Downing Street Memo -- Fox News is on the case

[TexasLawyer]

Really a nice article, considering Fox's usually biased presentation. The article links to the Downing Street Memo, it talks about John Conyers' investigation, it works in Scott McClellan's bogus statement that there is "no need" to respond to the memo, and it interviews the brother of a GI who was killed in Iraq. The brother is a member of Military Families Speak Out, a group that opposes the war, and the article even provides a link to MFSO. Awesome!


Downing Street Memo Mostly Ignored in U.S.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

WASHINGTON — A British government memo that critics say proves the Bush administration manipulated evidence about weapons of mass destruction in order to carry out a plan to overthrow Saddam Hussein has received little attention in the mainstream media, frustrating opponents of the Iraq war.

The "Downing Street Memo" — first published by The Sunday Times of London on May 1 — summarizes a high-level meeting between Prime Minister Tony Blair and his senior national security team on July 23, 2002, months before the March 2003 coalition invasion of Iraq.
The memo suggests that British intelligence analysts were concerned that the Bush administration was marching to war on wobbly evidence that Saddam posed a serious threat to the world.

Click here to read the memo.

In the memo, written by top Blair aide Matthew Rycroft, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw indicated in the meeting that it "seemed clear" Bush had already decided to take military action. "But the case was thin," reads the memo on Straw's impressions. "Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

The memo also paraphrased former head of the British Secret Intelligence Services, Richard Dearlove, fresh from meetings in the United States. The memo said Dearlove believed "military action was now seen as inevitable."

<snip>

White House spokesman Scott McClellan has said there is "no need" to respond to the memos, the authenticity of which has not been denied.

<snip>

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158228,00.html

[AuntiBush]

1. Why don't they put it on the air!?!?

[napi21]

3. Hey, it's a streach for THEM to even put it on the web site!

I don't whwen they posted this, but maybe...just maybe, they'll air it tomorrow! Actually better if it's on in the morning.

[TexasLawyer]

4. We can only hope!

[Erika]

2. Faux News ratings are sliding so badly

they are willing to desert the GOP. They have no core beliefs other than profits.

[seriousstan]

5. Could this be another "memogate"? What is their agenda?

What EXACTLY is the traceable origins of this memo? How many of these sources will stand and proclaim they are the direct evidence of authenticity? I really need to know.

I have seen where this is from top Blair aide Matthew Rycroft. Is he acknowledging this?

I also have seen the downingstreetmemo.com site and it's evidence for authenticity. Nobody seems to be standing up.

As in the elections, do we have a willing witness?

[TexasLawyer]

8. I think the memo is the real deal

The Brits do not deny authenticity. They just said that the memo is "nothing new." The RNC shills do not necessarily deny authenticity either. The RNC talking point seems to be one or more of the following:

play dumb ("Downing Street Memo? Never Heard of it!);

say that the memo is not a "primary source," and consequently it is really not worth anyone's time and should just be ignored; or

say that the public is not interested in this old news. Ho hum, president lied, yeah, yeah, we've been through all of this before.

Bushco must be pulling out all the stops to keep this thing out of the news. I smell blood.

[lady lib]

6. Call me skeptical, but if faux is writing about it

it's because Rove wants them to. That bastard has something up his sleeve. Grrrrrr.

[Dr Fate]

7. Bush would never make a "Newsweek" or "Rathergate" out of FOX.

DEMS who bother to speak up about this should quote FOX as their source as much as possible.

[lady lib]

9. No, they wouldn't you're right.

But in order to discredit the Downing Street report (however those bastards are planning on doing it), they have to first publicize it. By publicizing through faux they can precisely control the content. Then when they discredit the report they not only get off the impeachment hook, they also discredit all of the congressional signatories to the letter.

You know even a couple of years ago I would have felt completely paranoid saying talking like this, but no more.

[Pryderi]

11. Fox News in Ratings Free Fall

Fox News in Ratings Free Fall

Here's something you won't hear on Fox News -- ratings for the cable news channel have been plummeting since before the November election.

According to TV Newser, the number of people watching Fox during prime time in the 25 to 54 age bracket dropped in April for the sixth straight month.

TV Newser cited a CNN press release which gave these totals for Fox's primetime audience in the 25 to 54 age bracket: Oct. 04: 1,074,000; Nov. 04: 891,000; Dec. 04: 568,000; Jan. 05: 564,000; Feb. 05: 520,000; March 05: 498,000; April 05: 445,000. That amounts to a decline of 58 percent, with no sign of leveling off.

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/05/18/fox_news_in_ratings_free_fall.php

[hlthe2b]

10. Damn, folks... this is RW strategy: It wasn't a memo, but MINUTES

and by banging the drum that it was just a memo it downplays it and suggests it is just some 2nd or 3rd hand story.... THat's the repug strategy, folks!

This is no damned FAUX gift. It is strategy!

[seriousstan]

12. Where did the minutes come from and is the source admitting it?

Do we have a verifiable source that is willing to stand and affirm their authenticity?

People's lack of statement that they are false is not enough to prove them true.

I smell a trap and need more info.

[DearAbby]

13. that is what they are hoping for...they slapped us once...we will be less

likely to stand up again? The elections of Tony Blair was nearly blasted by these "Minutes" that seems real enough to me. He when questioned, he answered the questions, seems to me that they were real enough, or Blair would have blown them off then and there...The Minutes are real. they are trying to down play them....Jesus Krist, you would think Rove can do back flips and jump out of the woodwork mysteriously...this is a huge leak. and they are hoping that we would be shrinking violets and let it go.

We have to dog this...think back to Watergate..a third rate burglary, that grew and eventually toppled the President of the United States...they then pooh poohed it. Stay on this, this is the smoking gun..Conyers is no fool. Take his back, fight this battle. Hold onto this.

[rfrrfrrfr]

14. sheesh

where have you been the past month.

They are the minutes of the July 23rd 2002 Prime minsisters Meeting between Blair and his cabinet. It was originally published by the Times of Lond May 1st 2005.

Here is a link to the document itself.http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1

This document was one of the big reasons blairs party faired so poorly in the election and will likely be the main reason he is replaced in the near future.

Although there are other important thing contained in the minutes this is the big one.


"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."

[seriousstan]

15. Fine, who leaked them and will they admit it?

That was the whole question.