General Discussion

Retired Editor of MAD Magazine is Mad:

The Downing Street Minutes is one more piece of evidence that supports my contention.

By Al Feldstein, Retired Editor of MAD Magazine

I respect and admire you for your Liberal, fair and responsible stances on many Political issues...

...but let's stop all the nit-picking crap and get to the real heart of the matter.

When are you...and the rest of the American public... going to take your heads out of the sand and face the awful truth about the wasted deaths and needless maiming of our innocent G.I.s and Iraqi civilians?

From Our E-mail In-Box:

My 19 year old son, Gordon Gentle, joined the army in November, 2003. He finished his six months training in April, 04. He was sent to Iraq, and was killed by a roadside bomb on the 28th of June, 2004.

They were sent to Iraq on a pack of lies. Blair has a lot to answer for. This war is wrong. It is an illegal war, and no one should be forced to to go and fight it. Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush lied to us all, and now MFSO [Military Families Speak Out] are not going to stop. We now have it in the hands of solicitors. I'll not give up on this. What was Iraq's crime to warrant such an illegal invasion? Was it that Iraq contains the second largest oil reserves in the world and was viewed as an easy target for western interest to plunder? No more lies. We have to get Blair and Bush in court.

By MediaMatters.org

Nearly six weeks after the disclosure of the Downing Street Memo -- which suggests that the Bush administration decided to go to war in Iraq much earlier than acknowledged, and that it manipulated pre-war intelligence to support that decision -- the memo still has not gotten much serious media coverage.

While many news organizations that ignored the story for weeks have finally touched on it, few have done more than repeating what the British Sunday Times reported on May 1, and much of the coverage has focused on the lack of coverage the memo has gotten, rather than on the content of the memo, its credibility, and what it means.

by Billmon

Eric Boehlert at Salon did a more thorough and concise job than I did of flaying the corporate media over its mishandling of the Downing Street Memo story -- although personally I think the piece would have benefited from a few scatalogical insults hurled at melon heads like Tim Russert. Truth is a defense, after all.

In my own screed on the subject yesterday, I should have included links to two other organizations that are working to keep the story alive -- afterdowningstreet.com and the Big Brass Alliance, a coalition of lefty bloggers who are also pushing the issue with admirable intensity.


THE SAD AND CONTINUING SAGA OF THE DOWNING STREET MEMO'S 'COVERAGE'
IN THE NEW YORK TIMES

By David Michael Green


Hey, here�s a question for you.

There�s a memo floating around out there, with loads of supporting evidence, suggesting
that George Bush wanted a war against Saddam Hussein real, real bad. So bad, in fact,
that he was willing to lie like a rug � nay, like a veritable Carpeteria warehouse � in order
to bring the rest of us along on his imperial superpower joyride. So bad, as well, that he

By Grace Reid
June 10, 2005

This morning Sheila, a Corkwoman, asked me why my eyes looked so tired and my face so strained. I explained that I had been staying up all night writing articles about a story that broke in the UK on the 20th of March, but still hadn�t been reported in the US news by the first week in June.

�Sure, there�s censorship of the news in America, isn�t there?� she said. �I mean, everybody knows that there are stories about the war in Iraq that you can�t print in America.� This came as the biggest news of the day to me, that censorship of the news is a state policy. �Can�t you get in trouble with the US government for writing stories like this? Will the FBI be paying us a call?� I told her that I was not too concerned, as the stories came from the BBC and that is about as establishment as you get. All I have been doing, I told her, is finding the news from here and delivering it over there.

THE SAD AND CONTINUING SAGA OF THE DOWNING STREET MEMO'S 'COVERAGE' IN THE NEW YORK TIMES

By David Michael Green

George Bush�s poodle, as he�s known at home in the UK, came from across the Atlantic
for a visit the other day. Master and hound were both asked at a press conference about
the Downing Street Minutes, and both gave preposterously duplicitous answers to the
question.

The good news is that Bush�s American poodle � the New York Times � gave the issue
coverage, and it has moved over the last month from Page Zero to Page 10 to Page 7.

Here are eight officials who must be lying if Bush is telling the truth.

See: http://www.democrats.com/node/4932

by David Michael Green, Common Dreams

The Downing Street Memo is the gift that just keeps on giving. And well it should. It is the smoking gun which proves that the gravest possible crime was committed by the Bush administration, and among its victims were the American people.
I am more hopeful about American politics than I have been in a long time, though still cautious. For nearly five years now, the Bush administration has gotten away with murder - literally and figuratively - with seemingly immutable impunity, always defying the laws of political gravity, at least as they are known in this universe. So I've come to be tentative and rather pessimistic about the possibilities of ending this national nightmare of reaction, thievery and militarism, and bringing these criminals to justice.

More Proof Iraq War Was Pre-Determined
By David Sirota

The newly-released Downing Street Memo showing President Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair decided to go to war with Iraq in 2002 has once again raised the question of why the Bush administration lied to America in the lead up to the conflict.

And amazingly, it is not the only piece of hard evidence proving that - well before the war (and during the supposed "diplomatic" phase) - the Bush administration had already decided to go to war in Iraq - no matter whether Iraq was really an "imminent threat" or not.

[Comments in brackets By] David Swanson, www.afterdowningstreet.org

HUME: When we come back with our panel, the memo that the left says the U.S. media won't talk about it. Well, we'll talk about it, next.

[Thanks! Here's a memo about your refusal to talk about it in the past:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=16 ]

HUME: We're back with our panel.

It is regarded on the anti-war left as proof positive that President Bush intended from the start to go to war in Iraq and rigged American intelligence to support the case. It is called the Downing Street Memo, and it is such a focal point now that it even has its own Web site, www.downingstreetmemo.com.

By Ted Glick

There is no question that former top FBI guy Mark Felt's decision to provide information to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward in the early '70s was one important part of what led to Richard Nixon's eventual resignation from office in August of 1974. But, not surprisingly, the corporate media have left out the decisive factor which led to that result: the sentiments and the actions of the U.S. American people at the grassroots.

From the fall of 1973 to the fall of 1974 I was one of the national coordinators of the National Campaign to Impeach Nixon (NCIN). Over the course of a few short months, this effort grew to include working local contacts in 33 states and over 100 cities and towns. During the three months of February, March and April of 1974, we organized a national lobby-in in Washington, D.C., a national conference in Chicago and a national demonstration of 10,000 people in D.C. on April 27th that received widespread media coverage.

Chair of Republican Party Put at a Loss by Downing Street Minutes
By David Swanson, www.afterdowningstreet.org

On June 5, 2005, Ken Mehlman, Chairman of the Republican Party, was asked about the Downing Street Minutes on "NBC News' Meet the Press."To my knowledge, this was the first serious treatment of the matter on any U.S. network news show. It still remains for a news program to report on the matter on its own behalf, as opposed to asking a Republican guest to comment on it.

The transcript is here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8062380 and below with commentary:

By Cindy Sheehan, Mother of needlessly slain soldier, Casey Sheehan.
Cofounder of Gold Star Families for Peace www.gsfp.org
(Organizational Supporters of www.AfterDowningStreet.org)

Iraq has been the tragic Lie of Historic Proportions of Washington, DC since before the first Gulf war.

For years, Saddam was one of our government�s propped up and militarily supported puppets. Many people have seen the famous footage of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. I suppose the two are smiling so big for the cameras because they are kindred spirits. After all of the hand-shaking and weapon brokering, when did Saddam become such a bad guy to Bush, Cheney, Halliburton and Co.? (Insert your favorite reason here).

By Blony.com

In what could be an interesting entre for the Downing Street memo in the Bolton hearings, the nominee is reported to have demanded the illegal firing of Jose Bustani to prevent Iraq chemical inspections that might undermine grounds for US invasion:
John R. Bolton flew to Europe in 2002 to confront the head of a global arms-control agency and demand he resign, then orchestrated the firing of the unwilling diplomat in a move a U.N. tribunal has since judged unlawful, according to officials involved.

A former Bolton deputy says the U.S. undersecretary of state felt Jose Bustani "had to go," particularly because the Brazilian was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad. That might have helped defuse the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and undermined a U.S. rationale for war.

By weldon berger at DailyKos
Fri Jun 3rd, 2005 at 22:05:23 CST

Many, many people seem to be under the impression that the White House has not commented upon the Downing Street Memo.

That's wrong: They have. My White House writer, Eric Brewer, posed a question about it to Scott McClellan at the May 23 White House briefing, and McClellan very carefully avoided disputing that Straw and Dearlove said what the minutes describe them as saying or that what they said was true.

Here's Eric's question and McClellan's response:

Eric Brewer: Scott, last week you said that claims in the leaked Downing Street memo that intelligence was being fixed to support the Iraq War as early as July 2002 are "flat-out wrong." According to the memo, which was dated July 23, 2002, and whose authenticity has not been disputed by the British Government, both Foreign Minister Jack Straw and British Intelligence Chief Sir Richard Dearlove said that the President had already made up his mind to invade Iraq. Dearlove added that "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Do you think these two very senior officials of our closest ally were "flat-out wrong"� And if so, how could they have been so misinformed after their conversations with George Tenet and Condoleezza Rice?

By Billmon, June 03, 2005

There was a time when the exposure of Deep Throat's identity would have grabbed my attention in a big way: At last!

The answer to all those boozy guessing games at all those journalistic watering holes of my younger days. Al Haig? John Dean? Martha Mitchell . . . no wait, wasn't she dead by then?

But it doesn't really matter any more. Anonymous whistleblowers have become little more than curious anachronisms, as likely to turn out to be bumbling fools or cynical disinformation artists (paging Michael Isikoff) as dedicated civil servants wiling to risk their careers to save the Republic.

Cartoon by Mike Luckovich, Atlanta Journal-Constitution

From Make Them Accountable: Famed Iran/Contra investigative reporter Bob Parry has offered his nonprofit, the Consortium for Independent Journalism, as the basis for building a new media empire dedicated to the truth. Which of you will join us in making that happen?

Watch the Washington Journal on C-Span from 7:45 - 8:30 a.m. ET Saturday June 4 for AfterDowningStreet.org Co-Founder Steve Cobble. And phone in to have your say!

WATCH VIDEO HERE

Downing Street Memo for Dummies
By Damn Liberals

I haven't written much about the Downing Street Memo. Maybe I was just weary of yet another "smoking gun" that "proved" Bush lied about the facts to lead the country into a war of choice. But last night I took the time to read the memo for myself.

Since I suspect we will continue to hear about the memo's formerly top secret contents, none of which have be denied or even remotely challenged by British officials, I'd like to highlight the key points for those new to the story. A story that broke a month ago in the UK, but for some strange reason, the SCLM in this country had yet to even print a word of. You can read the memo for yourself here.

Here's an audio clip of an interview of David Swanson, AfterDowningStreet.org organizer, on Andymatic.
Link here: http://andymatic.com/2005/06/02/interview-with-david-swanson-from-after-...

He thinks they never will be, but we'll see about that!

Interview with British MP George Galloway
Interview by Thom Hartmann

[Thom Hartmann] George Galloway!

[Thom Hartmann] Thom Hartmann here with you on AM 620 KPOJ in Portland and we're also going to record this and play it on our national program. Thanks so much, Mr. Galloway for being with us today.

[George Galloway] You're most welcome.

[Thom Hartmann] First of all, my apologies if I have your title wrong. I'm calling you mister. Is that how?

Letter Queries Rumsfeld About U.S. Military Attacks Prior to Approval of War on Iraq
Congressman Calls Latest Report: 'The smoking bullet in the smoking gun'
FROM THE BRAD BLOG

In regards to what John Conyers over the weekend reportedly described as "the smoking bullet in the smoking gun", a letter has just been sent to Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, asking questions about the recent reports that the U.S. and U.K. stepped up their air attacks in the Iraqi "No-Fly-Zone" prior to the war in "an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war."

Teaching the Downing Street Minutes
By TeachableMoment.org

The report of a British cabinet meeting held on July 23, 2002 and leaked to the Times of London raises grave questions about how and why the U.S. and Britain warred on Iraq. It deserves thoughtful discussion by every American citizen and answers from President Bush.

The reading below includes excerpts from the British memorandum, quotes from President Bush and other top U.S. officials during the period between July 23, 2002 and the opening of the Iraq war on March 20, 2003, and excerpts from a letter about the memorandum sent to the president by 89 members of Congress. Questions for discussion follow.