Today, I’m willing to bet, will mark the high point of the corporate media’s coverage of the Downing Street memo. I know the gadflies will keep on gadding — and more power to them — but this is clearly a story the media elites are determined to stuff down the memory hole. Who’s going to stop them?
Back to Main
June 8, 2005
Going Down on the Downing Street Memo
Comments
Gee, you’d think that lying to Congress about an act of war, which Bush took as his right, rather than retaining with them, would be some sort of fucking crime, huh?
Or, say, lying about it in a state of the union address, which the president is required to do, according to the constitution, would be newsworthy, but that, of course, assumes that someone in Washington give a fuck about any of those 1600 Americans (not to mention the tens (at least) of thousands of Iraqis who are now dead.
And the American fucktard media won’t ask the mothers of the dead if this matters, because of course, they don’t want to dispel the lie that Americans support wars based upon lies, that take troops away, use up resources, kill people and place America in a worse position in the world.
None of that matters in Bush America, does it?
So, Jérôme, what’s the big secret at the boo?
Posted by: fauxreal | Jun 8 2005 17:43 utc | 1
The Administration and its agents have clearly demonstrated the ability to be able to commit almost any act in breach of Civil, Military and International Law with impunity …
Re-read the history of the Nuremberg trials … our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as against civilian populations and ‘unlawful combatants’ (a cynically fictional definition) are, dare I be so blunt, Crimes of Aggression and War Crimes … and not by others standards, but by the standards we set under law when we led the successful prosecution of the Nazi’s after WWII …
Lies, propaganda, deciet, hyprocrisy of the most blatant and overt kind are now effectively accepted as the norm without consequence …
With heavy heart I despair of the cynical jingoism and rabid nationalism that is being exploited for the benefit of an increasingly powerful/wealthy elite to the detriment of it’s own citizens let alone our fellow humans throughout the world … how far we have fallen, how blind as a people we have become …
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 8 2005 17:48 utc | 2
My bad! I commented on the wrong thread.
here it is again (sorry billmon!)
Billmon’s piece on the DSM is BRILLIANT as usual, but I would take issue with the resignation at the end- and ECHO patience’s point.
I have been part of two rallies here in my town, and the third is tomorrow. (click URL link to view)
The point is this is a smattering of people and the local media has been forced into covering us, and then by way of our “issue”, having to discuss the Downing Street Memo (Minutes).
DO THIS IN YOUR TOWN!
Hate rallies? WRITE to the editors, news management and threaten the advertisers. That WORKS!
Billmon is DEAD on with his assessment of what is happening – however, by PUSHING the spineless reporters they eventually find the “cover” they are looking for. PRAISING the reporters and importantly their bosses (editors) that actually report on the DSM and don’t just roll over for the White House is equally important.
The Pavlovian response of the media will happen when they sense the “protection” they see inherent in the people agitating- and fall behind their usual excuse “hey, we just give them what they want”
I know- I sound simple Polliana optimistic. But, I’ve seen the chinks in the armor, and I’ve seen that in such a reactive environment that it pays to push-pull (heh, follow the corrupt ones’ lead; study their tactics and turn them back on them).
check out http://www.downingstreetmemo.com
Also- contact congressional reps, especially concerning the Gold Star Families for Peace (www.gsfp.org) and their June 15 visit to the congress critters.
Grieving families demanding answers- that’s powerful.
thanks!
Posted by: Uppity Gal in Tampa | Jun 8 2005 18:31 utc | 3
Uppity gal –
I clicked on your link, but no info available for tomorrow’s rally. I live in a nearby county and may be able to attend. email to nosnivelling at hotmail dot com with info, please.
Posted by: vicki | Jun 8 2005 19:07 utc | 4
Some journalist try to push editors to go for more on The Memo.
Dan Froomkin in his washingtonpost.com column (not in print):
The Memo Comes In From the Cold
British Prime Minister Tony Blair was visiting with Bush yesterday, and when a question about the memo came up at their abbreviated joint press conference — the first time Bush has been asked to comment about it — Blair threw himself at its potentially explosive allegations in an attempt to muffle the damage.
Bush then followed, insisting that he had tried to resolve the standoff with Saddam Hussein peacefully, but that in any case the world is better off with Hussein gone.
But the hard-to-explain memo today is making headlines far and wide, after more than a month during which the American press largely kept its silence on the issue.
It remains unclear how big of a blowup the memo represents for the White House. Bush partisans consider it either old news, or flatly wrong, or both.
And the American press still demonstrates no intention of aggressively following it up.
Editors & Publisher is also picking on the memo non-reporting: ‘USA Today’ Defends Lack of Coverage for Downing Street Memo
The U.S. media are a serious mess.
And that is the problem with the media. Their reference of what they think “everybody” in America is thinking is based on the people they hang out with and talk politics. Other members of the Media. As a result, they have this groupthink that provides a positive feedback loop.
Do TV News talking heads really know about people having to wait in line eight hours to vote, and know that they lost a day’s wage and will go hungry for a week or three, just so they can vote?
Do these millionaire talking heads know about the “tax relief” that they promote and benefit from and what it means to the safety net for millions of other Americans whose govt benefits are cut?
Sure, they say everybody knew about it and don’t care. What that really means is they’ve known about it for years and didn’t care and never reported it (or downplayed it, like they are doing now).
Posted by: B Rubble | Jun 8 2005 19:40 utc | 6
This is interesting. Associated Press, on of the few agencies most media base their news reports on, did somehow get the transcript worng on the question a Reuters journalist did ask Bush yesterday on The Memo.
Video proves AP account of Downing Street memo question wrong
Associated Press:
Q: Thank you, sir. On Iraq, the so-called “Downing Street Memo” from July 2002, says, “Intelligence and facts remain fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military actions.” Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?
…
Official Transcript:
Q Thank you, sir. On Iraq, the so-called Downing Street memo from July 2002 says intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military action. Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?
My take on the minutes is that it is not about Bush, or the Government, or the war. It is about THE SYSTEM. And that is why it will be buried.
Let me give a British perspective on this.
Until the end of April the Blair line was “Look. We’ve had four inquiries into this, and nothing has been found. It’s time to move on…..”
When the minutes were leaked they cut his legs from beneath him, but only for a few days until the election. And since the election the subject is verboten.
But what about the SYSTEM? What does it tell us that four formal inquiries have come and gone and, as Blair said “nothing has been found”?
It tells us that there must be a conspiracy. It tells us the conspiracy envelopes all three main parties, including the notionally anti-war Liberal Democrats. It tells us that the judges must be part of the conspiracy. It tells us that the conspiracy must function at the level of the Privy Council.
And if the conspiracy was functioning at the level of the Privy Council, it means that the leader of the conspiracy must be none other than Queen Elizabeth herself.
She certainly has the powers under the Treason Felony Act.
Posted by: John | Jun 8 2005 20:18 utc | 8
The lying cabal are losing in Iraq; if that is lost then the Downing Street Memo becomes evidence in the war trial.
How do you smokescreen the loss in Iraq…….. hmmmmmm terror attack. Iran and Syria to blame of course.
Draft.
Posted by: Friendly Fire | Jun 8 2005 21:44 utc | 9
The way the leftish media in the US has been able to stay ‘on message’ about the Downing Street Memo has been impressive. It reflects a determination to get an outcome coupled with a preparedness for forgetting about factional feuds not often seen in any leftish forums.
I have been wondering about the topic they picked since any half smart person could tell long before the first bombs dropped on Bagdhad that this was going to happen. People on all sides of the political divide felt war to be inevitable. Wrapped in with this campaign is the assumption that the proles can only feel outraged when they are told to feel outraged. That’s sad.
Maybe it’s true, it may not be and does anyone really want to offer up that much power to a bunch of main chancing, overly coiffered mediocrities? (Hmm that description could fit the dems as well as the media- -what does that mean?)
I hope it does work but it will be neccessary to learn from this even if it is successful (which is probable). It is vital that ordinary people like us nuture and judiciously use what ever levers we can find within the media. Exactly the same way as PR flacks and journalists themselves do.
This is a similar process to job hunting you can just ring the main desk and stake your claim and get fobbed off or, you can quietly and persistently work out who and where the players are that determine what it is in your nightly news bulletin. Humiliation will probably only work once if at all.
These people are used to nutters calling them up at all times of day and night to whine about the new autocue reader’s nose job. This is one of the reasons they have become so jaundiced and arrogant. But it can be done!
It is interesting that the question was asked by a Reuters correspondent. I’m having a little contretemps myself with one of our national dailies and their propensity for cutting and pasting reuters stories because as you may know this wire service is no longer the co-operative it once was.
Murdoch bought it out about 15 years ago and some of it’s on the spot reporting is incredibly subjective especially in the Middle East. We don’t have many overseas correspondents for our media (printed or TV) so many citizens are entirely dependant upon these allegedly independent news services for foreign information.
Was the question asked by an English Reuters correspondent? If it was he/she could have been trying to embarass Blair for the UK and not thinking about the impact within the US. That will have been pointed out by now tho.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Jun 8 2005 22:52 utc | 10
Thanks for the British perspective John. Don’t forget the Dr Kelly fiasco, the man who knew too much. We have a tendency, a need as powerless as we are to beat up on somebody like Bush, who is in fact a puppet.
No doubt the Queen is involved, but where does her power come from and what need has she for Iraqi oil? In the end, and to my eye, the primary objective here is to keep some kind of war going to distract the people from their enslavement. And of course to further concentrate the wealth. That has always been the Queen’s job hasn’t it?
Posted by: rapt | Jun 9 2005 3:03 utc | 11
Strangely enough, for once, I think the Media is sort of right.
We all know.
Try telling a battered wife that her husband is abusing her.
Newsflash: You did not fell down the stair or bump into a door.
Posted by: Lupin | Jun 9 2005 6:54 utc | 12
Rapt,
You mentioned Dr David Kelly, and asked me where the queen’s power comes from. This is section 3 of the Treason Felony Act, emergency legislation pushed through in 1848. But it is STILL THE LAW
3. Offences herein mentioned declared to be felonies
…If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, …from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty’s dominions and countries, or to levy war against her Majesty, …within any part of the United Kingdom, in order by force or constraint to compel her… to change her… measures of counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon her or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament, or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade the United Kingdom or any other of her Majesty’s dominions or countries under the obeisance of her Majesty… and such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing, …or by any overt act or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, …to be transported beyond the seas for the term of his or her natural life.
This law has not been used to prosecute anybody since (I am informed) 1883. In the modern world it is used to control the apparatus of the State. A good example is the way Lord Goldsmith’s advice on the legality of the war changed, and for no APPARENT reason.
You mentioned Dr Kelly. I’ll share with you the letter I sent to Janice Kelly.
Mrs Janice Kelly
Correos certificado 99790ES 20 August 2003
Dear Mrs Kelly,
I offer you my deepest condolences and sympathy.
Your late husband was led by his conscience and his common decency, and he did the honourable thing. But he did not know all of the facts. For example, to quote Iain Scott, speaking within those very same Royal Courts of Justice on 20 December 1994. “You do not know what you are up against.” Your late husband, like me, was up against the Windsor family and their filthy, homicidal Freemasonry. They might have verified their own story, but chose to go after their “enemy”. To buckle under that sort of pressure is to be human.
After reading the Queens Counsel’s questions and Campbell’s replies I think their strategy is becoming clear. The “smoking gun” is that meeting of the JIC held on 9 September 2002 and which was chaired by Alastair Campbell. And they are going to bury it amidst a sea of revelations. Just like they buried John Cleary all those years ago.
I’m not going to tell you my story. God knows you have enough on your plate right now. But I would like you to read a letter I wrote to Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General, on 26 August 2002.
The reason this is relevant is that the letter effectively seals-off the option of invasion using Royal Prerogative powers alone. Once this letter was in the public domain Blair was always going to need the authority of Parliament (if not of the people) for legal reasons. So “they became desperate for evidence” around 28/29 August 2002.
At the time I wrote to Mr Annan the “Dossier” actually covered four countries, of which one was Iraq. On 10/11 September the “Dossier” focussed exclusively on Iraq and incorporated both the “45 minute” claim and the “Saddam sought uranium from Niger” claim. (I think this version is what Campbell is referring to when he talks about the “first draft”.)
Between 26 August and 10 September a lot of things happened in 16 days.
30 August the “45 minute” claim “just popped up”
03 September Mr Blair promised us a “Dossier within weeks”
05 September “Structure as per TB’s discussion”
09 September the “45 minute” claim “was seized on”
10 September “First draft” of the “Dossier” produced
Why are Powell and Campbell allowed to give their performances from written, non-contemporaneous notes (scripts)? If you recall the Star libel case we weren’t allowed to see Archer’s diary either – for “national security reasons”. And that turned out to be fake and a perversion of the course of justice fourteen years later. Mrs Kelly, I’m going to advise you to be 100 percent cynical when it comes to everybody that is a part of the British Establishment. I’ve got two cases before the European Court of Human Rights and I can tell you stories about the Windsors that will turn your hair white. So don’t doubt for a minute what your instincts tell you:
On 28/29 August the British needed evidence.
On 30 August the British created that evidence.
On 9 September the British authenticated that evidence.
So when your late husband reported that Alastair Campbell had inserted the 45-minute claim he was being 100 percent truthful. For Campbell had indeed chaired the very meeting which “inserted” the claim. Yes it was the JIC. But it was the JIC as chaired by a domineering Alastair Campbell waving around his bloody enormous Royal Prerogative.
It is now clear that your late husband reported what happened on 9 September 2002. If they cheat and bury that very real event they bury their guilt. And in so doing make a fantasist of your late husband.
Yours sincerely,
John Cleary BSc MA MBA
Cc Andrew Gilligan Lee Hughes
European Court of Human Rights (refs. 23188/03 & 24316/03)
Henry Waxman Joseph Wilson
Enc. Cleary Second Affidavit 30 January 1995
Cleary to Kofi Annan 26 August 2002
Posted by: John | Jun 9 2005 15:53 utc | 13
John, I am pinning my hopes on Joseph Wilson. Have you gotten a response from him?
Posted by: beq | Jun 9 2005 17:44 utc | 14
Beq,
Joe Wilson must have been terribly disappointed by the lack of support he received from the Democratic Party. I think it is probably unwise to pin our hopes on ANY individual. I sent a copy to him because I HAD written to him two weeks beforehand
From the Abdication Crisis to the Attack on America
Dear Mr Wilson,
I salute a fellow brave patriot.
I get most of my current affairs from the Internet. So I’m fully aware of the analogies being drawn between what Bush is doing to America and what Hitler did to Germany. My personal view is that they are probably correct, for I can see the connection.
Elizabeth Bowes Lyons married into the heart of the British royal family in 1922. By the time that Hitler came to power she had been at the top for eleven years. The Windsor family had close connections with Nazi Germany. They also had close connections with Bert Walker and Prescott Bush.
When King George V died in 1936 he was succeeded by his eldest son, who became King Edward VIII. But Edward was not married. The Foundation of the Windsor dictatorship is the Treason Felony Act of 1848. This was emergency legislation in its day (starvation in Ireland, revolution on the Continent) but it is still on the books. This act gives dictatorial powers to “our Most Gracious Lady the Queen”. But Edward was NOT MARRIED. There would be no such person as “our Most Gracious Lady the Queen”. The dictatorial powers would fall away. Disaster. This was the true crisis of 1936.
This could not be allowed to happen, and Edward was told he must marry. He responded by choosing a woman he knew to be wholly unacceptable. In return he was told he must choose between the Throne and his mistress, and the rest, as they say, is history.
When King George VI was crowned in May 1937 he swore the Coronation Oath, as is required by law, but his wife did not. This contravenes the Coronation Oath Act of 1689 and means that the whole Coronation is null and void. But nobody seems to have noticed.
At least two people did notice the illegal nature of the 1937 Coronation: Edward and Mrs Simpson. There is evidence to suggest a challenge was launched through Monckton, Edward’s legal adviser. There is evidence that both sides of this civil war were vying to cut a deal with Hitler. As to why she came out tops in this vicious catfight, we can probably trust Hitler himself, for whom she was “the most dangerous woman in Europe”.
So she had an intimate understanding of how the Nazi machine worked in Germany. She had a long and intimate relationship with the Bush family. They have a history of joint crime escapades (Lloyd of London). She believed herself invisible and worked through bro. Cheney. She was 101 years and one month old on September 11. Do you think it might all have been her idea? After all, you can have a reverse takeover of a country too.
Yours sincerely,
He did not reply.
He knows the forces are too powerful for any individual.
The G8 will meet in Scotland early in July.
The event will take place at the Headquarters of the New World Order.
This is the Royal & Ancient Golf Club at Gleneagles, St Andrews.
The Windsor-Walker Evil Empire.
Two families share this club.
The Windsors call it home. Last year Prince Andrew spent over 100,000 Pounds Sterling (taxpayers’ money) on helicopters alone when travelling to and from his “official duties” as Club Golf Captain. The connection goes back centuries, as the name implies.
The Walkers call it home. Since 1922 the club has hosted the challenge match between British and America’s best amateur golfers.
The great grandfather of President George W Bush gave his name to the Walker Cup.
This is where Wall Street and the City of London meet to scheme and plot the future of the world.
Posted by: John | Jun 9 2005 19:17 utc | 15
Thank you, John. Your pespective is fascinating.
It is a can of worms, isn’t it? I confess to googling and finding your comments on the death of Princess Diana. The magnitude of the puzzle itself is mind-boggling.
I had always hoped that Wilson would have enough clout to get results since the crime against his wife is so self-evident.
Posted by: beq | Jun 9 2005 19:31 utc | 16