Skip to main content

View Diary: CNN.com: Smoking Gun Memo story on front page (228 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's interesting (4.00)
    that now that this story is starting to be reported on, you can see that the press has figured out a way to spin it to make it look like less of a big deal. The LA Times article claims that event though Bush and Blair were clearly talking about going to war in 2002, the option of "not going to war was still on the table."(!) Almost every paragraph in the article is slanted to reflect the administration's point of view - almost to the point where it seems to have been vetted through attorneys.

    I suppose the editorial process these days does resemble what lawyers do in representing their clients - breaking things down into small pieces and then describing them in the light most favorable to their client.

    An attorney-client relationship between the press and the powerful! Perhaps that says it all! They are there to put the best face on the administration's case. Self-appointed pr flaks.

    And they wonder why people are turning to blogs for information.

    •  I don't see the slant you do (none)
      and the only thing I see that remotely sides with Bush is in the last paragraph:

      "Both Blair and Bush have denied a war decision was made in early 2002. The White House and Downing Street maintain that they were preparing for military operations as one option, but the option to not attack also remained open until the start of the war on March 20, 2003."

      What parts have the slant and spin?

      •  Let's see... (none)
        OK, the very first line is slanted:

        "Reports in the British media this month based on documents indicating that President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair had conditionally agreed by July 2002 to invade Iraq appear to have blown over quickly in Britain."

        "Conditionally" agreed? It sounded like the Brits were pretty sure Bush wanted to go to war. Not much conditional about it. And "appear to have blown over quickly in Britain"? Um, this memo cost Blair about 60 seats in Parliament. And the anger against Blair has hardly "blown over."

        OK, second line:

        "But in the United States, where the reports at first received scant attention, there has been a growing groundswell of indignation among critics of the Bush White House, who say the documents help prove the leaders made a secret decision to oust Saddam Hussein nearly a year before launching their attack, shaped intelligence to that aim, and never seriously intended to avert the war through diplomacy."

        The mention of "scant attention" seems to imply that there must not have been much importance - or it would have been covered here. They make it sound like it's sort of a British things, that they have their knickers in a bunch about something or other. Silly Brits.

        The fourth paragraph says "...the memo published May 1 added nothing of significance to the much-investigated record of the lead-up to the war." Gee, there must not be much to this except people out to get Bush, I guess.

        The fifth paragraph is more dismissal from a Brit official. Nothing to see here folks, keep moving, keep moving!

        I could go on, line by line but you get the idea. The whole story is framed in a way to limit its impact. Though they technically give the details, they do it in such a way as to minimize the importance of a document that shows that Bush was planning to go to war with Iraq in 2002 - contrary to what he told the American people.

        I'm not bemoaning the fact that the LA Times is covering the story, I'm just noticing the techniques of the mainstream press in acting as PR hacks for this administration.

        •  Complete Lie: Not Blown Over, It's Blowing Up! (none)
          I am, temporarily, working on this issue from the 'British Isles,' and the story is the biggest thing to happen in politics since, in fact, proof of the Watergate burglury. (sp)

          The difference is in the nature of the evidence.  It has been released by the British government.

          Britain: Blair forced to publish legal advice on Iraq war

          uruknet.info, Italy - Apr 30, 2005

          ... Iraq could never have complied with demands to hand over its weapons of mass destruction because it did not have any ... The Bush and Blair administrations were ...

          http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m11416&l=i&size=1&hd=0

          Who controls the media, controls the fates.

          by Apian on Thu May 12, 2005 at 08:11:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  OK - I'm revising a bit (none)
      inasmuch as they say it received "scant attention" - Well, duh! I wonder why?

      I think the important thing here is that people, other than us, will have the opportunity to read it, and hopefully understand it's implications.

      Please people, let's not throw in the towel just yet.

      •  never never never give up and you will win. (none)
        great job. hit cnn s  site read it yourself.
        •  Conyers' Take On The Battle (none)
          Breaking Through  May 11, 2005

          I, along with many of you, have decried the lack of media coverage of the Downing Street memo. That may be turning around.

          Tonight, CNN posted a story, though I am not aware if it has made on on the air. Please let me know if you have seen it. The LA Times has a very good piece as well.

          On the media front, my message to you is to pat yourselves on the back and then get back to work. Letters, calls and emails to your local newspapers and national media outlets make a difference. The Washington Post and New York Times have yet to cover this story in any serious fashion. Where is MSNBC? When Fox covers it in any serious way...that's when we take a break.

          WHEN FOX COVERS IT, THAT'S WHEN WE TAKE A BREAK!

          Who controls the media, controls the fates.

          by Apian on Thu May 12, 2005 at 08:14:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site