Gold Star and Military Families Call for Truth Regarding Downing St. Memo

On July 23, 2002, British prime minister Tony Blair met with several of his top advisers to discuss plans for the future concerning the United States, Iraq, and the United Nations. The minutes from that meeting were marked "secret and strictly confidential." But on May 1, in the heat of Blair's campaign for re-election, those minutes—which have come to be known as the Downing Street Memo—surfaced in The Times of London.

The Memo confirmed what many progressives had long suspected: that the Bush administration planned to launch a war in Iraq and then rigged a case to justify it. According to the Memo, Britain's intelligence chief reported the following assessment with regard to his then recent trip to Washington: "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 British media, from the Guardian to the BBC News, quickly explored the Memo and its implications and subsequently unearthed more documents that cast further doubt on the official Bush-Blair version of the run-up to the Iraq war (as well as the preparations for its aftermath). In the meantime, however, the titans of the U.S. press largely dodged the Downing Street bullet. As Media Matters for America noted in a study released June 15, the editorial pages of four of the nation's five largest newspapers—USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times—remained "conspicuously silent about the controversy surrounding the document" in the first six weeks after its publication.

Nonetheless, reactions to the Memo have slowly and quietly gathered steam across the United States. Progressive media outlets including The Village Voice (The Bush Beat, Power Plays), TomPaine.com, Democracy Now!, and The Nation have covered the story on a regular basis, and smaller newspapers from Tennessee to Wisconsin have also taken up the issue. Daily Kos began a campaign to "lift the virtual news blackout" on the story.

On the advocacy front, more than 500,000 people signed a letter to President Bush earlier this month demanding an explanation for the latest revelations, and groups of veterans and peace activists have formed a coalition to push for a formal congressional investigation. Moreover, Ralph Nader and Kevin Zeese, among others, have actually raised the prospect of impeachment for President Bush.

With the issue clearly gaining momentum, the key question now is whether the Memo has the muscle to sway not only those who opposed the war in the first place, but also those who at some point supported it.

Neither testimony from Joseph Wilson and Richard Clarke nor the enduring absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has unsettled the American public enough to reopen the debate over the war. Controversy over the Downing Street Memo may also wither away.

But there is a real possibility the issue could gain serious traction in the days and weeks ahead. The Memo is strikingly concrete; beyond the commentary on intelligence-fiddling and fact-tweaking, it notes quite plainly that "the case was thin" for military action in Iraq. And perhaps even more importantly, the people of the United States have become increasingly frustrated with the Iraq war; in fact, a recent Washington Post poll found that for the first time since major combat operations began in March 2003, more than half of all Americans feel the war has not made the nation safer.

NEW YORK With a hearing about to begin on Capitol Hill on the so-called Downing Street Memo, hosted by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), reporters at today's White House briefing by Press Secretary Scott McClellan naturally raised the subject, albeit briefly.

Rather than ask about details or implications of the 2003 internal British document--which seemed to suggest that the Bush administration was determined to go to war against Iraq and that intelligence would be “fixed” to support it--the correspondents wondered if the White House was ever going to respond to a letter authored by Conyers and signed by 88 of his colleagues asking for information about the memo.

A transcript of two separate exchanges follows:

***

Q Scott, on another topic, has the President or anyone else from the administration responded to the letter sent last month by Congressman John Conyers and signed by dozens of members of the House of Representatives, regarding the Downing Street memo? Has the President or anyone else responded?

McCLELLAN: Not that I'm aware of.

Q Why not?

McCLELLAN: Why not? Because I think that this is an individual who voted against the war in the first place [Conyers] and is simply trying to rehash old debates that have already been addressed. And our focus is not on the past. It's on the future and working to make sure we succeed in Iraq.

These matters have been addressed, Elaine. I think you know that very well. The press --

Q Scott, 88 members of Congress signed that letter.

McCLELLAN: The press -- the press have covered it, as well.

Q But, Scott, don't they deserve the courtesy of a response back?

McCLELLAN: Again, this has been addressed….


***

Q Scott, on John Conyers, John Conyers is walking here with that letter again, as you have acknowledged from Elaine's comment. But 88 leaders on Capitol Hill signed that letter. Now, I understand what you're saying about him, but what about the other 88 who signed this letter, wanting information, answers to these five questions?

McCLELLAN: How did they vote on the war -- the decision to go to war in Iraq?

Q Well, you have two -- well, if that's the case, you have two Republicans who are looking for a timetable. How do you justify that?

McCLELLAN: I already talked about that.

Q I understand, but let's talk about this.

McCLELLAN: Like I said --

Q Well, just because -- I understand -- but if you're talking about unifying and asking for everyone to come together, why not answer, whether they wanted the war or not, answer a letter where John Conyers wrote to the President and then 88 congressional leaders signed? Why not answer that?

McCLELLAN: For the reasons I stated earlier. This is simply rehashing old debates that have already been discussed.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000963228

LONDON, June 16 (Reuters) - The Downing Street memo produced for British Prime Minister Tony Blair in July 2002 portrayed President George W. Bush as inevitably invading Iraq and said "intelligence and facts" were being fixed eight months before the March 2003 invasion. Bush and Blair dismissed this.

Here are some key facts on the Memo:

** Blair's staff produced the eight-page July 21, 2002, memo in preparation for the prime minister's meeting with his national security staff two days later at Downing Street.

** Britain's spy chief, Sir Richard Dearlove, had concluded that war was "inevitable" because "(President) Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action," and "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

** According to the minutes, Blair spoke to his cabinet explicitly in terms of toppling Saddam - "If the political context were right, people would support regime change," Blair is recorded as saying. "The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work."

** Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the case for war was "thin" because "Saddam was not threatening his neighbors and his WMD (weapons of mass destruction) capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

Straw proposed giving Saddam an ultimatum to allow in U.N. weapons inspectors, provoking a confrontation that would "help with the legal justification for the use of force."

** Blair ordered his chief of defense staff, Sir Michael Boyce, to present him with war plans later that week.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N16165573.htm

Nicholas F. Benton

It's so nice to see that even the Washington Post, which had cheered so hard for the U.S. invasion of Iraq two years ago, is finally having it up to here with the Bush administration's handling of the worsening Iraq mess.

"The U.S. mission in Iraq seems to be drifting dangerously - and the president, once again, is not talking frankly to the country about the sacrifice that may be required, or where the troops and other resources for such an effort will come from," the paper's lead editorial yesterday concluded, perhaps suggesting that the president should come clean about the need to reinstate the draft to keep his geopolitical vision alive.

I love that line, "the president, once again, is not talking frankly to the country."

When, pray tell, does the Post think that started? If it had been a little more the kind of paper it was during Watergate, instead of the sycophant it has been since Bush came to power, it might have probed deeper into the administration's real motives for the invasion and whether it was being entirely truthful when it sold the public on the desperate need to root out so-called "weapons of mass destruction (WMD)."

But because it didn't, the same Post editorial yesterday was compelled to belittle the explosive leaked document from a foreign policy aide at Great Britain's Downing Street that will be the subject of a congressional hearing led by Rep. John Conyers today. The Post's poo-pooing the memo's significance says more about the Post than the memo, and won't douse the firestorm that's about to break loose.

"Did he deceive us into a war? Did he trick us into a war?," Rep. Conyers asked, rhetorically, yesterday on CNN concerning the memo's suggestion that Bush's pre-invasion briefings to the American people and the U.S. Congress were lies.

Thanks to Conyers' initiative, what has been swirling around on the Internet will now force its way onto the all the major news outlets, despite the Post preoccupation with papering over its own inept, at best, behavior at that time.

The Los Angeles Times broke the story yesterday with a lengthy treatment. John Daniszewski's article noted that in March 2002, a year before the invasion, the Bush administration officials were "already deeply engaged in seeking ways to justify an invasion, newly revealed British memos indicate."

The stunning memo was first published in the Times of London on May 1. It is dated July 23, 2002. It was top secret. At its top are the words, "Secret and Strictly Personal - UK Eyes Only," and goes on the caution, "This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents."

It cites recent talks in Washington where "there was a perceptible shift in attitude." It was reported that "military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD."

Noting that the administration "had no patience with the UN route," the report then provides the fundamentally incriminating assessment, "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Later in the report, after detailing Bush administration options for launching the invasion, the report's author states, "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

Six new Downing Street documents shown to the Los Angeles Times "indicate that top British officials believed that by March 2002, Washington was already leaning heavily toward toppling Hussein by military force." They indicate, according to the Times, that current U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was enthusiastic about "regime change."

In effect, all the substantial discussion in the memos dealt with shaping public opinion to support an invasion, and all turn around the notion that the intelligence was being fixed to conform with policy. Talk about lying to the American people! Didn't we impeach a president a short while ago for allegedly lying, and that was about a tryst, not the human carnage that we're seeing in Iraq.

Sorry, dear friends at the Post. Your latter day impatience with Bush is noted, but your attempt to downplay the significance of these memos only tells on yourself. Be ashamed. Be very ashamed.

http://www.fcnp.com/515/benton.htm

very sharp lawyer from http://www.afterdowningstreet.org made the case for impeachment of W in Rangel's hearing on the memos' implications today

David Paul Kuhn explains how the Democratic representative John Conyers defied Republicans to call for an inquiry into the 'Downing Street memo'

Friday June 17, 2005

Forced to the basement of the US Capitol and prevented from holding an official hearing, Michigan representative John Conyers defied Republicans and held a forum on Thursday calling for a congressional inquiry into the infamous British document known as the "Downing Street memo".

Three dozen Democratic representatives shuffled in and out of a small room to join Mr Conyers in declaring that the Downing Street memo was the first "primary source" document to report that prewar intelligence was intentionally manipulated in order make a case for invading Iraq.

Not only did Republican leaders consign the Democrats to the basement, but Democrats also claimed that the House scheduled 11 votes concurrent with the forum to maximise the difficulty of attending it. Because the forum wasn't an official hearing, it won't become a part of the Congressional record - but members worked to make sure that the attending media and activists captured their words for posterity.

The Downing Street memo, so far disputed by Washington and London in some of its details, but not its authenticity, reports on minutes of a meeting between the British prime minister, Tony Blair, and his national security team on July 23 2002.

First reported by the London Sunday Times on May 1 this year, the internal memo states that, in the opinion of "C" (Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of the British secret intelligence service), "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the [Bush administration's] policy". The author of the memo added that it "seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action".

Since then, several other British government memos have become public that also make the case that the White House was planning the war long before it admitted to doing so.

The Democratic representatives attending the forum said they believed that if such information had got out prior to the war, neither the House nor the Senate would have supported the October 11 2002 congressional vote giving the president the power to order the invasion.

To the Democrats taking turns to speak at the forum on Thursday, the memo was tantamount to the first word of tapes in the Nixon White House during the Watergate scandal. Impeachment was on these representatives' minds as four long-time critics of the war in Iraq, including the former ambassador Joe Wilson, repeatedly urged Congress to hold an official inquiry into the validity and origins of the Downing Street memo.

"We sent our troops to war under dubious pretences," asserted Mr Wilson, who travelled, at the government's behest, to Niger in February 2002. There, he discovered President Bush's claim that Iraq was attempting to obtain uranium in Africa was false. The White House later retracted the accusation.

Speaking on the question of impeachment, representative Charles B Rangel, D-NY, asked, point blank: "Has the president misled, or deliberately misled, the Congress?"

The answer is at the heart of Mr Conyers' push for further investigation. Misleading Congress is an impeachable offence, and Mr Conyers' petition for an inquiry into the memo seemed a first step in that direction - though no one made that call outright.

"Many of us find it unacceptable to put our brave men and women in harm's way, based on false information," Mr Conyers said.

Though most of those at the forum voted against the war in Iraq, Mr Conyers, who is the ranking Democrat on the House judiciary committee, insisted the forum was not partisan politicking, but a function of their oversight duty.

As members of Congress crammed into the small room, no bigger than 30ft by 50ft, Democratic representatives spoke and then scurried out to make scheduled votes. After being denied a hearing, then forced to the basement, which representative Jim McDermott, D-Wash, called unprecedented, the Democrats believed Republicans had purposely scheduled 11 votes to interrupt the forum.

"Absolutely, it was absolutely timed," Mr McDermott said in an interview after the forum. "There was no need to do it then. And they were having a major appropriations hearing at the same time. That was also to keep people away, because appropriations are your chance to get money for your district that you've been working all year on."

McDermott spoke as representative Maxine Waters, D-Calif, delayed her aide and sprinted down the hall in her high heels to do an interview with Pacifica Radio. Covered mostly by liberal media outlets, the forum got some mainstream news attention, from the AP to the Baltimore Sun to CNN.

Democrats who dropped by included representatives Barney Frank, of Massachusetts, Charles Rangel, of New York, Virginia's Jim Moran, and Barbara Lee of Oakland, California.

Following the forum, Mr Conyers led Democratic representatives and activists on a march to the White House, hoping to deliver a letter with more than 550,000 signatures of the public and more than 120 members of Congress, mostly - but not all - Democrats. The White House spokesman Scott McClellan told the Associated Press that Conyers was "simply trying to rehash old debates".

As he left, the mild but indefatigable Mr Conyers was a little angry that the forum was denied a proper room in the Capitol.

"They tried to shut us out," he said after the hearing. "They tried to cut us off. They put us in a tiny room. The significance shouldn't be lost on anybody."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/salon/story/0,14752,1509059,00.html