NationStates Jolt Archive

There's been some talk around here lately about the Downing Street Memo (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1), and I'm trying to figure out why it is being ignored in the US. It's not only being ignored, in fact, but being treated like a conspiracy theory, and in an article from CBS News Kerry was described as wandering into into "cuckoo clock territory" for calling attention to it.

I've read the memo, and on it's own it seems to paint a pretty clear and disturbing picture of the administration's intentions.

I think it's frightening that a source as apparently credible as this is being treated like a conspiracy theory by the media without anyone ever explaining why.

I'm perfectly ready to listen to reasons why the memo should be ignored - my personal inclination is to believe that something that only gets attention online is likely to be a bit off the wall - but I would really like to hear those reasons.

So what do you think? Are there good reasons why the memo isn't credible? Or if not, why is it being ignored?

my problems with the memo:

A) Why didn't it come out earlier, if it did why are people suddenly worried about it now?

B) It was by the former head of MI-6, why is he the former head ?

C)This document is the opinion of the former head of MI-6, written on a piece of paper which was taken into consideration then dissmissed. Reason for dimissal? unknown

I would like to see an investigation on it but I think people are jumping the gun by say Bush needs to be impeached

my problems with the memo:

A) Why didn't it come out earlier, if it did why are people suddenly worried about it now?

B) It was by the former head of MI-6, why is he the former head ?

C)This document is the opinion of the former head of MI-6, written on a piece of paper which was taken into consideration then dissmissed. Reason for dimissal? unknown

I would like to see an investigation on it but I think people are jumping the gun by say Bush needs to be impeached
I think I'm mostly in agreement with you here. Certainly it's way too early to talk about impeaching Bush until we've heard his side of things, but what bothers me is that he seems completely uninterested in giving us that.

On guess I have as to why the memo's being ignored is that without some sort of denial from the administration it just doesn't make much of a news story so it doesn't get much attention. But to, without explanation, relegate people who call attention to it to "cuckoo clock territory" seems a little premature. I have to wonder why a major news source like CBS would do that.

I ask, what could Bush be impeached for? To my knowlege, he has not committed treason or any other high crime.

A) Why didn't it come out earlier, if it did why are people suddenly worried about it now?

B) It was by the former head of MI-6, why is he the former head ?

C)This document is the opinion of the former head of MI-6, written on a piece of paper which was taken into consideration then dissmissed. Reason for dimissal? unknown
A) Because top secret documents tend not to come out at all, and when they do, they tend to be rather late.

B) Because he retired and got replaced by a New Labour lackey.

C) It was dismissed because it did not fit in with Tony's opinion. The same reason the legal advice was changed, and the UN's efforts sidelined.

As for why the issue is being painted as a conspiracy theory in the US...because since the American public knows virtually nothing of foreign politics, it is easy to do. They can say practically anything and the people wouldn't know any better.

A) Because top secret documents tend not to come out at all, and when they do, they tend to be rather late.

B) Because he retired and got replaced by a New Labour lackey.

C) It was dismissed because it did not fit in with Tony's opinion. The same reason the legal advice was changed, and the UN's efforts sidelined.

As for why the issue is being painted as a conspiracy theory in the US...because since the American public knows virtually nothing of foreign politics, it is easy to do. They can say practically anything and the people wouldn't know any better.

A) It was released in 2002

B) fair enough

C) That I can believe

Fortunately, it is finally being covered today in The Washington Post, although I have to wonder why they feel that the lack of a post-war plan is the most newsworthy aspect of the memo. article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100723.html?sub=new)

One thing that is clearly mentioned in the Washington Post article is that neither Bush nor Blair is disputing the authenticity of the memo.

Fortunately, it is finally being covered today in The Washington Post, although I have to wonder why they feel that the lack of a post-war plan is the most newsworthy aspect of the memo. article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100723.html?sub=new)

One thing that is clearly mentioned in the Washington Post article is that neither Bush nor Blair is disputing the authenticity of the memo.
Thanks for the article, this actually clears up a lot for me - it's good to see it being discussed, though I guess my post is a day or so late for being relevant now; that's what I get for not reading the news enough :p

I love the quote from Blair that "No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all," which is of course entirely true. In settting up for the war in Iraq, the Bush administration falsified nothing. Never mind that the easiest way to fix intelligence is just to ignore the facts that don't fit your agenda.

Its basically one man's opinion.

And probably the reason it isn't being covered over here is that it was a British memo so its the Brits problem and NOT the United States

I've read the memo, and on it's own it seems to paint a pretty clear and disturbing picture of the administration's intentions.

I think it's frightening that a source as apparently credible as this is being treated like a conspiracy theory by the media without anyone ever explaining why.

The authinticity can not be verified. It is not credible. Nuf said.

Dammit, you're gonna make me get all philosophical. MUST... RESIST... URGE... TO... BECOME... TOTALLY... CRYPTIC. *Roars.* Is anything really credible? Can anything truly be true?
The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.

It's one man's opinion. I can show you dozens of memos from other British and CIA officials who had opposing opinions. One man's opinion is not important enough to become a major news story.

An opinion which goes flat against both Bush and blair from the head of MI6. I'd call that important. Particularly when added to things like the Attorney general's report.

It is not just a UK issue because it discredits the US administration.

I think it's frightening that a source as apparently credible as this is being treated like a conspiracy theory by the media without anyone ever explaining why.by the US media.

don't forget...when the US is at War, the US media is immersed in something like a twilight-zone.

by the US media.

don't forget...when the US is at War, the US media is immersed in something like a twilight-zone.

do do do do do do do do

do do do do do do do do :D
thx for the "special Effects"

An opinion which goes flat against both Bush and blair from the head of MI6. I'd call that important. Particularly when added to things like the Attorney general's report.

It is not just a UK issue because it discredits the US administration.
Ah, but the man was a FORMER head (if my sources are correct). Both the current head of the MI6 and the current head (at the time) of the CIA were of different opinion, as was the majority of the intelligence community.

my problems with the memo:

A) Why didn't it come out earlier, if it did why are people suddenly worried about it now?
It was leaked. And the Times mentioned that people didn't bring it up, because they didn't know if it was a forgery and they couldn't even get a copy of it, until just recently.


B) It was by the former head of MI-6, why is he the former head ?
Just like the head of the CIA, he resigned ("retired") without giving any reasons. I find that rather, suspicious, personally. In fact, I've been wanting to go through a list of all the members of the intelligence agencies and the government who have resigned since Iraq, because I know there's a fair amount. And also, I believe that the former head of MI-6 was the one that leaked it, for decent reasons:
#1. He clearly saw that they were falsifying intelligence.
#2. He resigned.
#3. Everyone else in the memo has since discredited it.
#4. To my knowledge, he has made no comments on it.

C)This document is the opinion of the former head of MI-6, written on a piece of paper which was taken into consideration then dissmissed. Reason for dimissal? unknown
No, no. It was written by the Foreign Policy Advisor's aide, whose boss, the Foreign Policy Advisor, told him to write it. It contained various opinions, like the Attorney General claiming the war was illegal and the head of MI-6 claiming that they were falsifying intelligence. I suggest you look back at the other thread on this and read the memo, yourself, if you already haven't.

The authinticity can not be verified. It is not credible. Nuf said.
Its authenticity already has been verified. No one in the Blair or Bush administration are calling it a "forgery" or "fraud." They're just ignoring it or downplaying its importance.

Ah, but the man was a FORMER head (if my sources are correct). Both the current head of the MI6 and the current head (at the time) of the CIA were of different opinion, as was the majority of the intelligence community.

But the people who are already convinced of Bush's evil will zero in on one voice agreeing with them regardless of how many other voices did not. The men and women who disagreed with this one man's opinion will be seen as players in the the conspiracy to invade Iraq. They have constructed a senario in which any "fact" on their side is a fact and all other "facts" are lies in a conspiracy. But then again this is usually the position of most people. It is the worry and anger that cause the most trouble.
Paranoid, anger laced living. I will never unstand why so many people want to be unhappy and worry so much. They are not going to change anything, they will only stew in their own anger.
It depresses me.

I ask, what could Bush be impeached for? To my knowlege, he has not committed treason or any other high crime.

The president's oath of office means that he is always under oath when serving in an official capacity. If he speaks to Congess and tells them that going to war is a matter of national security then he has committed perjury. And not over something as trifling as cheating on his wife, but over sending hundreds of young American men and women to their deaths.

So what do you think? Are there good reasons why the memo isn't credible? Or if not, why is it being ignored?

Simple.

Anything that is more critical of Republicans than Democrats is demonstrably biased.

Anything biased is not a valid source of information.

All available evidence indicates that Bush and the Neocons went to war for personal gain at the cost of American lives..

Therefore, reality is biased against Republicans and can safely be ignored.

The president's oath of office means that he is always under oath when serving in an official capacity. If he speaks to Congess and tells them that going to war is a matter of national security then he has committed perjury.

Someone here needs to look up the word perjury in the dictionary.

And not over something as trifling as cheating on his wife, but over sending hundreds of young American men and women to their deaths.

Clinton lied to a FEDERAL Grand Jury while UNDER OATH! That did deserve impeachment. As for sending people off to their deaths, Kennedy and LBJ sent thousands to their deaths. Where is your condemnation of that? FDR had Hundreds of thousands of soldiers sent to their deaths. Where's your condemnation of that?

The president's oath of office means that he is always under oath when serving in an official capacity. If he speaks to Congess and tells them that going to war is a matter of national security then he has committed perjury. And not over something as trifling as cheating on his wife, but over sending hundreds of young American men and women to their deaths.
"Hundreds" is an understatement.

Over 1,700 Americans died in Iraq
89 Britons died in Iraq
92 citizens of other countries died in Iraq
And over 22,000 innocent civilians have died in Iraq

And though they did not die in vain, because it was a noble cause to free the Iraqis, they were sent to war because of a lie. Lying to Congress isn't perjury, but it is against Federal law, worthy of up to five years in prison.

"Hundreds" is an understatement.

Over 1,700 Americans died in Iraq
89 Britons died in Iraq
92 citizens of other countries died in Iraq
And over 22,000 innocent civilians have died in Iraq

Do I have to drag out the casualty numbers from past wars?
BTW: Iran put it at 12,000 for Iraqi citizens.

And though they did not die in vain, because it was a noble cause to free the Iraqis, they were sent to war because of a lie. Lying to Congress isn't perjury, but it is against Federal law, worthy of up to five years in prison.

Then someone should send Kerry up the river for Lying to Congress when he got back to Vietnam. Prove that Bush knowingly lied.

But the people who are already convinced of Bush's evil will zero in on one voice agreeing with them regardless of how many other voices did not. The men and women who disagreed with this one man's opinion will be seen as players in the the conspiracy to invade Iraq. They have constructed a senario in which any "fact" on their side is a fact and all other "facts" are lies in a conspiracy. But then again this is usually the position of most people. It is the worry and anger that cause the most trouble.
Paranoid, anger laced living. I will never unstand why so many people want to be unhappy and worry so much. They are not going to change anything, they will only stew in their own anger.
It depresses me.
You're right, this is just one man's opinion. Now, there are some conclusions we can draw from this opinion.

I remember that shortly after the war in Iraq began several people in the intelligence community came forward and admitted that the evidence for WMDs in Iraq was very weak - that the CIA believed there were WMDs in Iraq, but that there wasn't much evidence and that the president chose to act nonetheless. As far as I know, no one in the intelligence community has claimed otherwise.

Now given that, there are only two possibilities. One possibility is that the Bush administration was unaware how poor the evidence was, and so acted based on poor intel, but in good faith. The other possibility is that the Bush administration was aware how poor the intel was, but elected to misrepresent this to get a war they wanted.

What the downing street memo establishes beayond any doubt is that a highly placed advisor in the British government was aware that the intelligence wasn't solid.

Now, what are the odds that one of Blair's advisors was aware of the lack of intel, but that the Bush administration wasn't?

Certainly, I believe that Bush honestly believed there were WMDs in Iraq - most the intelligence community did too. But if Bush was aware how poor the intel was, and his administration intentionally misrepresented that to start a war, I think that that's a much more serious matter than any of Clinton's indiscretions.

...reality is biased against Republicans and can safely be ignored.

Heh. Good one.

Simple.

Anything that is more critical of Republicans than Democrats is demonstrably biased.

Anything biased is not a valid source of information.

All available evidence indicates that Bush and the Neocons went to war for personal gain at the cost of American lives..

Therefore, reality is biased against Republicans and can safely be ignored.

That's a sig-worthy quote. You mind me using it?

Someone here needs to look up the word perjury in the dictionary.

1. Law. The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath.
2. The breach of an oath or promise.

The president's oath: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The President's job is to carry out the legislative efforts of congress. If he lies to them he's violating his oath.

Clinton lied to a FEDERAL Grand Jury while UNDER OATH! That did deserve impeachment. As for sending people off to their deaths, Kennedy and LBJ sent thousands to their deaths. Where is your condemnation of that? FDR had Hundreds of thousands of soldiers sent to their deaths. Where's your condemnation of that?

I think maybe I left it in my other pants. You know... the bell bottoms that were in style in the 70's when that point was last relevant.

That's a sig-worthy quote. You mind me using it?

I'd be honored.

I'm going to have to start cataloguing qutoes of mine that people start using as signatures though. It's a better ego stroke than a drunk girl. :D

1. Law. The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath.
2. The breach of an oath or promise.

Thanks for the definition! Now I know you can actually look something up and actually be right.

The president's oath: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The President's job is to carry out the legislative efforts of congress. If he lies to them he's violating his oath.

He was hired to protect the United States and to guide her. You still need to learn the difference between a lie (Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy) and Bad Intel (JFK and Bush)

I think maybe I left it in my other pants. You know... the bell bottoms that were in style in the 70's when that point was last relevant.

Actually it wasn't but that's your opinion.

He was hired to protect the United States and to guide her. You still need to learn the difference between a lie (Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy) and Bad Intel (JFK and Bush)
You've struck at the core of the matter here - the whole question is whether or not Bush was aware how bad the intel was. From the Downing Street Memo, we know that at the least a highly placed advisor in the British government was aware that the intel was far from solid.

The most natural assumption is that this advisor got his assesment of the reliability of the intelligence from the Bush administration itself - an administration which is on record stating its absoulte certainty that Iraq had WMDs. If this is the case then the Bush administration is guilty of perjury.

Of course, I don't think you can catch Bush himself in any outright perjury since all the strongest statements were made by other members of his administration, but he was aware what they were saying and did nothing to give any impression other than that he agreed. To my mind at least, if one of the president's subordinates lies and he does nothing to correct them, then it may as well have been the president himself who lied.

I know I'm repeating myself here, but you seem to have neglected my post above which addressed this exact issue, so i thought it bore repetition.

He was hired to protect the United States and to guide her. You still need to learn the difference between a lie (Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy) and Bad Intel (JFK and Bush)

Actually I think you need to look it up yourself. You see, truth and lies don't actually apply to individual people, but rather individual statements. Dictionaries arrive at their definitions by analyzing the uses to which people put certain words, so if your usage was to be put to the test in a dictionary panel the definition would end up as something like:

Lie: And individual who limits his or her unfactual statements to matters of no consequence ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman) and is scrupulously honest in all other affairs ("George W. Bush himself said that Osama Bin Laden isn't that important").

Bad Intelligence: 1)Deliberate untruthful statements made in the pursuit of goals unatainable by legitimate means.
2) Information acquired by espionage professionals that is contrary to the desires of the individual giving orders to the espionage community.

If you don't understand that Bush deliberatly lied, then I must assume that you don't understand the content of the Downing Street Memo and the testimony of John Bolton's coworkers. I.E. Bush wanted this war no matter what the intelligence said and

Actually it wasn't but that's your opinion.

Of course it's my opinion. I'm the one who said it. If it was your opinion, you'd be the one who said it.

How is the vietnam war relevant to anything that's going on today? Do you honestly expect everyone who has an opinion on a current military conflict to preface his statements with issues that ceased to be current events over 30 years ogo?

The Irish have a saying. "Isn't it a shame what happened to Brian Barough?" It means harping on issues that don't actually mean anything for the topic at hand. Or else talking about old news like it's hot gossip.