Why is the Downing Street Memo Different?
June 23rd, 2005 | by Dr. Forbush |When the Downing Street Memo was published in the London Times at the beginning of May many journalists ignored it. Five weeks later the blogosphere was teeming with activity pertaining to this memo, but the journalists just sat on it.
Since then the mainstream media has finally caught onto the importance of this memo. But what makes this memo different? Why were the journalists so skittish with discussing this important revelation? Why weren’t the basic facts of the story reported in the US?
In order to understand the problem here we need to understand a bit of history. Through out the 2004 election campaign the possibility that the Bush administration fixed the intelligence came up continually. When the Weapons of Mass Destruction weren’t found the media questioned the administration. When the threat of Saddam Hussein being linked to terrorist groups didn’t pan out the media questioned the administration. For every mistake that the administration did during the run up, attack and occupation of Iraq the media questioned the administration. The standard answer was, “the Intelligence was flawed.” This statement seemed to fit every need and it was used over and over again. The American public was deceived into identifying with a poor hapless crew in the White House doing their best with “poor” intelligence. Playing up the stupidity of the President played into their plan, so they didn’t fight it. Playing up the arguments between Condi Rice and Colon Powell played into their image, so they didn’t fight it. The deception was greater than the ego of any one player, including the President.
So, when the Downing Street Memo was published the US media was already primed with the expected stonewall of the administration. The US media didn’t realize that this document and subsequent documents were different.
Up to this point the evidence that the Bush administration was fixing the intelligence around their policy was mainly circumstantial evidence. One could look at the facts that were know and assume that the administration was either a bunch of dunderheads, or the CIA was a bunch of dunderheads or the administration was working with the CIA to create evidence to take the country into war. Well, many Americans would much rather believe the first two options rather than the third. Americans are a fair people in most cases and they would like to give the President and the CIA the benefit of the doubt. The American people can imagine a group of really smart people trying their best for the good of the country. It is much more difficult to imagine a collusion of the CIA and the White House to come up for a reason to go into Iraq. So, when the administration says that the invasion was based on faulty intelligence the American people are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. After all, people can make mistakes.
But, the Bush administration can not just decide that they want to go and invade another country. There are international laws and federal laws that tell the President when he can take the country into war. The most important thing to keep in mind is that the President can only take the country into war when the country is in imminent danger. So, the President would need to create the illusion of imminent danger if he wanted to invade Iraq. The two reasons the President formally stated when he signed the statement for the Iraq War was that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction and Iraq had ties to terrorism. We know now that these reasons are false and if the President knew that they were false he would be guilty of lying to the American People about taking the country into war. He would also be guilty of lying to Congress in an effort to elevate the level of risk Iraq posed to the US. If he knew the threat of Iraq were minimal he would be guilty of deceiving Congress and this lie would rise to a level of a high crime which is an Impeachable Offense. Up to this point the White House has denied knowing anything except that Iraq posed a threat and they claim that the CIA intelligence was flawed.
The three days before the Congress voted on going to war George W Bush, and Condi Rice each made the famous statement, “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” They were referring to Iraq’s capability to build a nuclear weapon and supposedly have a terrorist group explode it in the US. These words were designed to frighten Congress into voting for the Iraq War. Many of the Republicans were already on board, but the larger the margin the stronger the mandate, so the President wanted the largest margin possible. We know that this was a fear tactic, because this statement wasn’t used after the vote. The statement was clearly designed to get some of the Democrats to vote for the bill so the President could brag that the Iraq War was a bipartisan decision. Lawmakers assume some level trust in what they are told by their leaders. And, when one hears ones leader tell the country that we need to go to war or a nuclear weapon could go off in our country one is bound to vote for the safety and national security of our country. Based on what Joe Wilson has told us the CIA had told the President that Iraq had not bought uranium from Niger and Iraq didn’t have this capability. But, the administration writes Joe Wilson off as a disgruntled government employee with an axe to grind.
And this is how the picture was up until the Downing Street memo was published in the London Times.
The Downing Street memo is a secret memo written in July 2002, well before the invasion of Iraq. It was information about a meeting where a British diplomat traveled to Washington in order to find out what the Bush administration was going to do about the Iraq situation. This British diplomat told the Prime Minister that the Bush administration was fixing the intelligence in order to justify the war. This is known as documented evidence. It is much more valuable than all the circumstantial evidence that has accumulated so far. This memo was written, as a private document for the British government, so there is no reason to believe any politics were involved in this memo. In addition to this memo there are at least six more supporting documents that authenticate the memo. Based on this memo we have reason to believe that option three, the President and the Bush administration deceived Congress in order to go to war in Iraq. This is an Impeachable Offense. We own it to the integrity of our country to investigate this at the very least, and the American public should be made aware that the White House and the CIA isn’t full of bumbling idiots, but instead they cooked the evidence to support the policy they wanted to pursue. And, this action was illegal in both international law and federal law.
Fortunately the media is beginning to understand this and they are beginning to ask questions. Hopefully the American people will ask questions too.
10 Responses to “Why is the Downing Street Memo Different?”
By MoxieGrrrl on Jun 23, 2005 | Reply
Very nice post Dr. Forbush.
The problem is that many Ringers are all too willing to swallow the whole “intelligence was faulty! Not my fault! It’s the CIAs fault, the FBIs fault, Joe Schmucky’s fault!” line and keep trying to use that in arguments with left-leaners. This ostrich behavior has to stop.
The good news is that more moderates are realizing what the DSM means and are really giving it some thought. It is one thing to support your president during a time of war, it is quite another to support him with blinders on and handing him carte blanche to do whatever he wants. America has the responsibility of being one of the most powerful countries in the world, and when the rest of the world sees how sleazily (is that a word?) the US treats the world community, we do not set a good example and in fact set ourselves up as targets with a big ol’ bullseye.
Who wouldn’t want to be known as the hero(s) that took down the schoolyard bully?
By Billion Year Old Carbon on Jun 23, 2005 | Reply
I have said it before and I say it again the WMDs in Iraq existed in the minds of a handful of Iraqi scientists that could have been forced into working for terrorists but we will never own up to invading a country and arresting people for their knowledge. I sometimes question wether or not this was actually on the minds of policy makers at the time though.
I too want to see an ivestigation into the the downing street memo but I think the nation and the world needs to be careful about when to do this, If the assertion is proved true we would not just be talking about a presidential impeachment, we are talking about nearly an entire administration and don’t forget the folks on the other side of the moat either I don’t know if Blair can be impeached, but potentially you would be looking at a situation where both the US and British governments are thrown into immeidiate and simultaneous termoil, who would be left to lead? how far down the chain do you want to go? do you really want the speaker of the house to become president? We are now dedicated to a conflict that must be brought to resolution how much distraction should be injected to that end? Although I scincerily believe that major policy changes are needed and pressure should be put on to that end,
I am also of the opinion that I may be better to wait a few years on this one so that no ones is shooting ones self in the foot. need less to say the truth must be eventually known and the issue should not disappear or be forgotten.
Great post by the way.
By Dr. Forbush on Jun 23, 2005 | Reply
BYOC,
Our nation should hold truth as a fundamental value at the same level as Freedom and Liberty. Sometimes truth is asserted as an important value. In the past truth has been used as an important value in Superman and other cultural icons. However, since Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the radical right have taken control of the Republican Party truth has moved down the list of values. If Republicans truly believed in the value of truth they wouldn’t fear an investigation into the Downing Street Memo. We should remember that this meeting was only to spread the information pertaining to the Downing Street Memo and to determine whether the information warrants an investigation.
But Republicans fear loosing control of the government because of the lies that they have told to the American people in order to gain that control in the first place. So, the Republican controlled congress has resorted to doing things like forcing the first meeting on the Downing Street Memo into the basement of the Capital. In addition to this the Republican leadership scheduled several votes during the 3 hour meeting so that the Congressmen who would like attend this meeting needed to leave the room during the meeting, cast their votes and then return. This behaviour can be described as obstruction.
The only reason that a Party leadership would want to obstruct a meeting on such a potentially important topic must be because the Party Leadership fears the truth.
By Billion Year Old Carbon on Jun 23, 2005 | Reply
I agree with everything you have said, but I also think that rather than blindly push forward in the name of the truth we should all consider the consequences of the out come first, and keep the timing in mind…and yes, “The truth shall set you free,”
By marie on Jun 23, 2005 | Reply
Bush’s legacy will undoubtedly include The Downing Street memo. Great post.
By Jet on Jun 23, 2005 | Reply
Great post, Dr. Forbush. Truth seems to be a bit scarce lately. The requested documents for the Bolton nomination can’t bear the light of day, either.
By frstlymil on Jun 23, 2005 | Reply
BYOC - first there is a big difference between saying that we believe someone had weapons on their mind and weapons actually in their hand. Big difference. I might have lusted over the good looks of Julian McMahon from “Nip Tuck”- that doesn’t mean that I was unfaithful to my spouse. If we choose to delay seeking the truth on this very important international issue, then what else will become convenient to put off until *some* people find it convenient. If it brings about huge change in our government, than GOOD - let’s roll up our sleeves as a country and get it done. Investigation of the truth is not blindly acting upon a supposition, but is just that - an investigation. When the investigation reaches a difinitive conclusion based upon the evidence, then, and only then, can a true course of action be determined. The time for that is now. If a crime is committed, one does not wait for the trail to become cold before asking questions. To say, oh gee, lets wait - we don’t want to do anything rash….is precisely what the atmosphere of fear created by the administration has intended for us to do. Stall people in their tracks from doing anything at all, rather than empowering us as a nation to actually have the guts our nation’s forefathers had to actually DO anything.
By Carla on Jun 23, 2005 | Reply
Just as I have written about the internet before, you can’t get fact from a personal website. So, although if need be, yes in the real world there should be a non-partisn investigation (maybe Ken Starr lol j/k), this is merely a blog entry based on an opinion, a story pieced together according to how one person wants to see the picture. I read this blog often, and I think it’s pretty clear, many want to hurry and impeach whether all the names that have been taged on the President are true or not. Again, I have said in my blog that republicans were rotten durring the Clinton presidency and threw everything but the kitchen sink including impeachment. I hope that though it’s hard not to be vengful, everyone will look for all the answers to the whole truth.
By Dr. Forbush on Jun 23, 2005 | Reply
Carla,
Once again I am interestted in truth. If that truth lead to Impeachment it could be great for the people of the US, but it could also be much worse if Cheney became president. But if we investigate this memo, we may get closer to the truth.
By Billion Year Old Carbon on Jun 23, 2005 | Reply
frstlymil,
I would also like to see the truth prevail, and I would also like to see a change In our government, and for the record I believe it is very likely if not the truth that we were sold a lie, but I also want to make sure that if that oppertunity does present its self that the people who pursue it know what comes next , it would do us no good to impeach leaders on both sides of the atlantic if we throw the world into chaos. With that said I respect your gumption to roll up your sleeves I just hope those powers that would prevail have a plan and contingency. Assuming that Cheney and Bush were both impeached Dennis Hassert is the next in line. He seems to be kind of close to Tom Delay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Hastert