Why has the media not probed more on this? So much for the "liberal" media...

Since the United States went to war in Iraq, nearly 1,700 of our troops have died there -- most of them long after President Bush put on his flight-suit to boast of an end to "major hostilities."

Despite his declaration, though, the war rages on for our nation's sons and daughters -- with no end in sight. Senior military officers have started to admit off the record that, even if we stay for years, we may ultimately fail. Our country has paid a terrible price in blood, in tax dollars, and in the global reputation that generations of Americans have built.

It gets worse. A secret British document revealed last month -- the Downing Street Memo -- all but confirms a sickening truth. Obsessed with Saddam no matter what the cost, President Bush and his aides dragged the nation to war with fixed evidence and false claims about non-existent Iraqi WMD's.

Despite pressure from ordinary people who have read the few reports of the memo in the American press, the White House has stonewalled on the issue. And the vast majority of our complacent media allows it.

Enough is enough. I'm tired of waiting for President Bush to own up to the facts -- and we apparently can't count on our own media to ask the simple, tough questions.

So, first things first -- read the memo and commit to making sure every other American does, too:

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/memo

The Downing Street Memo makes clear that Bush wanted intelligence that justified a war, no matter how the facts had to be bent to get it.

The memo consists of the minutes of a meeting where the British intelligence chief, just back from the White House, told Prime Minister Tony Blair that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and facts," the Downing Street Memo continues, "were being fixed around the policy. The [National Security Council] had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

Today, American soldiers and their families deal with the aftermath of a war hastily planned and poorly executed by an ideologically obsessed White House that finds money for corporate welfare, but not for armor for our troops.

The American people deserve an explanation -- but it's clear that even with Blair in Washington this week, the press won't do the job on its own. So we will have to take the memo directly to the people. Ask your friends, family and co-workers: have they read the memo? Ask them here:

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/memoinvite

Read the memo for yourself -- the full-text is at the end of this email.

We all have to spread the word about the deceptions it reveals. Together, we can put the truth on our leaders' agenda.

But it's going to take a lot of work. That's why grassroots DFA groups across the country will be setting up tables, handing out copies, and asking Americans: have you read the memo?

When it comes to matters of war and peace, doesn't every American deserve the truth?

Tom Hughes
Executive Director
Democracy for America

P.S. -- At democracyforamerica.com, you can find a print version of the memo to post or hand out in your community, along with a print petition you can use to inform your friends and neighbors. And through our event planning tool, you can set up a Downing Street Memo table right at your own town square, student center or neighborhood corner.

*** FULL TEXT ***

As originally reported in the The Times of London, May 1, 2005

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

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.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C 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, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72-hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

( Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. 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 neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. 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.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

( The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

© CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT

[Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide]

[emphasis added]

Pewter --that has to define "Late To The Game".

Much better, intelligent and enlightened review of same found here...

http://wizbangblog.com/archives/006138.php

In part, it begins with


"Those pushing the Downing Street Memo have built their house of cards entirely on the pen of Matthew Rycroft, Private Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the Prime Minister, in his role as meeting note taker. Especially drawing their attention is this curious line:

"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

My initial take on the line was that it was the peculiarly British phrasing of intel speak regarding intelligence gathering and analysis related to Iraq's WMD program and terrorist ties.

The "smoking gun" crowd reads the word "fixed" conspiratorially to mean "doctored," as proof that intelligence was altered (or invented) to justify war.

With 372 liberal bloggers alligned to push for more media coverage of the story, it's ironic that none of them (to my knowledge) could be bothered to do a little background research on Rycroft. Clearly an understanding of the Rycroft's writing style and contextual use of the word "fixed" might help shed light on the meeting notes and further the understanding of the meaning of that oddly worded line."


Oh wait, the blinders are ON crowd doesn't tolerate dimensional viewpoints... I forgot.

http://johnconyers.campaignoffice.com/inde...2-23EC345E4BEE}

sign the petition...

How can Republicans defend, much less agree, with this administration? Looks like more and more aren't as Bush's ratings continue to slip. None are above 50% now.

These are the same people that were up in arms about Clintons blowjob yet are mum on a war based on lies, billions of $$, and thousands of lives lost. Moral values?

[ June 09, 2005, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: PewterPirate ]

This is important to note, PewterPirate, but I think, unfortunately, the US media has tuned out because there really isn't anything new here. We have known for years, based on the memoirs of several former Bush admin officials, that the aim of this administration was on Iraq long before 9/11 even. Certainly the American public should be outraged at these minutes, which have not been refuted by the British, because they clearly map out the entire strategy the Bush admin used to ramp up to war, but we may be dealing with Iraq fatigue.

Interestingly, there is also evidence that the war began, de facto at least, in the second half of 2002, with a greatly increased bombing raids meant to "soften" Iraq's defenses - and that was before either Congressional authorization or the UN resolution that Bush relied on to justify this illegal war.

London Times Article

And remember Afghanistan, the place where we were going to find Osama Bin Laden, the man who actually attacked the US, \"dead or alive.\" Looks like the Taliban is resurfacing, and borrowing some lessons from the Iraq insurgency.

Violence Linked to Taliban Swells in Afghanistan

And remember folks, troops were pulled from Afghanistan to fight in Iraq, and now the military is so strained they likely cannot add too many men to Afghanistan. As in Iraq, the Taliban insurgency only needs to play a waiting game - they don't need to conquer territory if they fight a guerrilla war.

It is increasingly clear that Iraq is likely to collapse into civil war, perhaps for decades. It would be a criminal shame if Afghanistan were to again do the same. The American people would have then let down so many in the Middle East that our reputation could be permanently damaged.

[ June 09, 2005, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: CPT_Doom ]

Isn't our reputation already damaged? I mean, when we next claim that someone has WMD, is a brutal dictator, harbors terrorist, etc., don't you think they international community would wonder if how "valid" the facts are, are there even "fact" or is it another American propraganda? Is Bush's numbers slipping that bad that he has to start ANOTHER war, and if we do HAVE to go to war, do we even have the troops to fight 2, 3, 4 wars?

Give me a president that lies about a blowjob ANY DAY!

I think Conyers held a hearing on the Memo today. He's registered over 240,000 citizens' signatures in just a few weeks.

Also, wasn't flipflopper Kerry supposed to broach the whole Downing Street Minutes on MONDAY? Of course the b*tch went silent, so it took Teddy Kennedy to bring it up. Why doesn't Kerry just resign and become the president of the University of Pittsburgh, or maybe Columbia University, whose faculty and students are in revolt against its flipflopping president?

Is there an audio tape of the meeting? Now that nothing in it is "secret", could that be released if it exists?

Anyone listening to it could make up their own mind about the way in which the word "fixed" was used, as well as the tenor of the remainder of the conversation.

You would think the British tabloids would pay a fortune to get it, even risking Downing St's ire.

sportinlife, call me cynical, but I think the whole \"'fixed' has a different meaning in Great Britain\" argument is a smokescreen. The memo clearly outlines the actual steps taken by the Americans and British to get what they wanted vis-a-vis Saddam, so it looks like this was a strategy meeting to put that plan into place.

Consider the following:

They are acknowledging that the case against Saddam was not there - it was not compelling enough for war. That is justification enough for me to consider this pretty close to a "smoking gun."

But if a picture is worth a 1000 words, a recording ought to be worth at least a couple dozen.

Bush supporters have made an art form of shouting about a few redwood-sized "facts" to drown out the forest of controverting facts.

The public would respond better to an actual audio tape than to the printed word, which most of his supporters do not read, and fewer analyze.

The London Times is now reporting on the leaking of yet another document, British Cabinet office briefing paper, that buttresses the Downing Street minutes:
London Times: Ministers were told of need for Gulf War excuse

and

Big front page article about this in my morning paper. I would say there should be a total Congressional investiagtion/hearings on this. The more I read, the more apparant it looks like the American people were lied to and duped! And I don't care what (No) Sense-senbrenner thinks!

[ June 19, 2005, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

No kidding, at first when I read the initial stories, it seemed a lot like what has already been said. But over the past couple weeks when the details have started to come out with the various quotes and who said what, it's absolutely disgusting.

I can't imagine how this is going over in Britain.

Well John Kerry may be finally deciding to get off his knees:Kerry cautious on probing `Downing Street Memo'. And at least some folks in Britain believe that "fixed" means pretty much the same thing there as here:
British sources confirm that meaning of "fixed" -- as in "manipulated" or "cooked" -- is the same in Britain and America. The spin goes on..

What is the ultimate goal here for bringing these memos to light? If Bush is brought to trial and impeached that means Cheney will be the president. That scares me more than Bush being the president! I know, I know... lots of people already believe that Cheney is the puppet master anyway. This has all been like a bad dream. The only part that is not a dream are the over 1700 soldiers that have lost their lives. That part is a nightmare.

If Bush were impeached, Cheney would be deeply implicated. I would think that his rule would be short and extremely uneventful.

A disturbing thing happened to me this weekend while at my Nephews birthday party. My Sisters Father-in-law brought up politics. While looking at me mentioned something about he saw a girl this week with a "Kerry-Edwards" shirt on and he thought "the nerve, can't they let it go" to which I replied "so what are your thoughts about the Downing Street memo", he stated that it's "old news" and has no effect on him...then I inquired as to the "facts being fixed around Bush's agenda and that Bush mislead the nation into war" he seemed disturbed that I would question his great leader and actually said "I don't care if he lied!".

At this point I was ready to go off but somehow successfully bite my tongue, found a way outside and smoked a cig (and i'm not a smoker). I FELT like saying "I wonder how one of the 1700 deceased relatives would feel about you "not caring" if he lied to get us into this mess?!?!!!"

UNFORTUNATELY, this is the Bush crowds attitude toward the whole thing. Furthermore, this man (nor any of his three sons) served a day in the military they say they "support the troops" (in fact I counted 4 "support our troops on his SUV) yet they have this "who cares if Bush lied" attitude. It's STUNNING! This is not a Republican/Democrat thing. Our "leader" takes us to war based on lies and a "fixed" agenda and the Bush folks say "thata boy!", this from the "moral values" segment of society. The hypocrisy! I'm beginning to agree with Howard Dean - I HATE them!

I know just how you feel Pewter. My younger sister is so far gone over to the dark side that I don't think any talking to her will bring her back. She has been fed the Repug lies for so long now that it doesn't even matter to her if Bush lied to get us into war. Just as long as her church tells her what to do and who to vote for to get to heaven she will do it. This is going to be the droves of people that line right up at the end to take the Mark of the Beast that is mentioned in the book of Revelations. Like sheep to slaughter! eek!

Sorry, my Baptist cult indoctrination oozed out just a little there on those last two sentences.

Exactly Gad -

They don't care about a war based on lies but a lie about a blow job was impeachable!

PS - The "Father-in-law" is at his Catholic church EVERY week, his wife works for the church. I'm glad we are all ultimately going to be judged by someone far superior to "W" and his sheep! That allows me to sleep well at night.

I'm not so sure they haven't already taken the "mark" they voted for the bastard. The blood on his hands is on theirs - not mine.

For any Molly Ivans fans read her column this morning. She attacked the so called "liberal media" for not digging deeper into this story. The other night I was watching "Hardball" and Matthews was talking about it, but he has been about th eonly one.