DSM is a dying story according to WP WH Correspondent Vandehei

[RamboLiberal]

I was so pissed last night listening to this drivel on Countdown. Fire off some emails to the WP?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8144282/

OLBERMANN: Give me your sense. Is the memo story played out? Is it now alive? Was it a slow starter, like the revised rescue of Jessica Lynch? What are your instincts?

VANDEHEI: It has the feeling of a dying story. And I think the reason is, is that that most people have made their judgment. Now, with that said, if more and more people continue to see Iraq as a disaster, and sort of draw those parallels with Vietnam, we have a new poll coming out tomorrow that shows the public really growing more and more frustrated with Iraq, I think people might be more willing to revisit that question about, Why did we go to war? Was the president truthful about it?

But it does seem like most people in the States have rendered a verdict on that.

[Pacifist Patriot]

1. Wishful thinking on Vandehei's part.

I don't see a dying story, I see the kernel of a snowball.

[JDPriestly]

16. How Bush and Blair's basis for denying the story

contradicts the text of the memo is a story in and of itself. According to the Vanity Fair article in the May 2005 edition, The Path to War, pge 283, Saddam was viewed as an outlaw. I for one agree with that assessment, however, that fact alone does not justify an invasion. If it did, we would have taken Idi Amin out long before he was finally pushed out of office.

When Blair visited Bush in Crawford, Tx in spring 2002, he told Bush that he should not go to war without UN backing. page 283. At that time, Blair "said that U.N. weapons inspectors would need to return to Iraq and confirm the Bush administration's fears about Saddam's weapons programs before he would be in a position to support a war regime." The Bush administration, however, did not make any move to go through the UN. page 283. In mid-2002, a Cheney official has said, "it was clear to the hawks that 'taking the U.N. route' contained a potentially disastrous pitfall for them." page 283.

"With no word from Bush by the end of July, Blair decided to press once more for engagement with the U.N. When Blair wants to make a point about foreign policy, he has the habit of sending Bush crisp, personal memorandums . . . . Blair sent one of the most important of these missives by diplomatic pouch, stressing the need to make progress over Israel and again urging Bush to put Saddam's breaches of earlier resolutions before the U.N." page 283.

Blair then sent Manning to Washington to talk to Rice. And "Manning reiterated the U.N. message very strongly." page 284. "Manning, in fact, warned that if Bush did not go the U.N. route Blair's political position might become untenable." page 284. According to the Vanity Fair article, Bush and Blair spoke on the phone shortly after Manning's return to London and after that, the official who was Vanity Fair's source stated that invading, which had been highly probable, but still a probability to that point, was "a done deal." page 284.

Vanity Fair continues to tell the story, which becomes less and less savory with Powell making his infamous speech at the United Nations, followed by Saddam's complete capitulation. On February 14, 2003, before our invasion of Iraq, Hans Blix told the U.N. that "he trucks that Powell had described as being used for chemical decontamination . . . could just as easily have been used for 'routine activity,'" that "there was no evidence Saddam had a viable nuclear weapons program and that Saddam was "taking steps toward real cooperation with the inspectors. . . ." page 290; see also page 292 re confrontation between John Wolf, assistant secretary of state to Bush and Blix re evidence of weapons. page 291.

On February 26, the British Parliament debated the war motion, which resulted in "one of the biggest rebellions by a government's own party members in British history." page 292. Then, according to Vanity Fair, Bush defiantly announced at a press conference on prime-time TV that the U.S. would act, no matter what the UN decided. page 291.

The disgusting extremes to which the Bush administration went to force the Security Council to support a war resolution are described at pge 292.

"On March 17, . . . Bush reneged on his commitment to seek U.N. approval whatever the 'whip count.' All the bullying and braggadocio had failed. . . . . The U.S. and U.K. withdrew the second resolution and retreated to the claim that the earlier resolution, 1441, had provided them ample authorization for war. But their efforts to secure the second resolution had all but decimated this argument."
pages 292-293.

Robin Cook resigned in protest from the Blair cabinet. page 293.

Blair insisted on going to the UN all right, but the UN did not endorse Bush and Blair's war, and Blix denied that Saddam had the WMDs or was violating the UN Resolution 1440 that would have justified going in under the that resolution. Bush and Blair just dug their hole that much deeper by their comments on the DSM. By not denying the authenticity of the DSM, they have acknowledged that it is a valid document, and the information in the document plus the history as told in Vanity Fair show that, not only was the evidence for war "fixed" to support the policy of going to war, but the trip to the United Nations was just a ploy -- and that when it did not succeed, Bush and Blair simply pretended that it had.

Let's keep the pressure up. What we want is honesty in government. Is that too much to ask?

[Skip Intro]

2. Its a matter of high crimes, law, and justice, not public appetite

yes?

[InternalDialogue]

7. Exactly. Public opinion doesn't determine

whether a crime exists. Newspapers don't think there's a "there" there? TV stations can't put together a video package? Citizens aren't entertained enough by a crime that doesn't end in a police chase? Doesn't change the fact that our government procedures and the public trust were manipulated and abused by a conspiracy to commit war.

[Maraya1969]

3. We are not going to LET IT DIE ! eom

[Triana]

4. Recent Letter I sent to some MSM

EVERYONE NEEDS TO HAMMER ON THEM with all these pieces of the puzzle (and I'm sure there are many more than below). THEY'RE ALL THERE. If they cannot SEE the oh-so-complete picture this paints, then they are BLIND (or threatened not to look or report on it-or paid off). Also, send all this to congresscritters, senators, etc.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

SUBJECT: BBC Video Clearly Details Blair/Bush Iraq Plans and Corroborates Downing St. Minutes

I would kindly suggest you look at reporting this, being that the Downing Street Minutes are now in the news. The American Public might be interested in this BBC presentation on the same subject - or at significant segments thereof.

http://www.overcast.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/warofterror/iraqtonytruth.htm

Also, evidently around the 18th Sept, 2004, a set of 6 papers from various members of the Blair set were leaked, via the Daily Telegraph. Just so you know that these papers do exist and they are legitimate, there was more about that from the Guardian at the time:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1308368,00.html

Those papers are in .pdf format and are as follows:

straw020325.pdf
manning020314.pdf
meyer020318.pdf ** contains statements made in video above
ods020308.pdf
ricketts020322.pdf
fcolegal020308.pdf

I cannot locate these with a Google search. Documents have since been pulled. With your media connections, you could undoubtedly obtain them for your own perusal.

One of these was a memo, dated 18 March 2002, from then British ambassador to Washington, Christopher Meyer to a Downing Street foreign policy advisor, David Manning, who later replaced Meyer. It reported on a meeting between Meyer and Paul Wolfowitz.

****There was plainly a strategy, alluded to in the Downing Street Minutes, of forcing an unmeetable ultimatum on Saddam with the weapons inspection, so that when it was not met, a convenient pretext for invasion would be provided. This is clearly alluded to in the second paragraph of the Meyer memo, as the need to "wrongfoot" Saddam. THIS IS ALSO SHOWN IN THE BBC VIDEO I'm providing a link to, above. ***

All this, in combination with the fact that John Bolton orchestrated a firing of Jose Bustani because the Brazilian was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad, which might have helped defuse the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and undermined a U.S. rationale for war, paints an even more complete picture of Bush and Blair's real intentions before the official invasion of Iraq, and gives the lie to Blair's protestations of innocent intentions vis-a-vis the inspections program and a peaceful resolution. It also explains why George Bush is so intent on having John Bolton on the UN.

More about the Bolton issue here:

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-bolton-un-firing,0,7826877.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

Something for you guys to look into/report on. People might like to know.

Regards,

[fooj]

5. my response to Milbank and the WaPost...

What on earth makes you think that the DSM story is
going away? "Left Wing" activists (as you so
skillfully state) are not the only people in America
that are enraged by the factual evidence provided by
the DSM. I think it would be safe to say that there
are a few "Right Wing" activists that aren't all too
pleased with this new revelation! As an American
concerned for the future of her country, I implore you
to start reporting FACTS! Perhaps the $1000.00 reward
for ACTUAL JOURNALISM wouldn't have entered the
equation if the MSM had done their JOBS! The media's
credibility is in the balance. After all, these
minutes were released over a month ago. Why is it
that you are just getting around to reporting
something as important as this? Now there's an
elephant worth keeping an eye on!
************************************

We need to hold those bastards accountable. Period.


peace.

[SpiralHawk]

6. Benign Neglect

That's the corporate media approach to DSM. Vandehei and other WH correspondents -- no doubt including thier dear departed colleague Republican gay prostitute/journalist "Jeff Gannon" -- are neglecting this HUGE WHITE HOUSE LIE in the HOPE that it will die. But the Republican lies are costing the lives of our sons and daughters every day.

The issue of Bush's intentional lies -- TREASON -- shall not perish from the face of the Earth.

Onward Blogging Soldiers !

Filling the gap where so-called journalists fear to stand.

[Sanity Claws]

8. NOt going to die

More than half of the American people are now against the war. The people who changed their minds will look for a reason/rationalization why they changed their minds. Learning that they were duped by **** into the reasons for the war will help them excuse themselves and put the blame on **** and his thugs.

[stopbush]

9. But it does seem like most people in the States have rendered a verdict on

that."

No. The people don't render verdicts on these things, the MEDIA does.

Let's see: Michael Jackson's alleged child abuse "story" has been a hot ticket for, what, 10 years? The DSM story is - how old? - 5 weeks. Why is the American public supposedly living and dying on the fate of one screwed-up celebrity and supposedly not giving a shit about their kids being sent to die on lies? Is that really true? Who keeps MJ on the front burner? Why, the same people who ignored the DSM story for as long as they could...which in their strategy means enough time to then declare the story "old news." The same people who ignore the current moral failings of * and DeLay but continue to recycle long-discredited stories about the Clintons, Al Gore and John Kerry.

They are shameless, whoring POSs, these media types.

[Inland]

10. Well, it's not entirely a bad thing, the way he puts it

and consistent with what someone else said on AAR, namely:

That most americans already believe that Bush had decided to invade Iraq first and then examined the facts second, and that somebody sure shaped the intel, and having internalized that fact, see the DSM as old news and see the Iraq war as a Bushite blunder.

That is, we HAVE rendered a verdict. More than half tell pollsters that Iraq was a mistake, and the rest are lying.

[MsUSA]

11. Yeah, I was really po'd with that guy too, I'm just yelling at the tv,

no it's not a dying story, but it will be with your stupid drivel.

[indepat]

12. Any story exposing the Administration's maladministration is a dying

story in the MSM.

[alfredo]

13. But if it turns another 2-3% against bush and his war

it cannot be seen as a failure. bush has done more than enough criminal acts to be impeached and imprisoned. Let things build. There will be a breaking point. Just keep fighting and speaking truth to power.


Every little bit helps.

[EVDebs]

14. Vietnam 1967, Iraq 2005...from a CIA analyst's viewpoint

Election Parallels: Vietnam, 1967; Iraq, 2005
By BILL CHRISTISON
Former CIA analyst
Feb. 4, 2005
http://www.counterpunch.org/christison02042005.html

As more and more Americans reach the conclusion that Iraq-nam is a quagmire, as they did with Vietnam after four years (1964-1968), you will see that from 2003 to 2007 (oh my, just before the 2008 election) that if the Republicans don't do SOMETHING pretty soon they'll have a mass epiphany !

Vandehei is correct, "...if more and more people continue to see Iraq as a disaster, and sort of draw those parallels with Vietnam, we have a new poll coming out tomorrow that shows the public really growing more and more frustrated with Iraq, I think people might be more willing to revisit that question about, Why did we go to war? Was the president truthful about it."

In this case the DSM is even better than the Pentagon Papers. The Pentagon Papers showed that the DoD and the LBJ administration knew the war couldn't be won. The state dept already had a Future of Iraq Project that was ignored but now is being implemented because the rose colored glasses of the PNAC stovepiped intell crowd was wrong !

State Dept. Study Foresaw Trouble Now Plaguing Iraq
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/State_dept_study_101903.htm
that

By 2007 you will either see early moves for impeachment of Bush coming from within the Republican party itself and the already established group (Conyers et al) in the Democratic party, or parallel moves to simply scuttle the funding for the quagmire within the War Powers Act of 1973 framework.

Get out yer crystal balls. It's gonna be a wild ride.

[Lecky]

15. Not dying just people hoping it will go away

It's not a dying story, I just found out about it 2 days ago and as a democrat who used to avoid the Bush bashing over mere speculation...I find this memo to be an OUTRAGE!

The truth is, that not many people know about this yet...but that is changing.

Let's not back down on this, if Bush & Co. are truly innocent then they shouldn't mind an investigation.

Have any of you bothered to see what the republicans at freerepublic.com have to say about this? Their defense is WEAK and even a few are now questioning Bush. They just want this issue to die, they care more about themselves than our own country...it makes me sick. If they really support their troops like they claim then they should want to get to the bottom of this as much as we do. They make excuses for him BECAUSE THE KNOW ITS TRUE!

[newyawker99]

20. Hi Lecky!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[SoCalDem]

17. Don't you LOVE it when the PRESS issues stories about

how stories are "not getting the coversge they deserve"...and THEY are the VERY FREAKING ONES who could change it?

[derby378]

18. Anyone got this guy's e-mail?

Maybe we could send him reminders that Americans want to follow the DSM down the rabbit hole before it becomes the "memory hole."

[Karenina]

19. The mockingbird sings.

;-)

[Rex]

21. They want it to go away!

Corporate Media will do anything to keep their boss in power!

[steve2470]

22. I wonder how much they paid Vanderhei to say that nt