: I don't think so, we already knew about it, so we are just reporting old news that was never really reported before. There is nothing really to the DSM, just that we didn't officially report it.

KO fill in: Ok, well thanks so much for filling us in and keep up the good work!

[kentuck]

15. What a dumbass !

They knew about it and never reported it??? So now, we just tell the people that the President lied us into war and the people have died because of that lie and the media knew but they didn't think it was important??? Well, OK....Nevermind.

[gratuitous]

13. News reporting Big Tobacco-style

For decades, the tobacco companies, through their corporate whores the Center for Tobacco Research and the Tobacco Institute, fuzzed up the research on links between smoking and health. All through the late 1950s until the late 1980s, they continually disputed all research and reports that showed that smoking was harmful to your health. In internal memos, they even congratulated themselves on their "brilliantly conceived and executed" strategy.

The tobacco companies knew that their addicted customers would grasp at any justification to continue smoking, and in myriad ways large and small provided those justifications. Smoking cleared up acne. If you quit smoking, you'll get fat. Reformed smokers are an irritable bunch -- be happier, keep smoking.

In addition to generating a false controversy, the tobacco companies also lobbied Congress, and made sure that friendly legislation was passed that exempted cigarettes and other tobacco products from oversight by government agencies whose mandate was to protect the public health.

Finally, when the weight of the research and public opinion was too much to bear, the tobacco companies abruptly changed their long-running tune, and acknowledged that yes, smoking was bad for your health. And of course, this was pretty common knowledge, and everyone knew and had known for years how harmful smoking was. How disingenuous of the health freaks out there to blame the tobacco companies for providing a legal product that many people enjoyed even though they all knew it could harm their health!

The copious crocodile tears from the tobacco companies were reprehensible, considering the damage they'd inflicted on public health, the countless lives ended prematurely, the immeasurable suffering endured by millions of smokers and their families. But it worked.

And now, the news media have adopted a similar strategy. They knew to a certain degree that the Bush administration was misleading the public, drumming up a fake rationale for an illegal invasion. They also knew that the country could be stampeded into supporting war given sufficient jingoist rationale. The visceral satisfaction of beating someone's ass as a response to the terrible crime of September 11 was played up; the inconvenient fact that the someone whose ass was about to get beaten hadn't committed the crime was glossed over. War was in the offing, and war was going to happen. The media could either jump on the war wagon and ride up front, or try to stand in the way and probably get rolled over. We all know what their choice was.

In the lead-up to the invasion, the subject of war came up over and over, but the commentators all shared a curious characteristic: Everyone said that Saddam must go. Anyone who questioned that wisdom was vilified or simply ignored. Responsible opposing voices were limited to people who thought using nuclear weapons might be too extreme.

So now the minutes of the Downing Street meeting show that the intelligence was being manipulated and tailored to achieve a certain end. And instead of decrying the duping of the public, the media have decided to dismiss this bombshell information as "old news." Everybody knew that the game was rigged from the outset! A lot of people were saying that before the war, so it's nothing that should surprise or shock anyone. What's the big deal? Left unsaid is the reprehensible nature of the media's own complicity in advancing what they (and now we) knew to be a ginned up rationale for an invasion that couldn't be justified legally under international law or treaty. Instead of admitting their own participation, the media once again scold the very people they were misleading for being so credulous.

We'll see if it works again.