Planned Kerry Downing Street memo speech stirs controversy;

[whometense]

Mass. Democrat mum

RAW STORY

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and his press office remain silent as controversy mushrooms around a planned floor speech on minutes of a secret 2002 meeting between the officials of the U.S. and UK at which the director of British intelligence warned the intelligence was being �fixed� around the policy, RAW STORY has learned.

The minutes have fueled concern among Democrats in Congress that the concern over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was staged, a ploy to get Congress to go along with war.

Kerry's remarks have taken on epic proportion, likely because a NewsMax article conflated Kerry�s quotes with Ralph Nader's impeachment cry. AlJazeera.com (which is not affiliated with the news channel) led with a headline today ripening the confusion: "John Kerry to call for impeachment of George Bush."

"When I go back on Monday, I am going to raise the issue," Kerry told Massachusetts' Standard Times newspaper last week. "I think it's a stunning, unbelievably simple and understandable statement of the truth and a profoundly important document that raises stunning issues here at home."

RAW STORY has confirmed that Kerry intends to deliver a statement on the Downing Street minutes.

Any detail beyond that, however, is up in the air. Spokespersons for the senator have declined to comment further, fueling fresh speculation about the Massachusetts Democrat's move.

The Downing street minutes, first reported in the London Sunday Times, were drafted by British Prime Minister Tony Blair's foreign policy advisor. They contain an account of remarks by British MI6 director Sir Richard Dearlove, who said, "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."

Eighty-nine House members have called on President Bush to answer new questions surrounding the minutes. Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said the president had no need to respond.

Leading the charge is Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), a Detroit liberal who is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.

"Unfortunately, the mainstream media in the United States was too busy with wall-to-wall coverage of a "runaway bride" to cover a bombshell report out of the British newspapers," Conyers wrote in a letter calling on congressmembers to sign. "The London Times reports that the British government and the United States government had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in 2002, before authorization was sought for such an attack in Congress, and had discussed creating pretextual justifications for doing so."

"This should not be allowed to fall down the memory hole during wall-to-wall coverage of the Michael Jackson trial and a runaway bride," he added.

[TayTay]

1. Gawd, do you think Dems are pissed enough yet or what

A little one-sentence notice in a little Western Mass newspaper turns into 'big event.' This isn't so much a reflection on Kerry (Who I think is loving this, though there are weird expectation games going on) as it is a reflection on the poor starving Dem masses who just want elected national Dems to step forward and whack the shit out of *.

This is what the grassroots wants and they want it desperately. I wonder if Kerry knew this was going to mushroom into this?

[jillan]

21. This could be a smart move for Kerry politically

Since so many dems are pissed at him, this type of leadership could give him more support than ever before :applause:

[TayTay]

2. This is all Kerry said:

Sen. Kerry puzzled over the apparent lack of interest by Americans in the Iraq war and the near silence in the U.S. mass media about the so-called Downing Street Memo.
That leaked secret document, the minutes of a 2002 cabinet meeting of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, says bluntly that Mr. Bush had decided to attack Iraq long before going to Congress with the matter, and that "intelligence was being fixed around the policy."
It caused an uproar in Great Britain and badly hurt Mr. Blair in national elections but went almost unnoticed in the United States.
"When I go back (to Washington) on Monday, I am going to raise the issue," he said of the memo, which has not been disputed by either the British or American governments. "I think it's a stunning, unbelievably simple and understandable statement of the truth and a profoundly important document that raises stunning issues here at home. And it's amazing to me the way it escaped major media discussion. It's not being missed on the Internet, I can tell you that."
He questioned Americans' understanding of the war and the sense that criticism equals disloyalty, saying, "Do you think that Americans if they really understood it would feel that way knowing that on Election Day, 77 percent of Americans who voted for Bush believed that weapons of mass destruction had been found and 77 percent believe Saddam did 9/11? Is there a way for this to break through, ever?"

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/06-05/06-02-05/a01lo167.htm

It's just amazing that it has gotten this much attention on the blogs. It's just amazing. Maybe ther eis an opportunity here.

[whometense]

3. It blows me away, too.

I agree that people are just desperate for someone to stand up in public and say, "The emperor is naked."

If you think about it you can make a case that this is the cause behind a large part of the post-election Kerry bashing. Maybe it's not so much about his unwillingness to make a big noisy fuss about the vote as it is about the loss of our leader and our public voice. Kerry's been making himself that leader again, but in a slow and painstaking way, from scratch. Without the machinery of the campaign in place, maybe that's the only way it can be done. It's not like he got a lot of press attention even during the campaign.

I can't imagine how he's feeling right now. God knows, pressure only gives him edge. The reaction to that tiny article has been astounding, and it must have surprised him too. If one pissed-off senator makes a speech on the Senate floor to an empty room, will anyone hear him? Besides us, and John Conyers?

[blm]

14. Shows me that RW chattering gets the most attention. This time it may work

against them. THEY are the ones who blew it into an unrecognizable story, but, they may be sorry they did if it causes MORE attention to the DSM.

[whometense]

4. Back in bizarro world,...

Check out the first line (in bold) of this story.

John Kerry Reportedly To Present "Downing Street Memo" To Congress

June 5, 2005 7:36 a.m. EST

Douglas Maher - All Headline News Staff Reporter

Washington,D.C. (AHN)- After remaining almost silent since losing the 2004 election by thirty four electoral votes, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts is reportedly planning to to present Congress with The Downing Street Memo, reported last month by the London Times.

The memo purports to include minutes from a July 2002 meeting with Tony Blair, in which Blair allegedly said that President Bush's administration "fixed" intelligence on Iraq in order to justify the Iraqi war.

The Downing Street Memo is a leaked Top Secret document that details the minutes of a 2002 meeting between top-level British and American government officials.

The memo states that George Bush "was determined" to attack Iraq long before going to Congress with the matter, and that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Rumblings across Washington and the Internet claim this is a step from Democrats towards impeachment of President Bush.

Fellow Democrat Rep. John Conyers of Michigan has issued a statement on the U.S. House of Representatives stating that he is seeking information regarding the meeting minutes.

"I am seeking information regarding the charges made in the so-called “Downing Street Minutes” that there was a secret agreement between the U.S. and the U..K to invade Iraq by the summer of 2002, well before the president sought congressional authority." Conyers said.

"Please provide us with any information or leads you might have regarding such a secret pre-war deal, or other efforts to manipulate intelligence or provoke a response to justify war. We will treat any information provided on this site as confidential. Thank you for your assistance in this important matter."

However, All Headline News has re-discovered that a bill signed by then President Clinton named "The Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998" gave President Bush all of the legal recourse necessary for the war.

Stating directly from the bill: "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government. "

The H.R. 4655 law was signed into effect October 31,1998.

Republicans plan to issue a response to Senator Kerry by using his own words against him, a tactic used in the 2004 Election. Where Sen. Kerry was quoted as saying the war was justified and Saddam Hussein needed to be removed.

Almost silent? On what f***ing planet?

And how old and lame is that rethug tactic? I hope some dems are lined up to get his back when they start throwing up the misapplied quotes.

[ginnyinWI]

6. bizarro world is also where Kenny M. lives.

I just finished watching Ken Mehlman lie for a solid hour on Meet the Press--it was good for quite a few laughs,too. Russert threw every Dem current accusation at him (does he read DU?), and he responded with lie after lie. And he's such a bad liar, too. You can tell because his face stays so placid, and his expressions of emotion are delayed by a nanosecond, indicating conscious expression of them.
But the interesting part was that the DSM was brought up by Russert--and of course denied by Mehlman--but it was out there on network TV, one day before tomorrow, "DSM-Senate" Day. So we're gaining momentum. Mehlman said he had to "respectfully disagree" with the memo--har, har, har. He said "everyone who has looked at it" has discredited it--even in the Senate (???). Oh and he thinks Hillary will be a strong candidate for the Dems! :eyes: I think I need a shower now.

[whometense]

7. You deserve a medal

for sitting through that. Was Russert giving him a hard time, or just letting him spout his lies uncontested?

Did Russert try to pin him down on exactly WHO has discredited the DSM?? I can dream, can't I? :eyes:

[ginnyinWI]

8. I thought he was fairly tough with Mehlman

He took the Dem viewpoint and challenged him to make sense of the Bush positions, like that the war is going well, and the economy is strong--forced him to spin and spin, because there is honestly nothing truthful you can say about what's going on. Russert asked a lot of follow-up questions and tried to get him to admit stuff. Told him that Bush's own advisor on Social Security had urged him to drop the private accounts part of it, and wondered how he could fail to take the guy's advice. I don't remember exactly what he asked on DSM--but he had several follow-ups. And he seemed to fire question after question without giving him time to come up for air. That's my take on it--other people on DU seem to be more critical of Russert, but today he seemed to stick it to him pretty well.

[whometense]

9. Thanks. Maybe I'll see if I can catch a repeat

on CNBC.

Russert usually bails, but he has it in ihim to be tough if he wants to be. I trust your judgement. If Russert was being tough that's a really good sign - if he's tipping towards calling them on their lies he might be a bellwether for the rest of the media.

If Kerry can stir things up tomorrow, maybe they'll be grateful to him too. ;-)

[whometense]

11. It repeats at 1 am on MSNBC

Transcript up here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8062380/

Here's bit. Someone is lying here, and I don't think it's Russert.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the now-famous Downing Street memo. This was a memo, July 23, 2002, from the head of British intelligence to Prime Minister Blair; in effect, notes taken from a briefing that was given to Prime Minister Blair after the head of British intelligence came back from a trip to Washington. It says this: " reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, though military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

This is July of 2002. We didn't invade until March of 2003. And the prime minister of Great Britain is being told by the head of his intelligence that he went to Washington and believes that a decision had already been made and that the administration was fixing or manipulating the intelligence to support the policy.

MR. MEHLMAN: Tim, that report has been discredited by everyone else who's looked at it since then. Whether it's the 911 Commission, whether it's the Senate, whoever's looked at this has said there was no effort to change the intelligence at all. The fact is that the intelligence of this country, the intelligence of Britain, the intelligence of the United Nations, the intelligence all over the world said that there were weapons of mass destruction present in Iraq. We knew that Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction before. We still know that there was a weapons of mass destruction program. He was evading the sanctions, and he had plans to reconstitute the program. We also knew that Saddam Hussein had uniquely invaded his neighbors, had uniquely supported terrorists and we all know today that we are safer because he's been removed from power.

So I believe that that individual report not only has been discredited but that the overall reasons for removing Saddam Hussein were broader than that, they were correct, and we're now safer and certainly the people of Iraq are safer now that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power.

MR. RUSSERT: I don't believe that the authenticity of this report has been discredited.

MR. MEHLMAN: I believe that the findings of the report, the fact that the intelligence was somehow fixed have been totally discredited by everyone who's looked at it.

[whometense]

5. John BOLTON and the Downing Street memo scandal

And now to tie it all up in a neat little package, I just got this email

MAINTAIN THE FILIBUSTER ON BOLTON

By now you know that the very highest officials of the British government said that there was no just cause for war against Iraq, but that "the facts and intelligence are being fixed around the policy" by the U.S. to force it to happen anyway. That was 1600 American deaths, over 10,000 greviously wounded, and 300 billion missing from our treasury ago.

But now consider that in the run up to the Iraq it was John Bolton who was PERSONALLY responsible for creating a fact sheet for the U.N and the media containing known lies about Iraq seeking yellow cake uranium from Niger. And of course, we also know from the Senate hearings that John Bolton repeatedly manipulated intelligence, intimidiating his own staffers to do so. Put it all together you see Bolton was one of the key players who put in the very intelligence "fix" referred to in the Downing Street memo. Then TELL YOUR SENATORS AGAIN that this standing alone must preclude his confirmation as U.N. ambassador.

http://www.usalone.com/bolton.htm

Are there 51 senators good and true to vote down this nomination? If not then it is all the more critical for those with the integrity to do so to take responsibility for stopping this by MAINTAINING THE FILIBUSTER, regardless of party affiliation. Tell your senators you have read the Downing Street memo and demand accountability.

http://www.usalone.com/bolton.htm

Take action NOW on this and post and forward this message everywhere you can to you know.

Add Kerry and stir.

[sandnsea]

15. And the Bush Doctrine & Pre-Emptive War

None of it makes any sense without the context of American Primacy, expansion and the Bush Doctrine.

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/?view=plink&id=1020

[TayTay]

16. Very nice piece in LUTD

I liked it a lot. The so-called 'Bush Doctrine' is doomed to fail. The United States cannot become the world's policeman. Heck, the effort to become Iraq's policeman will bankrupt us. There is no compensating flow of oil to offset the cost of this war. The war itself has been going on for two years and there is no end in sight. Sen. Biden said yesterday on one of the talk shows that the US is at least two years away from a meaningful troop reduction in Iraq. This war will end up costing us as much as $400 billion dollars. That money is just gone.

I have had problems with American foreign policy going back to the end of WWII. You may find this hard to believe (cuz of where I'm from and because I'm such a wicked homer LOL!) but I had extreme problems with John F. Kennedy's foreign policy. His Inaugural Address was filled with that Cold War rhetoric that wound up costing the US so many lives in Vietnam. Kennedy may have tried to buck the influence of the hawks in foreign policy, the folks who did the original screw-ups in the Middle East and in South America. We will simply never know since he was murdered and the Vietnam War escalated so tragically. Recent papers that have surfaced indicate that Kennedy tried some back-door diplomacy using India and others to try to end the conflict in Southeast Asia. I want to believe that is true.

Anyway, the * Doctrine is doomed to fail. The only way it can work is to subjugate so many groups of people under US rule. I just don't see how they plan to pull this off. Economically, politically and morally, the US is in no position to pull this off. I think this is a lethal neocon pipe dream. (They have been dreaming this stuff up since Nixon.)

[sandnsea]

17. Subjucating people is the doctrine

Sure, it's all dressed up in freedom-loving terminology, but it's American imperialism. Read this one, if you didn't. Seems to me this is how to bring them down, on Iraq, terrorism, everything. Go after the Bush Doctrine.

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.15845/pub_detail.asp

[TayTay]

18. "Pax Americana rests on

strength and the perception of strength." Well, they have broken the military. Enlistments are way down, the parents of America don't trust BushCo with their kids and we are heading for a crisis in troop levels. They have also blown through an incredible amount of money in equipment costs. (As Kerry noted during a hearing, every year in Iraq equals seven in normal conditions.)

These people are so delusional it's just scary.

[Pirate Smile]

10. I think this could be a big opportunity for him if he really wants to go

for it. He could say he was lied to and the American people were lied to during the run up to this war. He could lay out the lies that have now been shown to be false and start shaking the trees demanding an answer for the American people.

Too strong? Maybe, but don't more then 50% of the people now think this War was sold to us under false premises?

He would be sticking his neck out but I think it would be worth it and needs to be done.

We'll see.

[whometense]

12. Stephanie Miller is talking

about this RIGHT NOW.

[Mass]

13. I am afraid that whatever he says, we will have to face attacks from some

DUers that have totally unrealistic expectations of what Kerry can do in one single speech.

What I hope and what is the best we can expect at this point is that his speech will provoke other Senators to speak too, but whoever is speaking of impeachement, be it the right wing papers or rawstory, is probably overstating what can be expected.

[tuvor]

19. So, where's this story at, then?

Is Kerry ever going to give this speech?

[MH1]

20. Read this...

Kerry / DSM Update (at Booman Tribune)

or this

WP: Democrats Looking for a Road Map to Downing Street (Kerry Letter to *)

or this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x31169">Kerry and the DSM

I'm not sure he ever said he was going to give a "speech" but it looks to be playing out that he will, eventually. Presumably after he's leaned on enough fellow Senators to sign the letter he's circulating (follow any of the above links for the detail on that).