result #74329 - WHY HASN'T THE "DOWNING STREET MEMO" BEEN WIDELY REPORTED BY THE UNITED STATES PRESS?

user ballots

Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes

Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz

TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase

Discussion
Bug Report

would you : news related : WHY HASN'T THE "DOWNING STREET MEMO" BEEN WIDELY REPORTED BY THE UNITED STATES PRESS?

[+] ballot by mojo
created Mon May 30, 05

The recent release of the Downing Street Memo provides new and compelling evidence that the President of the United States has been actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq. If true, such conduct constitutes a High Crime under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution: "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

On May 1, 2005, The Sunday Times of London published the Downing Street Memo. The document, marked "Secret and strictly personal UK eyes only," consists of the official minutes of a briefing by Richard Dearlove, then-director of Britain’s CIA equivalent, MI-6, to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top national security officials. Dearlove, having just returned from meetings with high U.S. Government officials in Washington, reported to Blair and members of his Cabinet on the Bush administration’s plans to start a preemptive war against Iraq.

The briefing occurred on July 23, 2002, months before President Bush submitted his resolution on Iraq to the United States Congress and months before Bush and Blair asked the United Nations to resume its inspections for alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The document reveals that, by the summer of 2002, President Bush had decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by launching a war which, Dearlove reports, would be "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD ." Dearlove continues: "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Dearlove also states that "here was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw states that "t seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But," he continues, "the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, and Iran."

British officials do not dispute the document's authenticity, and, on May 6, 2005, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported that " former senior U.S. official called 'an absolutely accurate description of what transpired' during the senior British intelligence officer’s visit to Washington. "Memo: Bush made intel fit Iraq policy," The State, Knight Ridder Newspapers, May 6, 2005.

My question is - why did I have to comb the internet to find information on this subject - something that came out in the British press a month ago? Why did I only know about it through listening to C-SPAN one morning? In light of how Clinton was hounded constantly throughout his entire presidency - for Whitewater, for Travelgate, and then for Monica Lewinsky - how is it that the current president isn't being questioned about a potentially SERIOUS breach of law and ethics?

What's going on with the press in this country?

The White House dictates what we should hear and see (e.g. no caskets from the Iraq war).	7
Corporate-owned press doesn't want the facts out.	7
Clearly, we don't have a 'liberal press' any more.	3
It is a non starter me thinks	3

Ballot #74329: has 20 total votes.
invite people to vote on this ballot!

Comment:

content @ BESTANDWORST.COM

smile bank:

email this ballot link to friends

COMMENTS:
Excuse the long intro. For full article, see LO.com "Downing Street Memo Re: G.W. Bush".

by mojo on Mon May 30, 05 8:20am [+]

The people who are against the war knew all this BEFORE war started because they knew how to read between the lines.

The U.S. Media, I believe, considers what is in that document to be "old news" because of all the tell books about the Iraq war that claimed that same thing that is expressed in that document.

Also, we had the 911 commission that uncovered alot of the same info that is in that document.

So the U.S. media, I feel, see no need to report it all over again.

Believe me, Anti Bush Americans are well aware how we were lied to and how the war was pre-planned in the early days of the Bush Administration.

However, all U.S. Presidents have lied to the voters to achieve their foreign policy objectives.

We're used to it. It happens in the U.K. too.

by Grapost on Mon May 30, 05 9:16am [+]

Yes, but WHY the easy treatment of this president by mainstream media, as opposed to the last one?

by mojo on Mon May 30, 05 9:18am [+]

Also - it's not the people who knew all this BEFORE the war who need to hear this news, it's the huge percentage who are still under the impression that 9/11 was linked to Saddam Hussein and who think that Bush is an honorable, God-fearing man who does not lie.

There are lies and lies. Telling a lie that sends thousands of young people to die in a war qualifies as a howler by anyone's standards - at least I would hope.

by mojo on Mon May 30, 05 9:30am [+]

Plus, lies to Congress and the American people that can be proved (this memo being the smoking gun) constitute an IMPEACHABLE offense.

If Clinton's BJ lie did, then this CERTAINLY does!

by mojo on Mon May 30, 05 10:08am [+]

When journalists are threatened with jail time for not divulging sources, it's little wonder that the media are lock-stepping in unison with the current administration. They take their reporting directives straight from the corridors of power. And because of the nature of the pyramidical media conglomerate structure, those who control the flow of information at the apex are heavily allied with the Bush government. Those journalists who dare to stick their necks out and report the truth face stonewalling, ridicule and contempt. Not a good time to be a journalist in the US.

by xxxxxxxx on Mon May 30, 05 11:01am [+]

Big Media sell-outs are little more than corporate whores, pimping propaganda.

by xxxxxxxx on Mon May 30, 05 11:03am [+]

Not even CNN (according to some "Communist News Network), or FOX ("Always unbalanced and Unfair") reported this? Is there some problem with authenticity, perhaps? Or is it just old news? After all, we have pretty much learned that the pretext for the war in Iraq (WMD's) was false.

How many bullets can GWB take without falling? Apparently at least as many as his predecessor in the office.

And, there is just a hint of a possibility that the "consolidation" of America's news organizations (a process whereby the super wealthy get to monopolize and control much the media, and a lot of minds)has led us to the point that a large portion of bad news is suppressed or relegated to page 33.

Makes us uneasy.

by xxxxxxxx on Mon May 30, 05 12:24pm [+]

A free press is just a memory in the US, unfortunately.

Our new conservative media isn't as interested in the truth, just propaganda for Dictator George.

by cranky on Mon May 30, 05 2:27pm [+]

As I said to Cathexis a long time ago (well, it SEEMS that way!), I wonder how history will see us across this span of time. The actions our Government took being so clearly contrary to the rule of law and the wishes of the Founding Fathers, the apparent apathy of the masses in the face of these illegalities- I just hope that justice manages to catch up.

by Truthseeker013 on Mon May 30, 05 5:30pm [+]

About Us | Join Us | Privacy Policy | Contact