Keith Olbermann on the Downing Street Memos

Downing Street Memos and the Media Triangle

Our media should really bow their heads in shame. Not only did they fail to fulfil their watch dog role three years ago, before the republican president engaged in his war of choice against Iraq, our media now fails to inform the public on just how it was that Bush and crew willfully mislead our nation into war. All right, all right, so am being a little harsh, but that’s only because I care — my rancor comes from a place of love; love for the ideal of what committed and idealistic journalists can and do do for democracy. Well, I guess I should also add that there are two kinds of media journalists, really. There are print journalists, whom by enlarge have done a far, far better job than their counterparts in the broadcast media.

It is this second group, broadcast journalists, that should really be taken to the woodshed, and not be let out till they’ve done their penance — the fact is that these journalists are just glorified TelePrompTer readers, always in pursuit of ratings to please their corporate masters. I would go as far as denying these TelePrompTer readers any media credentials and barring them from all newsrooms — they simply don’t deserve to even be called journalist nor to be associated with anything having to do with news.

And now to the point of my rant.

It is only until now that the NY Times has deemed it worth their while to cover the Downing Street Memos, which even I covered here about a year ago — that’s right, a year ago. If you recall, these are the documents that high ranking British government officials prepared for Prime Minster Blair summarizing meetings between the Bush and Blair governments some eight months before the Iraqi invasion. The documents make it blatantly clear that the republican president, Bush, was ready to go to war (even though he publicly claimed the opposite):

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.

Read that again. Here’s a British government official telling Prime Minister Blair that the republican president was going to war, no matter what and that, in fact, the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of invasion. Now, some simply interpret that as the Bush Administration placing an emphasis on evidence to support the invasion of Iraq. Of course, there’s another interpretation, a more sinister interpretation. And that’s that the republican president would go as far as fabricating evidence to invade Iraq. There’s certainly evidence to support the conclusion the Bush Administration would, in fact, fabricate evidence by provoking Iraq:

Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".

Of course, am certainly not the only one that’s noticed the lack of coverage that this subject has received, in spite of the Downing Street Memos finally being written about in our so-called paper of record.

Peter Daou writes about the memo and how we, Liberals, simply lack the media organization to be able to make this a nationally talked about issue — similarly to how conservatives manage, on a regular basis, to inject their narratives into our national discourse. Daou points out that, unlike conservatives, Liberals simply lack what he calls the Media Triangle, that is: grassroots, politicians and media surrogates working in concert to affect the national discourse. The Liberal media triangle is broken, the grassroots is ineffective at affecting our elected politicians and there simply aren’t any influential, much less reliable, liberal voices in our mainstream media.

According to Daou, the Downing Street Memos story is the perfect sort of hook to build a narrative on, one that can cut to the heart of the thin national defense veneer that republicans still enjoy. However, until we figure out how to get the Liberal media triangle going, we’ll always be merely reacting to the conservative narratives that they tell us about ourselves.

Come Again, What’s the Cause?

Those that have mapped the twisted and winding road that Bush & Co. set America on when their cabal set their sights on Iraq know that we’re a longs way off from the original course: finding and destroying Hussein’s WMDs.

However, it comes as no surprise to those of us that saw through Bush & Co.’s smoke screen, and recognized that, as the Downing Street Memo puts it, “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy [of invading Iraq].” However, while the original pretext for going to war against Iraq was obviously based on hype;during moments of self-doubt one could imagine that Bush & Co. truly did believe on the righteousness of their crusade to “change the climate of the region” by establishing a beachhead in Iraq for “Liberal Democracy” (i.e., Western styled rule of law). Of course, such a prospect was an overly optimistic long-shot at best, or just another smoke screen at worst.

Well, at last, we appear to have an answer and, once again it would seem, Bush & Co. have abandoned the road map they set for us, and are taking America (and Iraq) on a road to who knows where:

Iraq secularists denounce “Islamist” constitution

24 Aug 2005 13:50:28 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Andrew Hammond

BAGHDAD, Aug 24 (Reuters) - Secular Iraqis said on Wednesday a proposed new constitution left no room for doubt about the Islamist path the country was heading down two years after a U.S.-led invasion was supposed to produce greater freedoms.

The document presented to parliament on Monday is suffused with the language of political Islam in defining the state, and assigns a primary role to Islam as a source for legislation.

“The draft aborts the democratic process Iraqis hoped for and is a big victory for political Islam,” said writer Adel Abdel-Amir. “Islamic law, not the people, has become the source of authority.”

The draft says Islam is the official religion of the state and there can be no law that contradicts the “fixed principles of its rulings”. The preamble says the constitution responds to “the call of our religious and national leaders and the insistence of our great religious authorities”.

[...]

“Human rights should not be linked to Islamic Sharia law at all. It should be listed separately in the constitution,” said Safia Souhail, Iraq’s ambassador to Egypt.

[...]

“When we came back from exile, we thought we were going to improve rights and the position of women. But look what has happened — we have lost all the gains we made over the last 30 years. It’s a big disappointment.”

So, Mr. President, our public servant, how do you respond to Cindy Sheehan’s question?

I came [to Crawford] two and a half weeks ago for one reason, to try and see the president and get an answer to a very simple question: What is the noble cause that he says my son died for?

Impeach Bush: “Facts Were Fixed”

Since this weekend, when I learned that The Times of London had reported on “The Secret Downing Street Memo,” (archived PDF) I’ve had an on going conversation with two friends at work. As I’ve mentioned to my friends, the Downing Street memo makes it clear that the Bush and Blair administrations were set on invading Iraq long before the two made their case for war to the world. In fact, as the until-now secret memo puts it, “intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” of invading Iraq — yes, that’s right, facts be damned.

Oh, but wait, before I go on, I have to get this off my chest: why is it that the Downing Street memo is not getting more coverage in our mainstream media? I mean, if — as so many folks in this country erroneously believe — our media is Liberal and is merely out to get Bush, don’t you think that our press would be tripping all over themselves to bring this revelation to the American public? Well, I’ve yet to see any news outlet give the memo the attention it rightfully deserves — of course, CNN is making sure that we know all the intricacies of the “run-away bride” story… and, shit, we should know better than to expect FauxNews to simply report and actually let us decide.

But I digress… back to my point.

What inspired me to write this post is the following: if ever there was a reason to impeach a president is the revelation that’s made in the Downing Street memo, “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” of invasion regardless of whether Iraq posed an actual threat to our country or to its neighbors. In fact, as the memo goes on to say:

By god, if our press were in fact Liberal or, at the very least, had the intestinal fortitude — heh, let me just say it, if our press had some balls — to do its job, the American public would already be clamoring for Bush’s impeachment. Of course, Congress, since its controlled by Republicans, will not move against their president.

Accordingly, as I always have to do to find out what is really going in my country, I have to look abroad for substantive news coverage; which is how I happened across this commentary on BuzzFlash:

A BUZZFLASH GUEST NEWS ANALYSIS
by Greg Palast

Here it is. The smoking gun. The memo that has, “IMPEACH HIM” written all over it.

The top-level government memo marked “SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL,” dated eight months before Bush sent us into Iraq, following a closed meeting with the President, reads, “Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WDM. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

Read that again: “The intelligence and facts were being fixed….”

[...]

My colleagues in the UK press have skewered Blair, digging out more incriminating memos, challenging the official government factoids and fibs. But in the US press… nada, bubkiss, zilch. Bush fixed the facts and somehow that’s a story for “over there.”

The Republicans impeached Bill Clinton over his cigar and Monica’s affections. And the US media could print nothing else.

Now, we have the stone, cold evidence of bending intelligence to sell us on death by the thousands, and neither a Republican Congress nor what is laughably called US journalism thought it not worth a second look.

That says it all, doesn’t… the so-called liberal media and the entire Republican party establishment went into a feeding frenzy and impeached a president over a trumped up charge of perjury… a charge that, ultimately, was over nothing more than an affair between consenting adults and a blow job that — aside from a stain on a blue dress — did not indelibly mark the lives of thousands of American families whom had a member either die or sacrifice limb and blood for a war of choice.

Now, some defend Bush by reflexively refusing to accept that he lied, specially about something as grave as war. Accordingly, their response to impeachment goes something like this: Clinton committed perjury, whereas Bush hasn’t. Well, my simple response is to extend this challenge: appoint an independent investigator, and give that person the full resources of the American government for four years, at a cost of $72 million, and have that person investigate the Bush administration on anything related to his personal life or his administration, and I guarantee that Bush’s impeachment articles would rest on more than a mere blow job to remove him from office.

Bush Apologists’ Limp And Dishonest “Plausible Deniability” Defense

I don’t buy the Bush Apologists’ limp and dishonest “plausible deniability” defense; which merely underscores their rabid partisanship, and lack of desire to look at the evidence candidly, critically and in context. Here’s how Bush’s “plausible deniability” defense was set up: Bush & Co. knew, it is now clear, that elements of their Iraqi WMD argument rested on shaky ground (i.e., hyped evidence and, even, forged documents). Accordingly, Bush & Co.’s statements on Iraqi WMD (and alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons) were crafted so that, while closely straddling the line of common decency and honesty, could not easily be called out as outright fabrications. Given this, I find Bush’s statement in his 2003 State of the Union address very telling, and a tell-tale sign of dishonesty in the works (i.e., a lie):

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

That line is purposely crafted to: (1) Give credibility to the claim that Iraq had “recently” reconstituted its nuclear program, (2) all the while giving Bush the ability to distance himself from a claim that was known (by his administration) to be false; since, (3) Bush could factually (even if dishonestly) claim that he had been relying on “British government intelligence” (i.e., the forged Nigerian uranium document) whose veracity he could not control.

For now leave aside the fact that the Bush administration had been informed that the claims made in the “British government intelligence” brief were not true; we’re then left with an administration that relied on the advice of a foreign government (i.e., Britain) to formulate our national defense strategy. Moreover, if Bush’s defense is, When I made that statement I thought it to be true. Then I ask, When we ask our fellow citizens to make the ultimate sacrifice, shouldn’t the standard be a tad higher?

The Bush Apologists will never admit that their man mislead and lied to us all; so am not at all surprised at how stubbornly they cling on to the “plausible deniability” defense. Think of it, if these Bush apologists were to ever acknowledge and recognize that Bush & Co. lied our country into a war, why it would totally shake their foundation — it would be akin to admitting that the earth is, in fact, round. If the Bush apologists ever admitted that their man lied, they would have to face the ugly truth that their unabashed support for Bush & Co. facilitated Bush’s war of choice.

I’ll spare you all an already long post, and not reproduce the entire chronology of when Bush & Co. knew what, which you can read here; however, let me leave you with the following:

“March 1, 2002: The State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) sends a memorandum to Secretary of State Colin Powell stating that claims regarding Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium from Niger are not credible, according to a knowledgeable government official.”

[...]

“September 24, 2002: The United Kingdom issues a report on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program stating “there is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Iraq has no active civil nuclear power programme or nuclear power plants, and therefore has no legitimate reason to acquire uranium.”

September/October 2002: U.S. intelligence officials tell Senate committees about their differences with the British report regarding the Iraq/uranium claim, according to Tenet (July 11, 2003).”

[...]

“January 28, 2003: President Bush asserts that “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” during his State of the Union address.”

The Bush Apologists’ argument rests solely on the factual claim that Bush merely cited “British government intelligence;” however, shouldn’t the standard be just a tad higher? Shouldn’t we also expect honesty and unmitigated truthfulness from our leaders before committing our nation to war?