Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Times DSM reporter Michael Smith, LIVE NOW! Q&A, WaPost Online, 10AM, EST!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 09:12 AM
Original message
Times DSM reporter Michael Smith, LIVE NOW! Q&A, WaPost Online, 10AM, EST!
Edited on Thu Jun-16-05 09:54 AM by flpoljunkie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
1. KICK! Submit your questions to Michael Smith NOW!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
2. Must Read Q&A from this LIVE session!
Edited on Thu Jun-16-05 09:45 AM by flpoljunkie
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/14/DI2005061401261.html

Washington, D.C.: To what do you attribute the seeming lack of interest by the American public and main stream media, at least initially, in the revelations contained in the Downing Street Memo?

Michael Smith: Firstly, I think the leaks were regarded as politically motivated. Secondly there was a feeling of well we said that way back when. Then of course as the pressure mounted from the outside, there was a defensive attitude. "We have said this before, if you the reader didn't listen well what can we do", seemed to be the attitude. I dont know if you have this expression over there, but we say someone "wants to have their cake and eat it". That's what that response reeks of. Either it was politically motivated and therefore not true or it was published before by the US newspapers and was true, it cant be both can it?

The attitude they have taken is just flat wrong, to borrow an expression from the White House spokesman on the Downing St Memo.

It is one thing for the New York Times or the Washington Post to say that we were being told that the intelligence was being fixed by sources inside the CIA or Pentagon or the NSC and quite another to have documentary confirmation in the form of the minutes of a key meeting with the Prime Minister's office. Think of it this way, all the key players were there. This was the equivalent of an NSC meeting, with the President, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, George Tenet, and Tommy Franks all there. They say the evidence against Saddam Hussein is thin, the Brits think regime change is illegal under international law so we are going to have to go to the UN to get an ultimatum, not as a way of averting war but as an excuse to make the war legal, and oh by the way we arent preparing for what happens after and no-one has the faintest idea what Iraq will be like after a war. Not reportable, are you kidding me?

One point I would make though, everyone keeps saying it is continually making waves over here. We at the Sunday Times are not going to let it go but no-one else is interested in the UK press. The Washington Post came to it late but look at everything it is doing now. Ignore today's silly editorial article. The Post is now working away at this and I know they are planning to try to do more on it. Sadly there is no sign of the New York Times changing its sniffy we told you this already view!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/14/DI2005061401261.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
3. in re: is Blair in more trouble than Bush:
"Michael Smith: I think Blair will go although I personally think Bush is much more at risk because there is an unstoppable public feeling against the continued presence of US soldiers as targets for insurgents. The polls and the public pressure are not going Bush's way. There is no doubt in my mind that the administration lied and distorted the truth, one Congress begins to realise the scale of it, Bush could be in serious trouble. "

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
4. Smith answers question what "fixed around" means in UK! Same as here!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/14/DI2005061401261.html

Fairfax, Va.: Do you expect we will see more leaks which further corroborate the assertion that Bush lied to justify the neoconservatives' aggressive stance against Iraq? Also, what are your thoughts on the semantics argument of the Iraq war supporters (i.e., in the U.K., "fixed around" doesn't mean what you think it means...)?

Michael Smith: There are number of people asking about fixed and its meaning. This is a real joke. I do not know anyone in the UK who took it to mean anything other than fixed as in fixed a race, fixed an election, fixed the intelligence. If you fix something, you make it the way you want it. The intelligence was fixed and as for the reports that said this was one British official. Pleeeaaassee! This was the head of MI6. How much authority do you want the man to have? He has just been to Washington, he has just talked to George Tenet. He said the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. That translates in clearer terms as the intelligence was being cooked to match what the administration wanted it to say to justify invading Iraq. Fixed means the same here as it does there. More leaks? I do hope so and the more Blair and Bush lie to try to get themselves off the hook the more likely it is that we will get more leaks.


_______________________
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
5. Re Geneva Conventions on occupying a country, "Are we stuck in a barrel?"
Washington, D.C.: Do you think that when Blair resigns, the new PM will bow to public opinion and begin pulling British troops out? Or is there a sense there, as in some circles of the U.S., that since we started this, there's an obligation to tough it out and see the occupation through until the Iraqi government can take over?

Michael Smith: We're are stuck a barrel now. The Geneva Convention says that if you occupy a country, you have to leave it able to govern itself and protect itself. The Brits will stick to that I am sure but we will see a drawdown of troops in the UK controlled sector because it is much more peaceful and getting to the point where it needs to be able to govern itself. But when will Iraq be repaired enough for us all to leave. I suspect it will be a long time yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC