How much more information is needed before the truth is sought & reported?

[BigBearJohn]

The Downing Street Memo – minutes of a meeting with Prime Minister Tony Blair and his advisors that said the U.S. was “fixing” the intelligence to support the Iraq War – was not enough to get the mainstream U.S. media or members of Congress to take the issue seriously. Now there is Downing II, III, IV, V, VI and VII!

As the evidence mounts, the failure of the media to seriously investigate the issues is baffling. Why aren’t they interviewing current and former U.S. military intelligence officials about these reports from highest levels of British government? Isn’t the media supposed to investigate and get the truth for their readers and viewers?

And, how about Congress – shouldn’t they be subpoenaing witnesses to testify under oath about pre-war intelligence gathering, the influence Bush administration had on manipulating or misstating intelligence findings and whether intelligence was gathered to report the truth or designed to support a pre-ordained war? The Chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Pat Roberts, has promised to investigate whether intelligence was manipulated by the Administration – but that promise remains unfulfilled and last week Knight-Ridder reporter Dick Polman was told it was “still on the back burner.” Maybe it is time to make good on that promise.


How much more information is needed before the truth is sought and reported to the American people?


Here’s a summary of the British memos: (author summarizes each of 7 Downing Street memos)

SEE: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=8086

[leftofthedial]

1. information?

truth?

how quaint.

[Brotherjohn]

2. It's not just the DSMs, but all the evidence that's accumulated for years!

The DSMs merely state what all that evidence was pointing to, that the Bush administration cooked the books to make an unnecessary war seem imminently necessary.

They are not, in and of themselves, proof positive. But when taken in the context of all of the accumulated evidence, testimony, whistleblower accounts, etc. etc. etc... they paint an awfully convincing picture that the Bush administration is guilty of everything its critics have claimed regarding the Iraq War.

Hell, even if taken alone, they prove (they are now multiply-authenticated) that even at the highest levels of British government (our chief allies), THEY thought that the Bush administration was guilty of everything its critics have claimed regarding the Iraq War. What's next? Claiming that "Tony Blair and the British government are just a bunch of leftist wingnuts"?

The question that follows is: WHY DID THEY (the British) THINK THIS? Well, we already have the answer to that question, and it is all of the evidence already accumulated pointing to the fact that the Bush administration overstated, exagerrated, and sometimes pushed outright lies and forgeries in an attempt to gain support for the war.

To date, they could always claim incompetence or differences of opinion, or the old "intelligence got it wrong" canard. These documents give lie to all of that, and are as close as we can ever come to anyone in this administration admitting guilt.

As you ask: What more do we need?

[LightningFlash]

3. I think that question....

Is about to be answered, by the imminent events tomorrow and onward.

[Double T]

4. Who Runs What??? Media Owned By Right Wing. Reporter....

pundits formerly known as journalists march lock step with whatever the Right Wing Boss/Owners of the Print/Radio/Television media tell them they should say, do and present. Even a lot of our Democratic Politicos have voted and sounded more like republicans than Democrats until very recently(more of them are getting some GIANT ONES). The Democrats are about to have their day, I hope like HELL we do not blow it!!!!!