John Conyers: Three New Stories on Secret Downing Street Memo

[paineinthearse]

http://www.conyersblog.us/

Three New Stories on Secret Downing Street Memo
From Good to Bad To Worse

This morning, several newspapers pick up the Downing Street Memo story. Two of three largely miss the point. Strangely, the best story and one of the two mediocre ones share the same byline. I'll explain below.

First, the best -- the San Francisco Chronicle. In a story with the byline of Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, with an additional note that "The Los Angeles Times contributed to this report," the story quickly hits the two most important points (1) that the document shows intentionally manipulated intelligence and (2) that, despite representations to the contrary, the Bush Administration was hell bent on war. It describes the uproar the memo created in Great Britain in the lead up to its elections, which blew over after the elections. It notes that 89 Democrats have asked for answers about this and that the British government has not disputed the authenticity of the document. You get the picture. There is a lot there that places this story in its proper context. The story is on page A-1, according to the website.

Second, under the same byline, Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, on page A-18, is an article that does a fairly straightforward job of reviewing the contents of the memo, but utterly lacks context. First, the headline, which I have been told the reporter frequently has no control over, "British Intelligence Warned Blair of War, Prime Minister Was Told of White House's Resolve to Use Military Against Hussein." That's not exactly the point is it? The point is that if the British account of what US officials were telling them is accurate, then the same officials were lying to the American people -- about their intentions with to go to war, and about Iraq's (nonexistent) WMD capabilities. The story itself fails to make the same point. And, while the story provides some useful context about past investigations, it fails to mention that there is an ongoing one, requested in a letter by 90 Members of Congress. The letter, had it been mentioned, would have provided the missing context. Alternatively, a recounting of the contemporaneous statements of Bush officials that are contradicted by the document would have worked well.

Walter Pincus is an exceptional reporter and he has a typically rigorous and interesting piece, unrelated to this matter, on page A-4 of the paper. I am speculating here, but it is almost as if an editor threw him the Downing Street story as the last item of his to-do list and a not very big deal, and it was reported accordingly. The contrast between the reporting in his two stories could not be more stark.

Now to the worst -- the Minneapolis Star Tribune, not a great piece. First, the headline "U.S. anger over war memo is slight." Really? According to the piece -- while "iberal web logs have buzzed for days" about this matter, quoting a local academic for substantiation, it is reported that "ost Americans are focused on seeking positive outcomes from the war, not reason to blame the Bush administration for starting it."

Then, the ho-hum comes:

"It is not surprising, Pike said, that the new report has drawn little attention in the United States, where Bush was reelected even while polling found that half the electorate believed Bush either lied or deliberately exaggerated evidence to justify going to war.
'I didn't think anybody felt there was a need for more smoking guns," Pike said. 'Didn't we already know that?'"

I knew it, but I don't recall that being reported as fact in the Star Tribune before and check out the polling on Iraq and Al Qaeda and WMD to find out what a significant portion of the public, with the misreporting and lack of follow up of the national news media, "knows" about Iraq.

In an interesting interview on Salon.com, the outgoing ombudsman for the New York Times, Daniel Okrent, is asked about its paper's WMD coverage. The most pertinent excerpt:

" You wrote: "The editors' note to readers will have served its apparent function only if it launches a new round ... of aggressively reported stories detailing the misinformation, disinformation and suspect analysis that led virtually the entire world to believe Hussein had W.M.D. at his disposal." A year later, do you think the Times follow-up reporting has been up to that standard?

: There was one really good long piece by Michael Gordon. But I don't think it was enough. I think they could have done more."

Where is the Times story about this?

With notable exceptions, aren't we owed more from the Fourth Estate? You are the consumers of news and, whether you agree with my assessments or not, you should let these news outlets know what you think of their coverage.

I expect to say much much more about this in a public forum soon.

Links to the articles cited:

SF Chronicle - Page A1 - New light on Bush's war plans
By July '02, U.S. set on invasion, British intelligence reported
- Walter Pincus, Washington Post
Friday, May 13, 2005
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/13/MNG55CON9Q1.DTL

Washington Post - Page A18 -
British Intelligence Warned Blair of War
Prime Minister Was Told of White House's Resolve to Use Military Against Hussein
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 13, 2005; Page A18
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857.html


Minneapolis Star Tribune - "U.S. anger over war memo is slight"
http://www.startribune.com/
searching...

[ClassWarrior]

1. All I can say is...

...Conyers/Boxer 2008. :patriot:

NGU.

[mzmolly]

19. I'm there!

:toast:

[MelissaB]

27. Me, too!

What a great pair!

[FreedomAngel82]

21. I think he's great!

Definietly my favorite Congressman. :) His blog is great! Did you hear his interview with Stephanie Miller? I wish there was a way to get his interview on Ed Schultz show. There were three republicans in Congress who voted against the Real ID act. Is there any way to get them on board with Conyers? Maybe since they're republicans they can have more of an influence with his investigation.

[paineinthearse]

2. SF Chronicle - New light on Bush's war plans

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/13/MNG55CON9Q1.DTL

New light on Bush's war plans
By July '02, U.S. set on invasion, British intelligence reported
- Walter Pincus, Washington Post
Friday, May 13, 2005

Eight months before the invasion of Iraq, the head of British foreign intelligence reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair that President Bush wanted to topple Saddam Hussein by military action and warned that U.S. intelligence was "being fixed around" that goal, according to notes of a 2002 meeting with Blair at No. 10 Downing Street. "Military action was now seen as inevitable," said the notes, summarizing a report by Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, the British intelligence service, who had just returned from consultations in Washington, along with other senior British officials. Dearlove continued, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and (weapons of mass destruction). But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

The notes were first disclosed on May 1 by the Sunday Times of London, triggering criticism of Blair on the eve of the May 5 British parliamentary elections that he had decided to support an invasion of Iraq well before informing the public of his views. The Sunday Times article described minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting of Blair and his intelligence and military chiefs, a briefing paper for that meeting, and a Foreign Office legal opinion prepared before the summit of Blair and Bush in Crawford, Texas, on April 6-7, 2002.

The notes of the Blair meeting, attended by the prime minister's senior national security team, also disclose for the first time that Britain's intelligence boss believed that Bush had decided to go to war in mid-2002, and that he believed U.S. policymakers were trying to use the limited intelligence they had to make the Iraqi leader appear to be a bigger threat than was supported by known facts. Reverberations from the report blew over quickly in Britain, where Blair won a third term as prime minister, although with a smaller majority for his Labor Party.

But in the United States, there has been a growing groundswell of indignation among critics of the Bush White House, who say the documents helped prove Bush and Blair settled on the invasion nearly a year before launching their attack, shaped intelligence to that aim and never seriously intended to avert the war through diplomacy. Both Blair and Bush have denied a war decision was made that early. The White House and Downing Street maintain that they were preparing for military operations as one option, but the option to not attack also remained open until the start of the war on March 20, 2003.

much more.......

The Los Angeles Times contributed to this report.

Page A - 1
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/13/MNG55CON9Q1.DTL

[Al-CIAda]

3. Rec'd!

[dandrhesse]

4. remember that editors have the final say on what is printed as well. The

original copy could have been very different from the final product. I don't know that it was, but it is a possibility

[paineinthearse]

5. WP - British Intelligence Warned Blair of War

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857.html

British Intelligence Warned Blair of War
Prime Minister Was Told of White House's Resolve to Use Military Against Hussein

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 13, 2005; A18

Seven months before the invasion of Iraq, the head of British foreign intelligence reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair that President Bush wanted to topple Saddam Hussein by military action and warned that in Washington intelligence was "being fixed around the policy," according to notes of a July 23, 2002, meeting with Blair at No. 10 Downing Street. "Military action was now seen as inevitable," said the notes, summarizing a report by Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, British intelligence, who had just returned from consultations in Washington along with other senior British officials. Dearlove went on, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD . But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

"The case was thin," summarized the notes taken by a British national security aide at the meeting. "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran." The notes were first disclosed last week by the Sunday Times of London, triggering criticism of Blair on the eve of the May 5 British parliamentary elections that he had decided to support an invasion of Iraq well before informing the public of his views. The notes of the Blair meeting, attended by the prime minister's senior national security team, also disclose for the first time that Britain's intelligence boss believed that Bush had decided to go to war in mid-2002, and that he believed U.S. policymakers were trying to use the limited intelligence they had to make the Iraqi leader appear to be a bigger threat than was supported by known facts.

Although critics of the Iraq war have accused Bush and his top aides of misusing what has since been shown as limited intelligence in the prewar period, Bush's critics have been unsuccessful in getting an investigation of that matter. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has dropped its previous plan to review how U.S. policymakers used Iraq intelligence, and the president's commission on intelligence did not look into the subject because it was not authorized to do so by its charter, Laurence H. Silberman, the co-chairman, told reporters last month.

The British Butler Commission, which last year reviewed that country's intelligence performance on Iraq, also studied how that material was used by the Blair government. The panel concluded that Blair's speeches and a published dossier on Iraq used language that left "the impression that there was fuller and firmer intelligence than was the case," according to the Butler report. It described the July 23 meeting as coming at a "key stage" in preparation for taking action against Iraq but described it primarily as a session at which Blair favored reengagement of U.N. inspectors against a background of intelligence that Hussein would not accept them unless "the threat of military action were real."

much more.....

[paineinthearse]

25. Q: Why is this worthy of page A1 in SF but page A18 in the WP?

Well, at least it is growing some legs.

[paineinthearse]

6. Minneapolis Star Tribune - "U.S. anger over war memo is slight."

Sorry, I cannot find the article and must leave. I wish you better luck.

http://www.startribune.com/

[Beam Me Up]

16. Direct Link to Star story:

http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/5401197.html

[DrDebug]

7. Slight anger kick

But not at Conyurs ;)

[Brotherjohn]

8. You GO Conyers!! I was about to post a thread: It's all about CONTEXT.

I'm glad he realizes this. That's exactly what I was thinking when I read the Pincus story in the Post (though I'll now need to read the one in the San Fran Chronicle).

The idea of CONTEXT goes beyond just these stories, however, and the lack of CONTEXT in the past is where the media dropped the ball and what allows Bush supporters and apologists to now claim "this is old news".

Back in the Summer and Fall of 2002, WE KNEW that the Bush administration was cherry-picking intelligence to support their case for war. WE KNEW that the heart of their case was, point-by-point, countered by most independent experts out there. WE KNEW that they were presenting things as indisputable fact that were known to actually be subject to great dispute at the time.

We DID have better intelligence, and it was the United Nations Inspectors on the ground in Iraq (who WE asked to go, although only under intense political pressure to search for a diplomatic solution).

But the media always put it in the following CONTEXT: The Bush administration claims X, The U.N. claims Y... maybe Bush knows something we don't... we'd better be safe than sorry (mushroom cloud and all that).

The actual CONTEXT was: Why, on point after point, do Bush admin. claims not hold up to scrutiny? If they keep claiming that the evidence is IRREFUTABLE that Iraq has reconsituted WMDs, then how to explain that serious experts often contest what they claim as FACT (including U.N. Inspectors, our own best experts on nuclear weapons (DOE), as well as the State Department and Air Force, among others).

The Bush admin. says we NEED to go to war for self defense, but most independent evidence out there indicates that this is not true. Why do they keep making claims that are demonstrably false? (forged uranium docs, aluminum tubes, unmanned drones) Why is the Bush administration presenting a slanted picture clearly not based on all the evidence (nor even the best evidence) in arguing the case for an unprecedented pre-emptive invasion? Shouldn't we be sure that there is something to pre-empt? If they are wrong, shouldn't their feet be held to the fire?

CONTEXT. It's all about CONTEXT.

If that had been the context before the war, perhaps there wouldn't have BEEN a war. Or perhaps Bush would have had hell to pay AFTER the war.

If the context of this memo remains a British/Blair issue, then nothing will come of it.

If the context is that it is strong evidence (some would say proof) that the Bush administration did indeed lie to the American people and to Congress about the need for this war, and about their attempts at a diplomatic solution, then it will have legs.

[ClassWarrior]

9. .

[paineinthearse]

10. Brian Lamb blew off a caller's question on this subject this morning

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3650532&mesg_id=3650532

I hope over the weekend each and every DU'er interested in this matter will compose two messages to CSPAN

1. To the CSPAN Journal producers - call Lamb on his "slight of hand" and submit it via [email protected]

2. To be read live during "open phones" time - submit via http://www.c-span.org/community/submitwj.asp

[ginnyinWI]

11. I think what we can conclude is that people wanted Bush

The people who voted for him had it figured out: that he was a liar and a war-mongering thug. But they voted for him because they felt he would be the best one to keep the terrorists away. And he at the same time put up a choir-boy front, which is something they all also do--they understand that. The hypocrites voted for another hypocrite!

[Brotherjohn]

12. I fear you are right (that was my fear after the election). Still...

... that was their mindset in the revenge-happy era immediately post-9/11, and to a lesser extent after Iraq was "won" and "free elections" were approaching (you don't think it was coincidence that Iraqi elections were held after our Nov. elections, do you?).

But this mindset has been fading consistently ever since 9/11. It takes a long time for 90% approval to decline, and it can be even more stubborn in doing so when such horrible things have happened as a result of that support that people have a hard time admitting it.

I fear things will have to get much worse in Iraq for enough people to wake up. But they are waking up, one by one, all across America. This story, however it is received, is another wake-up call.

[Al-CIAda]

13. You may be correct! I know more than a few like this. They KNOW it is all

a lie, and their 'rightiousness' and 'patriotism' hides the greed, deception and criminality.

[ginnyinWI]

15. yup

these voted for the chimp:
1. Evangelicals--got to stop gays and abortion--the "values" voters
2. Corporatists--chimp will give them their tax cuts and other perks
3. Habitual republican voters--don't look closely at politics, and vote the way their fathers and grandfathers always voted, not realizing or much caring that the party has careened toward the far right. "Anything's better than a Democrat!"
4. Red-necks--"got to git the terr-ists b'fore they git US!!"

So either they were fooled (1 and 3) or they love the chimp for his lack of scruples (2 and 4).

[troubleinwinter]

14. It finally showed up in my paper today.... LAST PAGE of sect. A

"Memo: Bush decided to attack Iraq in mid 2002"

[G_j]

17. Conyers rocks again: nominated n/t

[Oreo]

18. Strib article is pathetic

It's more a diatribe about the state of politics in the country than a story about the memo. The only reason the US isn't angry about it because the sheeple are being told it's nothing.

The memo is direct and obvious that the president lied to the American people. Of course we all knew it... but this is direct evidence.

Until Bush gets caught blowing somebody in the oval office, he'll make "The Teflon President" look like a "Fly Paper President"

[Sparkman]

20. Office of Special Plans-NeoCon's in 2000 plan Iraq invasion. Perpetual...

war is EVERY Imperialist's modus operandi. Haiti's most recently the post-Iraq action of U.S. work to domesticat testy foreign elected democracies.

[pgh_dem]

22. kick for Conyers

GO JOHN GO!

[bleever]

23. I was amazed and delighted to find this on the front page of the SF

Chronicle this morning, and even more delighted when I had read the entire article.

Kudos to Walter Pincus, and to Phil Bronstein, the editor of the Chronicle.

:thumbsup:

[paineinthearse]

24. That's is the odd part

Walter Pincus is a Washington Post "staff writer". Why would the Post bury his story on page A18, and the Chronicle feature it on page A1? Maybe a letter to the Post ombudsman/peoples' editor is in order.

I'm pretty busy this weekend and just have time to check in. If this story now does not grow legs, we need a LTTE campaign, especially since there is evidence that people like Brian Lamb are doing what they can to quash it.

[Generator]

26. Dear Mainstream America:

Firstly, I think most Americans (not us and not the lock step Bush lovers) think that America went to war over WMD. That's the reason and they all know it. They know they weren't found. To save face, some must believe we are there for something good, "bringing freedom to the Iraqi's, getting rid of Saddam. Which in essence are not bad things, but at what cost to your sons and daughters, at what cost to your country?

But this memo brings up a larger point. That if it was screamed at on the teevee and the front pages day after day might make a dent.

The intelligence, the WMD evidence was manipulated to fit the desire to go to war, not the other way around.

In other words, mainstream America, Bush and all those around him LIED and manipulated to get your sons and daughters to fight a war that wasn't to protect America.

What was it for?
Well, the left has it's reasons and the right has it's reasons. But is our military to be used for the ideas of a few on how to change global policy? Is that even what our military is for? Is that what most Americans believe? Isn't our military primarily to be used to DEFEND America? Or for grandiose ideas of a few with overwhelming power?

Ultimately I don't care, and it shouldn't matter why those in power wanted what they wanted. I think the left gets too concerned with that. Whatever the reason, it was BASED ON LIES and MANIPULATION of sacred things that are meant to truly protect us. Our intelligence services and our military. These people in power are a threat to you because they don't really protect you.

Is the concept of pre-emption in war a moral one to MOST Americans? Is it okay to attack and kill those people when they have DONE NOTHING to us? Is that what our moral values are?

Pearl Harbor was the Japanese.

The WTC wasn't Iraq.

It's pretty simple.

How much do we owe Iraq now? How much do we owe America now? These are serious questions and nothing is ever discussed in America.

Instead we have distraction reality news and the all the values that were what most Americans believe their country is about are being destroyed with lies and myths.

[IChing]

28. It is starting to get some feet

good,
Air America all shows,
Tom Harman
some more papers in google.

[Nothing Without Hope]

29. I hope he sees this VIDEO of CNN announcer FURIOUS about Bush's actions

as reveaked by the leaked UK memo. Not to be missed!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1782122
Thread title: CNN Crossfire: "UK Memo Proves Bush Fixed Intelligence" for War - (VIDEO)

[paineinthearse]

30. No way!

CNN was furious?

I've been away for 2 days and have a lot of catching up to do, won't be posting anything new, just reading and commenting.

[nittygritty]

31. Paul Begala, anyways.

He had a little rant about this on Crossfire the other day.