The Smoking Gun Memo, the Pretext for War and the "Liberal Press"

[Chris Alger]

In June 2002, two months before the White House launched its scare campaign about Iraqi WMD's, administration officials told British intelligence that they were determined to invade Iraq and that they were going to "fix" the intelligence and the facts to justify it. This admission emereged from an "eyes-only," undisputed memo by the Blair government based on a report to Blair from the head of MI-6, in turn reporting on his meeting with Bush Administration officials.

It confirms prior reports by White House insiders Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill and several unnamed sources claiming that Bush had decided to initiate war prior to the much-criticized 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, prior to seeking security council approval and prior to inspections. It strongly supports the claim by war critics that the war was predicated on massive lying and disdain for democratic processes. And the allegedly "liberal press" has, for the most part, ignored this story, now already more than two weeks old.

The full text of the memo is below. It reports that "mlitary action [to overthrow Saddam] was now seen as inevitable," although "the case was thin." To prepare for war, Bush intended to use "the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," although "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Here's how the supposedly liberal U.S. media has pounced on the story, according to FAIR: <ul type="square"> Few other outlets[besides one story in Knight-Ridder] have pursued the leaked memo's key charge that the "facts were being fixed around the policy." The New York Times (5/2/05) offered a passing mention, and the Charleston (W.V.) Gazette (5/5/05) wrote an editorial about the memo and the Iraq War. A columnist for the Cox News Service (5/8/05) also mentioned the memo, as did Molly Ivins (WorkingForChange.com, 5/10/05). Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler (5/8/05) noted that Post readers had complained about the lack of reporting on the memo, but offered no explanation for why the paper virtually ignored the story.

In a brief segment on hot topics in the blogosphere (5/6/05), CNN correspondent Jackie Schechner reported that the memo was receiving attention on various websites, where bloggers were "wondering why it's not getting more coverage in the U.S. media." But acknowledging the lack of coverage hasn't prompted much CNN coverage; the network mentioned the memo in two earlier stories regarding its impact on Blair's political campaign (5/1/05, 5/2/05), and on May 7, a short CNN item reported that 90 Congressional Democrats sent a letter to the White House about the memo-- but neglected to mention the possible manipulation of intelligence that was mentioned in the memo and the Democrats' letter.[/list]A story in the notably liberal LA Times reflects the overall tone: <ul type="square"> Reports in the British press this month based on documents indicating that President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair had conditionally agreed by July 2002 to invade Iraq appear to have blown over quickly in Britain.[/list]This lead paragraph tells the reader that the source amounts to "reports . . . in the British press" rather than an admission by war plannners. It suggests that the story is one primarily of concern to the UK, where the issue isn't that important because it "appears to have blown over."

<ul type="square">But in the United States, where the reports at first received scant attention, there has been growing indignation among critics of the Bush White House, who say the documents help prove that the leaders made a secret decision to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein nearly a year before launching their attack, shaped intelligence to that aim and never seriously intended to avert the war through diplomacy.[/list]This confirms that the report hasn't been taken seriously by the liberal press and that those who have focused on it tend to be "critics of the White House," suggesting the story is another tedious partisan "dispute."

<ul type="square">The picture that emerges from the documents is of a British government convinced of the U.S. desire to go to war and Blair's agreement to it, subject to several specific conditions. Since Smith's report was published May 1, Blair's Downing Street office has not disputed the documents' authenticity. Asked about them Wednesday, a Blair spokesman said the report added nothing significant to the much-investigated record of the lead-up to the war. "At the end of the day, nobody pushed the diplomatic route harder than the British government…. So the circumstances of this July discussion very quickly became out of date," said the spokesman, who asked not to be identified.[/list]In other words, the story is important to Times readers because of its news about the Blair government, not the U.S. The issue is whether Blair, not Bush, sought an alternative to war. The Times story then omits the most startling phrase of the memo, that "the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy," until the last sentence of the eighth paragraph. It concludes: <ul type="square"> In a letter to Bush last week, 89 House Democrats expressed shock over the documents. They asked if the papers were authentic and, if so, whether they proved that the White House had agreed to invade Iraq months before seeking Congress' OK. "If the disclosure is accurate, it raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of our own administration," the letter says.[/list]Actually, "if the disclosure is accurate" -- a fact that isn't disputed by either Blair or Bush -- then it wouldn't "raise" questions (long since raised in every corner of the world) but would tend to answer them. Those questions include:

1. Did the White House betray basic democratic principles to scare the public into supporting a war that it otherwise wouldn't?

2. Is post-9/11 U.S. military and foreign policy based on the exploitation of terrorism to pursue hegemonic expansion?

3. Did the U.S. government kill thousands of innocents in order to wage an elective war against a defenseless country, rendering the President, high U.S. officials and their supporters no better than mass murdering terrorists and their supporters?

The answer to all three is an obvious, virtually indisputable "yes." Unlike the thousands of stories and endless attention given to "Rathergate," you have to go to blogs and chat groups like this to find people willing to say it.
__________________________________
Here's The Memo:

From [The Sunday Times (London), 5/1/05

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
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.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)

[Utah]

I cant speak to the authenticity or the context of the memo. However, are we to believe that the same media outlets that went ballistic over a stupid national guard memo decided to take a pass on this story? Doesnt add up.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
However, are we to believe that the same media outlets that went ballistic over a stupid national guard memo decided to take a pass on this story? Doesnt add up

[/ QUOTE ]

You really think this is unusual?

[Chris Alger]

It adds up if you consider the media a series of profit-driven business that must operate within the constraints imposed by self-justifying authority that operate through the media and a plethora of other institutions. If the media calls the President a draft-dodger or a sodomite or a crook, this can sell beer and cars and might bode ill for the President but it's only a minor, temporary setback for the institutions of power. Worse case analysis is that the party under attack has to replace one guy with any of a dozen people waiting, hopefully, in the wings. In the long run its not problematic at all because stories like this can be sold as part of a systemic ability to guard against abuse and ferret out bad guys. Remember the catch phrase from Watergate: "the system worked." Individuals get creamed by the system is invulernerable. If you say Bush (or Clinton) is the best of all possible Presidents you sound like a partisan clown. If you say America's is the best of all possible systems you sound like a rationale patriot; no one will ask for your credentials in comparative systems analysis.

If, however, the media calls the President a terrorist or an aggressor based on a war that inculpates the Congress, the media, the Pentagon, the corporations and so on, this goes to the heart of power. This is a real threat. Take Watergate again and recall that the House impeachment committee considered Nixon's bombing of Cambodia, which killed tens of thousands of civilians and had no Congressional appropriation or authorization at all (Nixon had the secret approval of a small group of powerful Democratic, mostly conservative Senators with whom he consulted). Small potatoes compared to a burglary, but it essentially pointed the finger at the whole system, while the othr things could be explained as partisan dirty tricks, something the system can contain. This is why you see endless horrific images of 9/11 or Iraqi or Palestinian suicide bombers but hardly anything about the havoc wreaked by the U.S. and Israel. The exceptions to this are the fairly unrefutable "mistakes" which carry a similar dual meaning.

There are all kinds of contraints: the difficulty of dealing with a response from real domestic power if it is threatened (compared to tinpot rulers in Iran or Iraq), the need to explain things at length with expensive time to keep from sounding "un-American," the right-wing noise over the liberal media consipiracy, the need for access to officials, the need to placate advertisers (who fund the same officials and parties).

The upshot is that Bush's national guard service, like Clintons' adultery, is fair game. Bush's war and Clinton's bombing of Sudan, however, are not because they are systemic acts of a broad group of elites (who's commonalities are disguised by their constant partisan bickering over trivia). A corrolary to this is that we should expect a lot of noise from the media about how dogged and merciless they are in hounding the powerful, perhaps even to the point of recklessness, a tendency to excess of which thoughtful people should be wary. Another is a much greater degree of dispute and information about domestic policy, where the diffences bewteen elites are at stake. This is less true with foreign policy, where they tend to be united (reflect in the old saw about "politics stops at the water's edge").

Remember in the early 80's how Walter Cronkite used to say, at the end of every broadcast, that it's been X days since the Iranian hostages were taken. Nobody doubted that he was justified in reminding Americans of the plight of the 50 hostages, an unquestionably regretable thing.

OTOH, most people would consider lying to justify a war (rather than lying about troop movements or progess) quite a bit worse, one of the worst-case scenarios of the U.S. being run by a malignant dictator. While this memo might be new, the issue of Bush's lying (and those of his since-rewarded subordinates) is not. Now consider the possibility of Brokaw or Katie Couric saying, every day, "it's been X days wihout any investigation about whether the White House lied about the war." Or change it to "Republican and Democratic leaders lied about the war." It is inconceivable, despite the chinks in the armor caused by Bush's leveraging public apathy and ignorance into undridled aggression.

One could say "of course we castigate other countries more than we beat up on ourselves, what do you expect?" It might be unjustifiable at the extreme and we can do better, but this is just human nature. The response is "who's we?" I don't have a desire or interest in turning Iraq into a U.S., protectorate, nor does anyone else I know. Instead of seeing this view reflected in the media, we are constantly bombarded with images showing "America" as a unitary thing, as if "America" and not a few thousand Americans were responsble for everything. We don't see common sense reflected in the news presented by the media any more than we see it in the commercials that fund the news. The difference is that commercials don't need to appear serious to work, but that the news has to. But it's all part of the same system.

[superleeds]

Excellent stuff. If only one person stops and thinks about what you said it will be worth the effort. I'm glad you can be arsed because I sure as fuk can't anymore.

[sirio11]

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
If, however, the media calls the President a terrorist or an aggressor based on a war that inculpates the Congress, the media, the Pentagon, the corporations and so on, this goes to the heart of power. This is a real threat.

[/ QUOTE ]Interesting analysis but I don't think it applies in this case. I believe the reason that certain stories get play is that people are simply too stupid to grab complex stories. The public will never understand a complex discussion on geopolitics. It simply can't be done. However, the public understands lying very well and that is a hot story.

For your analysis to be true there has to be an implicit or explicit rule among jounalists to not report the story. That level of collusion is just not possible here. Additionally, a story like this would take on a life of its own and it would flourish like wildfire. That simply hasnt happened.

I not making any commentary on the document. If it is true I hope Bush and the rest of his cronies burn in hell.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
The public will never understand a complex discussion on geopolitics. It simply can't be done. However, the public understands lying very well and that is a hot story.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's partly true but it's not because of the public's ability to understand. Look at the understanding of professional sports by people that follow it. Or home improvement, child rearing, car repair, computers, poker, and all sorts of hobbies and careers. These things have rules and theory and require time and experience to get minimal expertise. You might say people enjoy these things, but they also enjoy peace. Most people loathe unecessary and expensive wars.

The difference between these topics and "geopolitics" is that the market for the latter is driven, to a great extent, from the top down instead of the bottom up. A huge amount of information about policy, especially semi-secret foreign policy, uniquely comes from the state. People think journalists create the news but look at how much is manufactured by the state. The state doesn't want or need more decision makers, it needs support, acquiesence or apathy. Topics invovling foreign countries usually arise in the first place only when the government wants the public to focus on them.

The conventions of reporting about these topics also impede understanding. If one tries to follow foreign policy in the media, half of what you find is insider analysis and gossip, who's up, who's down, which tactics work and which don't, as if all fundamental questions about motives and justification were either irrelevant or too obvious to merit comment. The deeper discussions are almost stridently opaque, ridden with jargon, buzzwords, vague historical references and unspoken assumptions about motives and the like. And these are the serious discussions, not the crude soundbites or red meat hate propaganda used to create a sort of background noise.

[ QUOTE ]
For your analysis to be true there has to be an implicit or explicit rule among jounalists to not report the story. That level of collusion is just not possible here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Journalists don't decide on the shape of the news in the same way that autoworkers don't decide the shape of cars. There's no agreement among them, but conventions of reporting that require them to give special deference to the government. You see this in the insistence that journalists show no unfavorable "bias" and to give equal time to both sides. When the two most powerful sides largely agree, the conventions turn ordinary news -- reported objectively, diligently and even with a professional trace of uncertainty or skepticism -- into so much propaganda.

And the story was reported, it just didn't have "legs." People who act as gatekeepers for what goes out in the media, not journalists but editors who report to publishers who report to managers who report to directors who report to shareholders -- weren't inundated with calls and faxes and threats and complaints from officials, PR firms, high-powered think-tanks and "outside experts" demanding more coverage, pushing this or that new "evidence," offering free services or exclusive interviews or nice lunches to help promulgate the story and further the cause. In a seller-driven market where the seller has little to gain, distribution can decline abruptly.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Excellent post.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why??? Seriously. I think it's a lot of hot air. I would say that most people in the U.S. are provincial and don't find geo politics all that interesting. As an example, from the last presidential election, how many U.S. citizens focused on or really cared about the differences between Kerry's approach to dealing with North Korea and Bush's approach? How many people really follow what's happening now regarding Bush's approach to North Korea. Chris seems to imply that if the U.S. government would present it differently U.S. citizens would find it more interesting. Don't think that's the case FWIW.