Well, yes, Keith Olbermann covered the Downing Street Memo Monday (Crooks & Liars has the video), and a Daily Kos <a href="diary trumpets a “Kos Success“: “downingstreetmemo.com is getting the news out!”
Our BooTrib LondonBear is doggedly pursuing the story with the latest must-read installment, “Iraq, Tony & the Truth: Timeline – An Essential Resource.”
But, as the Chicago Tribune asks, is the “‘Downing St. Memo’ fizzling in U.S.”? [NOTE: Early today, I checked the Chicago Tribune’s site. The original title is “British memo reopens war claim.” The Seattle Times retitled the article.] More below:
From the Chicago Tribune, reprinted in The Seattle Times:
By Stephen J. Hedges and Mark Silva
Chicago Tribune
WASHINGTON — A British official’s report that the Bush administration appeared intent on invading Iraq long before it acknowledged as much or sought Congress’ approval — and that it “fixed” intelligence to fit its intention — has caused a stir in Britain.
But the potentially explosive revelation has proved something of a dud in the United States. The White House has denied the premise of the memo, the U.S. media have reacted slowly to it and the public generally seems indifferent to the issue or unwilling to rehash the bitter prewar debate over the reasons for the war.
All of which have contributed to something less than a robust discussion of a memo that would seem to bolster the strongest assertions of the war’s critics.
Frustrated at the lack of attention to the memo, Democrats and other war critics are doing their best to make sure it receives a wider hearing, doing everything from writing letters to the White House to launching online petitions.
[Ensuing section about history of the document.]
[……………………………]
On Capitol Hill, where investigations have denounced prewar intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as “deeply flawed,” there appears to be little appetite for reopening the question of why the United States went to war.
“I suppose it hasn’t played there because, basically, didn’t everyone know that Bush decided early on to get rid of Saddam?” asked Philip Stephens, a Blair biographer and associate editor of the Financial Times of London.
Stephens said there was a basic difference in the argument over the invasion of Iraq in Britain and the United States.
“The contexts of the debates have always been different,” Stephens said. “There was never really a question [in the United States] about whether it was justified or not to go for regime change. This was the administration’s objective. People either agreed with it or disagreed with it. There really wasn’t a disagreement about the legal basis for it.”
[……………………………]
Opponents of the war and administration have launched e-mail campaigns to elevate the issue. One Web site, DowningStreetMemo.com, encourages visitors to sign a petition and “take action.” Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., wrote a letter to the White House, signed by 89 House Democrats, that expressed concern about the memo’s revelations.
If the memo is true, he said last week, it is “a huge problem” in terms of an abuse of power. He said there had been no response from the White House.
I excised the portions of the article that go into the timeline and events. But there is this section at the end of the article:
Graham wrote that he was going for a status report on the mission in Afghanistan, but that Centcom’s Gen. Tommy Franks called him aside to tell him, “Senator, we are not engaged in a war in Afghanistan.”
“Excuse me?” Graham replied.
“Military and intelligence personnel are being re-deployed to prepare for an action in Iraq,” Graham quoted Franks as saying. “I was stunned,” Graham wrote. “This was the first time I had been informed that the decision to go to war with Iraq had not only been made but was being implemented … .”
Another piece of the British memo has relevance now, as the United States battles an insurgency that some say was exacerbated by faulty post-invasion planning. “There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action,” the notes say, without attributing that directly to Dearlove.
I can’t help but wonder what it is going to take to take these criminals down. Do they have to eat live Iraqi babies on the senate floor or what? Why isn’t this the top news story right now? Guess the Newsweek debacle has scared the rest of the media off?
Well, if it is, the Chicago Tribune is not helping by writing a story on how its not being received. Maybe they should write a story on the story.
The Trib has done a decent job reporting anything at all, but it hardly helps to reinforce the lack of attention. They should have a headline like, Bush Lied: Memo Proves It
that Susan should change the headline to this diary? 🙂
Maybe to something like: Chicago Tribune adds fizzle to the fizzle.
doing it’s best to make it fizzle… so, yes it probably is fizzling. Much thanks to the propaganda wasteland of the paid-for-press.
I think the point made about the differences between the British and American view of the war is the key.
The American public knows the reasons for invading Iraq were a lie. Even the core Red State Haters know it. The Red Staters don’t care about “why”. They just wanted to bomb someone. Sadam.
The point that probably has to be pushed is that the invasion of Iraq was illegal and the present occupation of Iraq is illegal.
Iraq should not be referred to as a war. The United States invaded a sovereign country, removed the recognized government, installed a puppet regime and is currently occupying the country.
Illegally.
If the “intellegence” fitted to the policy also included plans to redirect Iraqi funds and laid out plans for the enrichment of companies like Halliburton, the use of mercenaries as an unrecognized and illegal armed force, then yes the memo may be key to opening pandora’s box. Perhaps the memo points to Pentagon, Justice and State Department documents that outline and highlight all the illegal actions this administration planned and took. The planned looting of Iraq? The planned looting of taxpayer funds?
Perhaps things have to be kicked up a notch.
Perhaps it’s on to the Hague with crimes against humanity and war crimes; planned and directed by the President, his closest advisors, Cabinet and Republican leaders in Congress?
Do you think Gonzales would break ranks and cop a plea to testify against Ashcroft and the original perps…? Or, maybe seek to be his own counsel…?
“I’m out of order!… you’re out of order!… this whole trial is out of order!”
I think much of the press is hampered not only by their general “roll over and get your tummy patted” type attitude, but also by their very real lack of skeptical reporting in the run-up to the war. Very few questions were asked, few things followed up, most stories seemed to be either uncritical repeatings of the White House story line or about their ’embeds’, rah rah.
They fell down on the job, badly, and are probably no more anxious to rehash that or their own culpablity, than the White House is, so… they let it fizzle out.
That’s my theory, anyway.
I would suggest another line of attack. Lord Goldsmith’s full legal advice on 7 March 2003 (pdf) sent to Blair is acknowledged to be a very good statement of the international law.
In particular it explains why “regime change” is not a legitimate causus bellum under international law. The only two completely clear reasons being (a)an imminent threat of attack, or response to an attack against the country or an ally or (b)in pursuance of a UN Security Council resolution authorising the use of force. A third cause not formally acknowledgd by treaty but by practice in the Balkans is to prevent an immediate and imminent threat of a crime against humanity such as genocide.
The machinations in the UK were to make the circumstances fit (b) and in the absence of a further UN resolution in March 2003, Blair responded to the full document in such a way that Goldsmith was then able to remove the conditionality and caveats and advise the attack could be justified by reviving earlier UN resolutions. While Blair maniputated the facts to claim he had UN authority, Bush did no such thing.
Bush all along claimed that he was out for “regime change”. Goldsmith makes it clear that making war for this reason has no basis in international law. As far as I am aware, Congress received no formal advice over the lagality of the war in the same way Goldsmith’s second, filleted Opinion was in the UK. Here is was shown to the Cabinet and Parliament to gain political authorisation and to the Chief of Staff to satisfy him that the troops sent in could not be prosecuted as war criminals. Even though Goldsmith’s advice is arguably wrong in law, the UK’s forces have the defence that in following the Opinion, they reasonably believed their orders were legal.
It is preceisely the corresponding documents given to Bush and the US military that you need to get hold of. The interpretation by your Attorney General or a minion will be that the US’s interpretation of international law allows for regime change. If so, it will directly clash with the initial advice given to Blair and with virtually every other international law expert. Bush acknowledges that he is no expert in these laws so he either took wrong advice or asked for no advice and sent the US forces in battle recklessly.
the “Twinkie Defense” goes international… or will it be “The Pretzel Defense”?
I have to admit I’ve been dissapointed at the lack of coverage, but maybe it’s just going to take a little longer. I note that the story at CNN is number one on the favorites lists (This week’s stories).
By the way, how do I imbed a link here at BooTrib? What’s the secret code?
<a href="http://www.boomantribune.com>Booman Tribune</a>
replace booman with whatever link you want.
<a href="http://www.boomantribune.com">Booman Tribune</a>
the first one was missing the closing "
a conservative paper (editorially speaking), right up there with the Moonie Times and the Wall Street Journal? Maybe there’s a vested interest in declaring the Downing Street story dead.
Isn’t Howard Dean going to be on Meet The Press Sunday? He needs to make this topic the central focus of his appearance.
they’ll all be obsessed with “filiblustering” by then…
My fantasy: Wouldn’t it be awesome if Dean went on Meet the Press and pulled a Jon Anderson on the lot of them… “I’m sorry, but America is really hurting out there, and you people are just sad… this is just sad…”