Home > The Downing Street Memo: Primary source or 2nd hand info
The Downing Street Memo: Primary source or 2nd hand info
by Open-Publishing - Monday 20 June 200514 comments
Wars and conflicts International USA UK
The Memo raises the question: Did the President, the Vice President and other high level officials deliberately fabricate intelligence to
convince a gullible public to accept war? These are high crimes and
misdemeanors, impeachable offenses to say the least. And with the
carnage in Iraq, they could all go to trial for war crimes. Is it any
wonder that Bush and Co are running away from the questions?
Mr. Bush has refused to respond to the allegations, sending his PR man
Scottie McClellan to brush it off as ’old news’. Is that really the
extent of the checks and balances left in the good ol’ US of A? We can
ask el Presidente a question, and if he says he didn’t do it... he
didn’t do it- and don’t ask again unless you wanna go swimmin’ with a
new pair of lead boots- capice?
Is the memo a primary source? Let’s look at their reasons not to believe the memo, starting with the funniest.
Bush devotees argued that the word ’fixed’ means something
different in England. This is
what the TimesOnline.co.uk
reporter who broke the story had to say re: ’fixed’ in a WaPo
online chat:
Another reason given for Bush’s refusal to answer these allegations is that the memo is
hearsay from an insignificant aide. Ray McGovern, 27yr CIA analyst
(retired), stated at the Conyers’ Hearing
that the Downing Street Minutes are in fact a primary source, not
merely 2nd hand information.
The Memo is actually the minutes from a top secret meeting with Blair, his cabinet and the head of MI6. As UK reporter
Mr. Smith stated, "Pleeeaaassee! This was the head of MI6. How much authority do you want the man to have?"
Britain’s top spy told Blair what he learned in Washington, that war
was "inevitable" and the "facts were being fixed" to convince the
public.
Bush told US war was the last resort, but according to the Downing Street
minutes, that was a bald-faced lie. They had planned the war from the start.
Sure it was an aide doing the writing, that’s how top level meetings
work. Does the US press expect to disregard all meeting minutes unless Blair
himself wrote them?
The telling proof is that the minutes were written on the day of the
meeting, and sent to all participants immediately afterward- nobody objected. Blair
and his cabinet did not reply with a differing account of the meeting-
implicitly stating that the contents are true, the DSM does indeed
reflect the assessment of Britain’s top Intelligence Officer upon
returning from DC.
What more of a primary source is necessary to initiate a Senate
Investigation? The answer is nothing- this does warrant a full
investigation. If Bush has nothing to hide, he should be glad to clear this up by testifying as soon as possible.
However, this time Bush doesn’t appoint the panel. And this time
Bush testifies alone, in public, under oath, no wires.
After 9/11, America bought the, "don’t question the President"
line. But now? Not a chance.
Bush supporters tell their minions that they must remain
loyal. But if these allegations are true and Bush deliberately lied - then he betrayed us. After such a betrayal, no American, especially a soldier, needs to remain loyal to Mr. Bush.
Congress’ sworn duty is to Uphold and Defend the Constitution. This is
a clear case where they must exercise their powers to investigate a
potential crime, even if it was their President. He betrayed them, unless they were in on it as well.
Some have suggested the Senate Intelligence Committee must open the
investigation. One positive sign is that Republican Chuck
Hagel recently stated:
Perhaps you’d like to encourage a Senator on the Committee to begin the hearings.
| Senate Intelligence Committee Contact Information |
|||
|
|
|
||
| Pat Roberts, Chairman | KS | John D. Rockefeller IV, Vice Chair | WV |
| Orrin G. Hatch | UT | Carl Levin | MI |
| Mike Dewine | OH | Dianne Feinstein | CA |
| Christopher S. Bond | MO | Ron Wyden | OR |
| Trent Lott | MI | IN | |
| Olympia J. Snowe | ME | Barbara A. Mikulski | MD |
| Chuck Hagel | NE | Jon S. Corzine | NJ |
| Saxby Chambliss | GA | ||
Forum posts
20 June 2005, 20:33
well golly gosh gee willickers gomer...I heard the bible was a transcribed hand me down too...does that mean it’s a fake?
21 June 2005, 05:08
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
21 June 2005, 23:14
You catch on quickly, don’t you?
20 June 2005, 22:10
Thank you, thank you, thank you. PLEASE will SOMETHING get this information to the US public?! They’re not prone to watching CSPAN, but favor whatever idiot-fare du jour. We need all the help we can get from good "OLD" Europe.
20 June 2005, 22:28
You must scream this from the rooftops. This is NOT a memo. These are minutes. That means
1 They are a legal record of a policy meeting. This document can be submitted to a court of law with the same authority as an affidavit. In other words, unlike the President, they are unimpeachable.
2 Every attendee who is quoted will have been given a copy of the draft and given the opportunity to make corrections. This is standard procedure.
Two other comments. This was not a meeting of the Cabinet. In fact the Cabinet were being excluded, according to both Clare Short and Robin Cook. This was a meeting of Blair’s kitchen cabinet, one of the symptoms of “President Blair”. And some time after this meeting they stopped keeping minutes for these meetings – criticised by the Butler Inquiry.
21 June 2005, 00:51
We’re back to square on on this. No original version exists of this document. What they are working with is a "transcription". As this sinks in, the charge that the contents may or may not reflect the originial content or intent will be easy to make. It’s not exactly the Dan Rather scenario all over but I’m afraid it’s going to be very hard to make it stick. You can tell how this is going by looking at who is not climbing aboard.
21 June 2005, 10:46
An original of the minutes does indeed exist; in fact several do. Everyone who attended the July 23, 2002 meeting has an original copy, which was disseminated to them by Rycroft, the aide who took the minutes and typed them up.
If you’re talking about Michael Smith (Times of London reporter) and his handling of the original, here’s what he said on ’Hardball’: he made a photocopy of the original minute and returned it to his source. Then he had fresh copies typed up from the photocopy. Just before the story ran, the photocopy of the original was destroyed. All of this was done on the advice of lawyers to protect the source and the Times.
20 June 2005, 23:02
Well, the way I see it the pResident should be fixing his policy around the facts, and not the other way around, regardless of which definition of "fixed" is used.
21 June 2005, 01:41
The whole uproar over the so called "Downing Street Memo" is uncalled for, because the facts have already been known that the reasons for the war in Iraq have nothing to do with the allegations or convictions that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction. But, primarily to topple Saddam Hussein for being an ally of the most wanted enemy of America, Osama Bin Laden. And it is only typical of NATO to support America.
Those who are concluding that they never knew these facts until now are ignorant and hypocritical. Because, after 9/11, even a dummy knows that America would retaliate and the country that would be most guilty of supporting the terrorists would be the target of America and Iraq was the naked enemy since after the Gulf War.
The "Downing Street Memo" is neither a scoop nor a scandal.
It’s just stating the obvious.
EKENYERENGOZI MICHAEL CHIMA
Publisher/Editor
NIGERIAN TIMES.
21 June 2005, 02:00
No one is concluding that "we never knew these facs til now." Of course we know these facts. But there’s only one way to get the Bush Administration out, and that is to have absolute proof. Even absolute proof doesn’t work with the people in the United States, so it’s pretty damn hopeless. In terms of Saddam being the enemy - no more so than any repressive regime, so do you want the United States to run around playing police all over the world - invading other countries too? It’s an absurd idea to think we went into Iraq for any other reason than oil.
21 June 2005, 10:58
You do not have your facts straight, I’m afraid. Saddam was never an ally of bin Laden or vice versa, and there was never any substantiated evidence proving a link between the two. President Bush himself stated emphatically last year that he never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
Technically this is true...but he and his administration did a very good job of implying a link before the war. How else to account for the some 50% of Americans who insist to this day that invading Iraq was justified on the basis of Saddam having a relationship with al Qaeda? The President used clever deception and played on America’s newfound fear of terrorism to win public support for the invasion. It’s that simple.
21 June 2005, 17:18
Your opinion is based on incorrect information, it is well documented that Osama Bin Laden regarded Sadam Hussein as an ’infidel’ and was no ally of the Irag regime. The shift to make the American public believe that Bin Laden and Hussein were allies was a not so subtle PR manipulation pushed by the Bush administration.
22 June 2005, 03:38
"... But, primarily to topple Saddam Hussein for being an ally of the
most wanted enemy of America, Osama Bin Laden. And it is only
typical of NATO to support America."
Sir, you are a moron. You are clueless beyond description. If I had the power I would immediately grant you American Citizenship. We need more idiots like you who cannot see the truth and live in a make-believe world of, "Osama was an ally of Iraq."
Oh, if I were you, I would lay off the ganja for a while...
22 June 2005, 13:51
Bush Iraq Evidence Lies
The Ethics of Persuasion: Some Guidelines
by Edward L. Bernays
1. Do Not Use False Evidence
2. Do Not Use Illogical, Unsupported Reasoning
3. Do Not Falsely Represent Yourself
4. Do Not Conceal Your Purpose or Interest
5. Do Not Cover Up Consequences
6. Do Not Use Baseless Emotional Appeals
7. Do Not Oversimplify Complex Situations
8. Do Not Pretend Certainty
9. Do Not Advocate What You Don’t Believe Yourself
http://www.bushnews.com/iraqevidence.htm