You are herecontent / DOWNING STREET LOWDOWN

DOWNING STREET LOWDOWN


Winston-Salem Journal (Winston Salem, NC)

The six so-called "Downing Street Memos" written by aides to British Prime Minister Tony Blair don't contain much new information regarding President Bush's early Iraq policies. But they add credibility to charges that Bush decided first to invade and then fashioned evidence and arguments for doing so.

The memos were leaked to British journalists in fall 2004, but they received little attention, except from anti-war activists, until recently. That is because they mostly repeat much of what the press had already reported and what administration critics, such as Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council counter-terrorism official, had said.

That is, they indicate that Bush was intent on war with Iraq as early as the hours immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. They show that the administration and Blair's government desperately sought a rationale for the war they had decided upon, bouncing from "regime change," to phantom ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, and, finally, to worries about weapons of mass destruction. Finally, the memos also reveal serious British concerns about a lack of postwar planning by their American allies.

Even if the memos duplicate information long public, they are enormously important for several reasons.

They come from outside the American political system. These documents were not written by people who can be dismissed as disgruntled former aides or partisan Democrats. They were written by the president's most important international ally, a British government searching for ways to support Bush's decision to go to war. These are the words of Bush's friends, not his enemies.

The memos are reaching Americans at a time when they are not focused on whom they want to be their next president. The choice of a president involves decisions on many issues. So, many Americans who were concerned about other issues last year, or who had already decided to vote for Bush, were not likely to believe in, or focus on, the Iraq war charges when they arose. Now the memos raise the same issues again when the question is much simpler: Did Bush cook the evidence to justify the conclusion he'd already made?

Finally, the memos come as the American people grow less supportive of the war and, therefore, more willing to consider evidence that the administration did not build its case for war honestly and that it botched the war's planning.

There's nothing new in the Downing Street memos, but Americans who have refused to believe similar charges should approach them with an open mind. They are part of a strong, emerging case that the president was intent on war long before he found good justification to wage it.

Tags

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

As a skeptic and adamant opponent of the war, I used to think that one day the public would know the truth and when they did the Bush administration would be soundly denounced by Americans across the political spectrum. Of all the abuses of power and treachery a President could commit, there is no more serious charge than those implied in the Downing Street memos. And yet, it seems these crimes have been reduced in the eyes of many Americans to a matter of partisan differences. As one damning piece of evidence after the next emerges, rather than building an increasing sense of outrage, it seems to have had the opposite effect of desensitization in the public consciousness. And when so-called political leaders on both sides appear to dismiss each piece of the puzzle as merely a fragment standing in isolation; the public too seems to dismiss the collective importance of the evidence of wrongdoing compiled to date. This, I fear, reflects the absence of true political leadership in this country.

Tis too true... the apathetic response and nullification of fact has dulled the perception that Bush should be held accountable. A case in point: I heard a Mom (whose son was wounded) talking with Cindy Sheehan and her view was to simply 'trust the president'(This is the view the right espouses). It's a jaw dropping, astounding view. Doesn't she care that her son has been needlessly injured and will take years of rehabilitation, or even if she believed partially in the cause of removing Saddam Hussein to foster democracy in the region or for whatever reason, she must admit that she had been openly lied to and manipulated by the President of the United States. Trust a liar? Not possible. Denial is possible however.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Store:



















Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.