PERSPECTIVES (6/6)
The Downing Street 'bombshell' was a dud
by Jody L. Slaughter
Ever heard of the Downing Street Memo? No..? Know who won 'American Idol' this season? Yes..? What does that say about you?
Actually, the question isn't what that says about you--it's what it says about Big Media in this country. The Downing St. Memo contains the minutes of a high-level meeting between British cabinet, intelligence and military officials and Prime Minister Tony Blair regarding the Iraq War. The meeting took place on July 23, 2002, some eight months before the invasion began.
The "bombshell" portion of the document comes as Richard Dearlove, director of the Secret Intelligence Service (also known as MI6), reports on a recent Washington trip to discuss Iraq.
This is controversial because for months after this meeting took place, the Bush administration made repeated statements claiming that the U.S. would work with the United Nations and use war only as a last resort.
Again the document seems to show that the U.S. and our allies played up the threat of WMDs in order to rally support for the war.
Democrats are already using the memo to attack the Bush administration, even calling for his impeachment.
Now it would be easy to use this space to bash the president--but there are plenty of places to go on the web for that. My problem is not really with Bush this time, but with the mainstream media's almost total silence on this story.
The memo was first published in the Sunday Times, a British newspaper, on May 1. Now I spend a good portion of every day scouring the Web for news and I only found out about this earlier in the week. Aside from a few editorials and offhand references to the subject, the American media is paying almost no attention to this story. This strikes me as very disturbing.
True, none of the charges being made in response to the memo are really new, but that isn't the important issue. The thing which sets this memo apart is that, for the first time, accusations of the Bush administration intentionally spreading misinformation about Iraq are being confirmed by the highest government officials of our greatest ally--England.
Why isn't it being covered? Where is our "liberal media" which is so intent on overthrowing Bush? In actuality, the "liberal media" moniker is exaggerated. While it is true that liberals control the newsrooms of the "Big Three" (CBS, ABC, NBC), conservatives have had great success as well in the domains of cable television and talk-radio. Political bias only takes a news organization so far, however, before even the most staunch bleeding-heart liberal newsman or loony right wing editor must bow to that ever-present Bottom Line. That's right--dollar, dollar bill y'all.
It's not yet apparent to me where the money-angle comes into this issue, but I'm certain it's there. If both the conservative and liberal media juggernauts in this country are voluntarily silencing themselves on a hot-button topic such as this, the only reasonable explanation is that someone signing checks doesn't want it to appear. But why?
I don't have the answer. But there's really only one difference between the bloggers who have been all over this issue and Big Media who has stayed away from it like the Plague--they're getting paid, we are not.
More than you ever wanted to know about the memo
Web site demands action from Bush
by Jody L. Slaughter
Ever heard of the Downing Street Memo? No..? Know who won 'American Idol' this season? Yes..? What does that say about you?
Actually, the question isn't what that says about you--it's what it says about Big Media in this country. The Downing St. Memo contains the minutes of a high-level meeting between British cabinet, intelligence and military officials and Prime Minister Tony Blair regarding the Iraq War. The meeting took place on July 23, 2002, some eight months before the invasion began.
The "bombshell" portion of the document comes as Richard Dearlove, director of the Secret Intelligence Service (also known as MI6), reports on a recent Washington trip to discuss Iraq.
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.
This is controversial because for months after this meeting took place, the Bush administration made repeated statements claiming that the U.S. would work with the United Nations and use war only as a last resort.
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.
Again the document seems to show that the U.S. and our allies played up the threat of WMDs in order to rally support for the war.
Democrats are already using the memo to attack the Bush administration, even calling for his impeachment.
Now it would be easy to use this space to bash the president--but there are plenty of places to go on the web for that. My problem is not really with Bush this time, but with the mainstream media's almost total silence on this story.
The memo was first published in the Sunday Times, a British newspaper, on May 1. Now I spend a good portion of every day scouring the Web for news and I only found out about this earlier in the week. Aside from a few editorials and offhand references to the subject, the American media is paying almost no attention to this story. This strikes me as very disturbing.
True, none of the charges being made in response to the memo are really new, but that isn't the important issue. The thing which sets this memo apart is that, for the first time, accusations of the Bush administration intentionally spreading misinformation about Iraq are being confirmed by the highest government officials of our greatest ally--England.
Why isn't it being covered? Where is our "liberal media" which is so intent on overthrowing Bush? In actuality, the "liberal media" moniker is exaggerated. While it is true that liberals control the newsrooms of the "Big Three" (CBS, ABC, NBC), conservatives have had great success as well in the domains of cable television and talk-radio. Political bias only takes a news organization so far, however, before even the most staunch bleeding-heart liberal newsman or loony right wing editor must bow to that ever-present Bottom Line. That's right--dollar, dollar bill y'all.
It's not yet apparent to me where the money-angle comes into this issue, but I'm certain it's there. If both the conservative and liberal media juggernauts in this country are voluntarily silencing themselves on a hot-button topic such as this, the only reasonable explanation is that someone signing checks doesn't want it to appear. But why?
I don't have the answer. But there's really only one difference between the bloggers who have been all over this issue and Big Media who has stayed away from it like the Plague--they're getting paid, we are not.
On The Web
The memoMore than you ever wanted to know about the memo
Web site demands action from Bush
posted by Jody L. Slaughter at 12:03 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home