The Downing Street Memos Finally Hit the US Press
There's nothing new in this NYTimes article on this set of Downing Street Memos which show Bush and Blair were committed to war in Iraq no matter what the Security Council or weapons inspectors found.
These hit the British Press some months ago, but I do think their appearance on the front page of the NYTimes is significant.
Also, the LATimes has a big front page piece about the FBI spying on antiwar groups. Like the above, kind of a summary and nothing really new, but significant in that this is making the front page.
These hit the British Press some months ago, but I do think their appearance on the front page of the NYTimes is significant.
Also, the LATimes has a big front page piece about the FBI spying on antiwar groups. Like the above, kind of a summary and nothing really new, but significant in that this is making the front page.
posted by mikevotes at
8:32 AM
10 Comments:
Food Not Bombs, one of the groups the FBI is monitoring, definitely sounds like a subversive terrorist organization to me.
How dare any group advocate taking money away from the military-industrial complex in order to feed starving people!
And don't even get more started on those vegan groups or PETA!
Freaking commies!
Boy, I sure am glad George Bush is preznit so that we Americans can be kept safe from subversive terrorist organizations like Food Not Bombs and PETA!
By
Reality-Based Educator, at 12:49 PM
I guess I need to learn patience. It was months ago I was raging because the US media totally ignored reports out of Britain about Blair/Bush closed door meetings.
We still haven’t seen anything of substance on the odd discussion about bombing the Al Jazeera offices in Oman. But then Blair’s government managed to have the courts lock those notes away.
I find it frightening that two such powerful leaders could seriously discuss plans more suited to a couple of Afghan local war lords. As much as I dislike simplistic epithets, it’s time to get some sun light on the nonsense emanating from the so called leaders.
Perhaps with time and patience it will al dribble out.
By
Cartledge, at 1:28 PM
Yes, those terrorists at Food Not Bombs want to attack the Pentagon with asparagus and tofu.
By
historymike, at 1:32 PM
Yeah, I was pretty concerned about the Merton center people, the quaker group who were subjected to surveillance for handing out antiwar leaflets.
And, Cartledge, I know this is very late on the story, but, that's part of what makes it interesting to me. Why now? Why did this suddenly get their attention now? Did they finally get a copy of the memos? Did they just start trying? Did they suddenly get a confirmation?
It's the timing of the raised profile of this story that I found curious.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 2:00 PM
I'm interested to hear whether those TV infotainment shows, I think they call them 'NEWS', will run the story. After all, that is how most people are 'informed'.
I try to avoid the shows with the same passion I avoid their relatives, the game shows. Still, I can't see Murdoch and the other electronic media puppet masters trusting their viewers with real information.
By
Cartledge, at 4:46 PM
Yeah, it's funny how little of the news networks is actually news, rather than news themed.
This did make the press gaggle today, a couple of different questioners, so, it'll probably be that second or third issue they ask the guests about.
And, I don't know about FoxNews. I don't watch Fox as a matter of principle. When I came across the Columbia(?) study which showed that Fox viewers believed in an AlQaeda Saddam link at about twice the rate, I decided that they weren't for me.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 5:18 PM
David Shuster did a piece on the Downing Street Memo on Hardball tonight. I thought it was a pretty good piece, like most of Shuster's stuff is.
Plus Tweety reported that former Defense Secretary Bill Cohen told him that Cheney wanted to be briefed on only one country right after the Supreme Court gave the White House to Bush in 2000 and that country was Iraq. Craig Crawford later said he remembered a story in the Times back in 2000 where the Joint Chiefs briefed Bush on the world for 90 minutes and Bush wanted to spend the whole time on Iraq.
The overall sense I got from the show was that Tweety, Buchanan, Podesta, and Craig Crawford all thought Bush had decided to go to war with Iraq BEFORE 9/11. Buchanan was particularly eloquent in his analysis. Check it out at 7:00 PM or read the transcript when they put it up later.
I don't think Lou's going to do anything on it on CNN tonight though. Sounds like the whole hour's being given over to the immigration issue (Fear of a brown Country, as Atrios puts it.)
I didn't see The Beard today so I don't know if he did anything on the story.
It is frustrating that these questions about the war weren't being asked by Tweety, Dobbs et al. BEFORE the 2004 election. The evidence was all there, but nobody in the traditional meeting was looking for it (except for Olbermann.) Instead they were giving credence to the Swift Boat allegations against John Kerry and other B.S. memes.
By
Reality-Based Educator, at 5:27 PM
Cool thanks. I usually watch the 6. There's good evidence that some elements of the administration were pushing Iraq before they took office.
As a Devil's advocate, let me propose that Bush wasn't sold on Iraq prior to 9-11, but people in his admin were pushing and that's why he asked about it in the briefing. And, after 9-11, he told them all to go ahead.
I don't know if that's the case, but that's another possible explanation. Remember that Bush came into office with literally no foreign policy understanding, and maybe, when he got freaked out on 9-11 he said Dick, it's all yours. Just an alternate theory, nothing to support it.
And, as for why they didn't cover the questions before the election? Despite all the bullcrap about objectivity, news reporters and moreso editors tell people what they want to hear. That's how they get viewers, ratings, revenue. I don't even know if it's conscious, but their reporting tends to reflect majority view(or vice versa.)
Sometimes the reporting pulls the public and sometimes the public pulls the media. Also, I think that since Iraq was being presented as one of the main campaign issues, the press were inclined to stay away from it to avoid being accused of taking sides.
I don't know why I'm defending everybody today. Your criticisms are valid, but this is just what spun out of my head.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 5:48 PM
I'm glad someone watches TV, saves me the trouble. I'm still recovering from that video of Katherine Harris. (The booby or boobies, couldn't figure that one out)
The truth will out, no doubt - re Bush/Iraq. I'm not sure any of it will make a great impact on the voting public. Could be they have that Fox mentality MV spoke of earlier.
Either that or I get increasingly cynical as the day wears on.
I'm just curious about the Rove thing above. You think they are trying to get Cheney by stealth? lol
By
Cartledge, at 10:47 PM
Yeah. I think Cheney's the target, although it could just be someone else in his office.
But, why do you deal Rove unless you;ve got someone bigger?
So either it's Cheney or somebody else who did something REALLY wrong.
Miike
By
mikevotes, at 6:40 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home