I've been sending out my media emails every day, but this whole DSM thing was starting to twist my mind into one big knot. I wrote this "Primer" to help me get my mind totally around the entire package....then I figured I'm probably not the only one who's dazed and confused, so I sent it off as an email to all my friends/acquaintances/etc.
Feel free to pass this on if you like. Many thanks to www.downingstreetmemo.com, a WONDERFUL site that I referenced throughout this piece.
What is the Downing Street Memo and why should I care? - OR - What happens when a country is duped into going to war
What is the Downing Street Memo? (from www.downingstreetmemo.com)
The Downing Street "Memo" is actually a document containing meeting minutes transcribed during the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002--a full eight months PRIOR to the invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003. The Times of London printed the text of this document on Sunday, May 1, 2005, but to date US media coverage has been limited.
The minutes detail how our government did not believe Iraq was a greater threat than other nations; how intelligence was "fixed" to sell the case for war to the American public; and how the Bush Administration's public assurances of "war as a last resort" were at odds with their privately stated intentions.
When asked, British officials "did not dispute the document's authenticity." and a senior American official has described it as "absolutely accurate."
More than two years after the start of the Iraq War, Americans are just learning that our government was dead set on invasion, even while it claimed to be pursuing diplomacy.
Quotes from the Downing Street Memo (dated July 23, 2002)
"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."
`C' = Sir Richard Dearlove, head of UK's foreign intelligence service. The equivalent person in our US government is our CIA Director (then George Tenet)
---
"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."
`Defence Secretary' = Geoff Hoon. The equivalent person in our US government is our Secretary of Defense--Donald Rumsfeld
---
"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."
`Foreign Secretary' = Jack Straw. Equivalent person in our US government is our Secretary of State (then Colin Powell)
---
"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."
`Attorney-General' = Lord Goldsmith. Equivalent person in our US government is our White House Counsel (then Alberto Gonzalez)
Who was at the meeting?
As already indicated by the above quotes, officials at the highest level of British government were at the "Downing Street" meeting. For a full list of meeting attendees, go to http://downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html
Yikes! Isn't anybody looking into this?
Yes. In fact, on May 5, 2005, Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan), sent a letter to President Bush, asking for clarification on the Downing Street Memo. Eighty-eight other congresspeople signed the letter, asking for clarification on the following points raised by the discovery of the Downing Street Memo:
1) Do you or anyone in your Administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?
2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?
3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?
4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?
5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?
(The full text of Rep. Conyers' May 5th letter to President Bush can be found here: http://rawstory.com/aexternal/conyers_iraq_letter_502)
Well, those seem to be valid questions. How did President Bush respond?
At a press briefing on May 16, 2005, Scott McClellan said the allegations that facts were "being fixed" to justify the Iraq War were "flat-out wrong."
At his May 17, 2005 press briefing, Mr. McClellan said that the White House saw no need to respond to the Conyers letter. (see http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Downing_Street_minutes)
On June 7, 2005, at a joint press conference with Prime Minister Tony Blair, President Bush denied that he had made up his mind to go to war with Iraq, as the Downing Street Memo indicates. He said, in part:
"My conversation with the Prime Minister was, how could we do this peacefully, what could we do. And this meeting, evidently, that took place in London happened before we even went to the United Nations -- or I went to the United Nations. And so it's -- look, both us of didn't want to use our military. Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."
Prime Minister Blair concurred, saying
"[But] all the way through that period of time, we were trying to look for a way of managing to resolve this without conflict. As it happened, we weren't able to do that because -- as I think was very clear -- there was no way that Saddam Hussein was ever going to change the way that he worked, or the way that he acted."
(June 7 2005 press conference responses to Downing Street Memo can be found here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050607-2.html)
So that means the Downing Street Memo is wrong. Right?
Wrong.
On June 12, 2005, the London Sunday Times published another confidential British government document. Written and distributed by the British Cabinet Office to all Downing Street participants of the July 23, 2002 meeting, this July 21, 2002 briefing paper states that since regime change was illegal it was necessary to create the conditions which would make it legal.
Tidbits from July 21, 2002 briefing paper:
"1. The US Government's military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace. But, as yet, it lacks a political framework. In particular, little thought has been given to creating the political conditions for military action, or the aftermath and how to shape it.
2. When the Prime Minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April [2002] he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change, provided that certain conditions were met: efforts had been made to construct a coalition/shape public opinion, the Israel-Palestine Crisis was quiescent, and the options for action to eliminate Iraq's WMD through the UN weapons inspectors had been exhausted."
"It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject (because he is unwilling to accept unfettered access) and which would not be regarded as unreasonable by the international community. However, failing that (or an Iraqi attack) we would be most unlikely to achieve a legal base for military action by January 2003."
"US military planning unambiguously takes as its objective the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, followed by elimination if Iraqi WMD. It is however, by no means certain, in the view of UK officials, that one would necessarily follow from the other. Even if regime change is a necessary condition for controlling Iraqi WMD, it is certainly not a sufficient one."
"US views of international law vary from that of the UK and the international community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law. But regime change could result from action that is otherwise lawful. We would regard the use of force against Iraq, or any other state, as lawful if exercised in the right of individual or collective self-defence, if carried out to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, or authorised by the UN Security Council[...] The legal position would depend on the precise circumstances at the time. Legal bases for an invasion of Iraq are in principle conceivable in both the first two instances but would be difficult to establish because of, for example, the tests of immediacy and proportionality. Further legal advice would be needed on this point."
(full text of July 21, 2002 military action memo here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1648758,00.html)
But President Bush and Prime Minister Blair insisted that they always considered war with Iraq their last option. Why is this story not being covered in the news 24 hours a day?
Because that would take time away from the Michael Jackson and Runaway Bride stories.
Well, now I'm completely depressed. Is there anything else I need to know?
As a matter of fact, there is.
Six more confidential British documents, which bolster the information contained in the Downing Street Memo, have been leaked to the press. NBC News verified their authenticity on June 13, 2005.
On Thursday, June 16, 2005, a congressional inquiry into the Downing Street Memo will be held. Witnesses scheduled to appear at the hearing include WMD expert and former Ambassador Joe Wilson; Ray McGovern, a 27-year CIA analyst; Cindy Sheehan, a mother whose son was killed in Iraq; and John Bonifaz, a renowned Constitutional attorney.
Says Rep. Conyers, "This hearing is just one step in an investigation that I am commencing that will literally span the Atlantic. I am in touch with British officials and former U.S. intelligence officials and I am determined to get to the truth. At the hearing, I will disclose information found to date, which includes the public release of newly discovered documents. While none of these documents are as damning as the DSM, they nonetheless bolster the accuracy of it."
At the conclusion of the hearing, Rep. Conyers will be delivering another copy of his Downing Street letter to the White House. This time, however, more than 540,000 people have signed the letter, asking for clarification on the Downing Street Memo.
Is there anything I can do?
Yes there is.
If you'd like to add your name to the John Conyers letter that will be delivered personally to President Bush, click here:
http://johnconyers.campaignoffice.com/index.asp?Type=SUPERFORMS&SEC={9DB0E3C6-5974-4BCB-B453-24484A5FFFDE}
If you'd like to keep on top of the Downing Street Memo developments, www.downingstreetmemo.com is a wonderful site to catch up on the latest and find out how you can get involved.
If you'd like other people to know what's going on, feel free to forward this email to them.
What are you, a reporter or something?
Actually, no. I'm a stay-at-home mom who's trying every day to teach her kids the difference between right and wrong, and the importance of always telling the truth.
Since kids learn through actions, not words, I don't let them watch any US government types on television.
June 14, 2005