Downing Street memo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.202.178.198 (talk) at 22:45, 6 February 2007 (→‎Criticism of the Memo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

The "Downing Street memo" (occasionally DSM, or the "Downing Street Minutes"), sometimes described by critics of the Iraq War as the "smoking gun memo", contains an overview of a secret 23 July 2002 meeting among United Kingdom Labour government, defence and intelligence figures, discussing the build-up to the war—including direct reference to classified United States policy of the time. It clearly states that, "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."

Introduction

The memo was first published in The Sunday Times on May 1 2005, during the last days of the UK's general election campaign.

The Memo went largely unremarked in the US press at first but was heavily covered in progressive blogs such as those on Daily Kos, in particular because of a remark attributed to Richard Dearlove (then head of British foreign intelligence service MI6) that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed [by the US] around the policy" of removing Saddam Hussein from power, which was taken to show that US intelligence on Iraq prior to the war was deliberately falsified, rather than simply mistaken. (Dearlove was reporting on his meeting with US security chiefs.) As this issue began to be covered by American media, two other main allegations stemming from the memo arose: that the UN weapons inspection process was manipulated to provide a legal pretext for the war, and that pre-war air strikes were deliberately ramped up in order to soften Iraqi infrastructure in preparation for war, prior to the October congressional vote permitting the invasion.

The term "Downing street memo" is also used to generally describe a larger body of associated or related documents leaked to the public from November 2004 onwards, which date from March 2002 through July 2002—the DSM being the most important.

Although some elements of the US media have portrayed the document as faked or fraudulent, no official sources have questioned its accuracy or disputed its authenticity, despite being questioned directly about it on numerous occasions. Both UK and US officials have since either refused to affirm or deny its content, or else have tacitly validated its authenticity (as when Tony Blair replied to a press conference question by saying "That memo was written before we went to the UN.")

A group of 131 United States Congressmen, led by John Conyers, have repeatedly requested of US President George W. Bush to respond to the contents of the document. A resolution of inquiry was filed by Representative Barbara Lee, which would request that the President and the State Department turn over all relevant information with regard to US policy towards Iraq. The resolution currently has 70 co-sponsors.[1]

Outline

Addressees of the memo
Copies of the minutes were sent to:

The minutes were meant to be kept confidential and are headed "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." It deals with the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War, and comes at a point at which it becomes clear to those attending, that US President George W. Bush intended to remove Saddam Hussein from power by force.

The minutes run through the military options and then consider the political strategy in which an appeal for support from the international community and from domestic opinion would be most likely to be positively received. It suggests that an ultimatum for Saddam to allow back United Nations weapons inspectors be issued, and that this would help to make the use of force legal. Tony Blair is quoted as saying that the British public would support regime change in the right political context.

The most controversial paragraph is a report of a recent visit to Washington by head of the Secret Intelligence Service Sir Richard Dearlove (known in official terminology as 'C'):

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.

Supporters of President Bush have suggested various British English usages of the phrase "were being fixed" in the 5th sentence (for example as a colloquialism meaning "to agree upon,"[2]) which are distinct from the usage (both American and British) derived from criminal argot, meaning "fraudulently altered or changed."[3] The author of the memo, Matthew Rycroft, employed the former usage in an e-mail when talking about an appointment, This is now fixed for 0800.[4] Some detractors from the memo have appeared to make the argument or give the impression that the "fraudulently altered" sense of "fix" is uniquely American and does not exist in British English, but this is false.

Critics respond that "being fixed around" was used in the sense of "fraudulently arrange the result", which is a common British usage (sense 12(b) of "fix" in the printed Concise Oxford English Dictionary, given as sense 7, "deviously influence the outcome of" in the Compact OED online version.[5]) Critics have also argued that their view is supported by the context of the phrase, especially by the negative qualification implied by the presence of the word "But" at the start of the relevant sentence: "But the intelligence and facts were being (innocently) agreed upon around the policy" is, it is said, an implausible reading because there is nothing negative, per se, about agreement, whereas "But the intelligence and facts were being fraudulently arranged ...", it is argued, appears to make perfect sense, because it fulfills the negative expectation set up by the word "but".

The British analysis of US policy is also stated elsewhere in the minutes:

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 main sections covering the ultimatum are:

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. 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.
...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.

The minutes also outlines potential risks of an invasion of Iraq:

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."

Reaction

Proponents of an inquiry

In the United States, proponents of a formal congressional inquiry say that the minutes, along with testimonies from credible witnesses, shed sufficient doubt on the actions of the Bush Administration to warrant a formal inquiry.[6] In particular, they say that the minutes indicate that the Administration was determined to go to war with Iraq prior to considerations of legality, and with full knowledge that, at best, "the case was slim." And furthermore that they selected and exaggerated intelligence so as to confirm their policy and developed a plan to manipulate public opinion. Also, proponents say that the contents (such as "Military action was now seen as inevitable.") and the date of the memo, July 23, 2002, contradicts the official White House position that Mr. Bush did not finally decide to carry out the invasion of March 2003 until after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented the administration's case to the United Nations Security Council, in a speech on February 5, 2003. They also say that the minutes are dated at a time when Bush stated that "we haven't made any decisions on Iraq, but all options are on the table."

Another paragraph has been taken to show that Geoff Hoon believed the timing of the war was intended to influence American elections:

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.

It has been said that some of those present at the meeting believed that Iraq might possess weapons of mass destruction (WMD) "capacity". However, the minutes explicitly state that the capability was less than that of Libya, Iran, and North Korea, and that Saddam was not threatening his neighbors.

US Congress

On 5 May, 2005, Congressman John Conyers sent a letter to President Bush signed by 89 of his colleagues demanding an explanation of the revelations in the memo. No specific White House response to the letter has been made publicly. In response to the Bush Administration's refusal to answer the congressional delegation's questions, Conyers et. al have given serious consideration to sending a fact-finding mission to the UK.[7]

Conyers initially requested 100,000 signatures from citizens (a petition) to request that President Bush answer the questions in his letter.[8] The letter has been getting between 20,000 and 25,000 signatures a day, which was boosted by MoveOn.org joining the campaign on 9 June. By 13 June 2005, the letter had received over 540,000 signatures from citizens, and more congressmen had signed on, bringing the total to 94.[9] As of 16 June 2005, over 100 congressmen had signed the letter, including Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

On June 16, 2005: US Congressman John Conyers, Jr. presided over a hearing or forum on the Downing Street memo in a basement room in the Capitol where Joseph C. Wilson and Cindy Sheehan among others testified.[10][11][12] Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert(R-Ill) was responsible for assigning Rep. John Conyers into a basement room described as a large closet to hold hearings on the Downing Street Memos.

Internet

The importance of the "Sunday Times" publication for the US was first analyzed by smintheus at Daily Kos[13] and MYDD[14] on the night of 30 April 2005. By the next morning the document had become a major story at Daily Kos,[15] where Congressman Conyers learned of its existence.

A website, www.downingstreetmemo.com,[16] was created on May 13 to inform the public about the memo and provide context. The website also has a blog dedicated to discussing issues surrounding the memo, called downingstreetmemo.blogspot.com.[17]

Created in late May, After Downing Street is a coalition of organizations that support an official inquiry into the DSM, pre-war intelligence, and the planning and execution of the Iraq war.

On 30 May 2005, in a "blogswarm" fueled by the memo,[18] hundreds of blogs joined together to form the Big Brass Alliance in support of After Downing Street.[19]

On 1 June 2005 a targeted media campaign called 'Awaken the Mainstream Media' began jointly at Daily Kos[20] and downingstreetmemo.com.[21] Every day it lists new contact information for three news outlets, to urge them to provide better coverage of the issues. These lists are also linked to by a network of blogs.

US Congressman John Conyers has also set up a blog to raise support for re-opening the Congressional investigation into the 9/11 attacks, ConyersBlog.us.[22] Conyers' blog is keeping tabs on the number of signatures on a petition for the campaign to re-open hearings (see petition links below).

Pundits

On 18 May, conservative pundit and former Reagan Administration advisor Paul Craig Roberts wrote an article calling for Bush's impeachment for lying to Congress about the case for war.[23]

On 31 May, liberal consumer advocate and former Presidential hopeful Ralph Nader wrote an article on ZNet calling for Bush and Cheney’s impeachment under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution.[24] Also on that day, he and Kevin Zeese authored an op-ed for the Boston Globe to support the call for impeachment against Bush, citing the memo as part of the evidence that the possibility of deliberate deception by the administration should be investigated.[25]

On 26 June, drug war critic Donald Way wrote commentary on holocaustnow citing the relevance of those portions of the memos detailing how the air war began in 2002 for the purpose of provoking Saddam Hussein into reacting in such a way that could be used to justify the military invasion.[26]

On 30 January, 2006, an article entitled The Impeachment of George W. Bush,[27] written by Elizabeth Holtzman (Rep. NY-D 1973-1981, member of the House Judiciary Committee that held impeachment hearings of President Richard Nixon) was published by the left-wing periodical The Nation. The article makes specific references to the Downing Street memo.

Citizens

A coalition of citizen groups called After Downing Street, co-founded by a group of longtime progressive and/or Democratic Party activists[1], is calling on Congress to file a Resolution of Inquiry, the first necessary legal step to determine whether President Bush has committed impeachable offenses.[28] Article written by Larisa Alexandrovna, pushing the topic to the MSM. The formal Resolution of Inquiry request was written by Boston constitutional attorney John C. Bonifaz.[29] The request states the constitutional grounds for impeachment:

[The US President] has not given [the Senate] full information, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them.

Democrats.com has raised one thousand dollars, offered as a reward to anyone who can get George Bush to answer the following question:

In July 2002, did you and your administration "fix" the intelligence and facts about non-existent Iraqi WMD's and ties to terrorism — which were disputed by US intelligence officials — to sell your decision to invade Iraq to Congress, the American People, and the world — as quoted in the Downing Street Minutes?

In addition to the grand prize for eliciting a clear "Yes" or "No" answer, a number of lesser prizes are offered for lesser responses, down to $100 reward for video evidence of having posed the question clearly to President Bush within his hearing but getting no answer.[30]

A Zogby poll in November 2005 found that 53% of US voters agree that Congress should impeach President Bush if it is found that Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, while 42% disagreed. 76% of Democrats, 50% of independents, and around 29% of Republicans, agreed with the sentiment.

News coverage

The Downing Street Minutes was a major story in the British press during the last few days of the 2005 general election campaign and was also covered in other countries. The story had limited coverage in the USA but has recently received greater attention in the American press. The organization Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting has been among those that have criticized the US print media, saying they ". . .continue to downplay [the] story."[31]

According to Media Matters,[32] there were some early mentions in The New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the New York Sun, and the Washington Post, though coverage was slight (the Post's first article appeared in the "Style" section) and primarily aimed at the impact it would have on the British elections, rather than how it affected the Bush administration. The Knight-Ridder news service produced some reportage at the time, but independent articles were limited. The Los Angeles Times and Star Tribune put local reporters on the story, and produced early articles on May 12 and May 13, respectively.

At the Star Tribune, initial interest had been piqued after a reader e-mailed information he had seen on the Internet to the paper's ombudsman, who forwarded it to others in the news department. Being quite a distance from London, editors first waited for articles to come across on wire services. Undoubtedly, many other newspapers across the country reacted similarly. After a few days of no news, however, a local reporter was assigned. The article was initially scheduled to run on May 11, but was pushed back so that it could have greater prominence on a slower news day later in the week.[33]

Since that time, much of the coverage about the memo has discussed the lack of coverage. One of the first reports include that topic was a May 17 article in the Christian Science Monitor. The report was one of the most extensive for a nationwide publication up until that time.[34]

On May 20th, 2005, Daniel Okrent, the Public Editor at the time for The New York Times, publicly assessed the coverage of the minutes in the paper in a forum on the NYT's website. He also stated that, due to continuing reader interest, the paper intends to give fuller coverage to the memo.[35] Although Okrent stepped down at the end of May (the routine end of his term), on NewsHour on 8 June he suggested some possible explanations for why the US media had been so slow to cover what he considered a very important story. He said it may have been assigned to 'foreign news' correspondents and wasn't seen as a Bush story, or it may be the US media is still working on researching it (although he then admitted he had no reason to believe that).[36]

Also on 8 June, USA Today printed an article by their senior assignment editor for foreign news, Jim Cox, saying with respect to the memo, "We could not obtain the memo or a copy of it from a reliable source… There was no explicit confirmation of its authenticity from (Blair's office). And it was disclosed four days before the British elections, raising concerns about the timing."

The Star Tribune revisited the Downing Street Minutes as part of the evidence in a Memorial Day editorial.[37] It stated explicitly,

"President Bush and those around him lied, and the rest of us let them. Harsh? Yes. True? Also yes. Perhaps it happened because Americans, understandably, don't expect untruths from those in power. But that works better as an explanation than as an excuse....
"It turns out that former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill were right. Both have been pilloried for writing that by summer 2002 Bush had already decided to invade."

The Associated Press first issued a story about the memos on 7 June.

Network news coverage by NBC on 14 June. MSNBC has an article and a video clip from NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams.[38]

Veracity of the memo

[Michael Smith]http://www.michaelsmithwriter.com/memos.html, the journalist who first reported on the Downing Street Memo, has said that he protected the identity of his source by photocopying the original and returning the original document to the source. The document was retyped from the photocopy, and the photocopy destroyed. This has led some to question the document's authenticity, but no official source has questioned it, and it has been unofficially confirmed to various news organizations, including the Washington Post, NBC, The Sunday Times and the LA Times. Several other documents obtained by Smith, and treated similarly (see below), were confirmed as genuine by the UK Foreign Office.[39] The retyping process certainly opens up the possibility of errors or mischief. It will be impossible to authenticate the contents of the copy by physical means. Because of this, the retyped copy would not be admissible in any court.

One of the first articles on the memo to appear in the US media quoted "a former senior US official", who, speaking on condition of anonymity, called the memo's account "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during the senior British intelligence officer's visit to Washington.[40] UK Prime Minister Tony Blair denied that anything in the memo demonstrated misconduct and said that it added little to what was already known about how British policy on Iraq developed.

  • Tony Blair, responding to a question on the document, said: "that memorandum was written before we went to the United Nations".[41]
  • White House spokesman Scott McClellan, when questioned about the document's accuracy, did not confirm or deny its accuracy.
  • US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, when questioned about the document's accuracy, did not confirm or deny its accuracy.
  • George W. Bush has not responded to questions from Congress regarding the memo's accuracy.
  • The British Embassy in Washington did not respond to requests for comment.
  • A White House official said the administration wouldn't comment on leaked British documents.
  • When asked about the contents of the memo by Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price in the House of Commons on 29 June 2005, Blair again refrained from disputing the document's authenticity, saying only "[…]that memo and other documents of the time were covered by the Butler review. In addition, that was before we went to the United Nations and secured the second resolution, 1441, which had unanimous support."[42]
  • According to CNN, currently classified documents which were dated at the same month as the Downing Street memo, March of 2002, were uncovered in Iraq, and contained evidence that Russian intelligence notified Iraq about the "determination of the United States and Britain to launch military action."[43]

US President George Bush

On 7 June 2005, at a joint George W. Bush-Tony Blair press briefing in the White House, Reuters correspondent Steve Holland asked, "On Iraq, the so-called Downing Street memo from July 2002 says intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military action. Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?" President Bush did not address the issue of the intelligence and facts being "fixed" around a decision to go to war, but he did deny that he had, at the time of the memo, already decided to use military force against Saddam Hussein, saying "There's nothing farther from the truth." Bush also questioned the motives of whoever leaked the memo during the British election, saying "Well, I—you know, I read kind of the characterizations of the memo, particularly when they dropped it out in the middle of his race. … I'm not sure who 'they dropped it out' is, but—I'm not suggesting that you all dropped it out there."

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair

When the document was published, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair denied that anything in the memo demonstrated misconduct and said that it added little to what was already known about how British policy on Iraq developed.

Blair's response to Steve Holland at the joint news conference with Bush was "No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all". He also reiterated that he and Bush had continued to try to find a way to avert war, "As it happened, we weren't able to do that because — as I think was very clear — there was no way that Saddam Hussein was ever going to change the way that he worked, or the way that he acted," again without explaining the apparent contradiction with the contents of the memo. He said the same thing in a June 7, 2005 interview with Gwen Ifill on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.[44]

White House spokesman Scott McClellan

On 16 May, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said that the memo's statement that intelligence was "being fixed" to support a decision to invade Iraq was "flat out wrong". However, McClellan admitted that he has not read the memo, but has only received reports of what it contains.[45]

On 17 May, McClellan told reporters that the White House saw "no need" to respond to the letter from Congress.[46]

On 23 May, when BTC News reporter Eric Brewer asked him about his May 16th statement,[47] McClellan said:

"Let me correct you... let me correct you on the characterization of the quote you attributed to me. I’m referring to some of the allegations that were made referring to a report.
In terms of the intelligence, the – if anyone wants to know how the intelligence was used by the administration, all they have to do is go back and look at all the public comments over the course of the lead-up to the war in Iraq, and that's all very public information. Everybody who was there could see how we used that intelligence."[48]

US Secretary of State Rice and UK Foreign Secretary Straw

On May 18th, 2005, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw were questioned on the memo, although neither was able to give a detailed answer. Straw stated that he had not expected the question to come up.[49]

The Sunday Times reported on the memos on July 23 2002.[50]

The New York Times reported on the memos on March 27 2006.[51]

MSNBC reported on the memos on March 28 2006.[52]

Additional documents

Main article: Iraq document leak 18 September 2004

Previous to the appearance of the Downing Street Memo, six other British (Blair) Cabinet papers originating around March 2002 were obtained by Michael Smith and used in two Daily Telegraph stories[53][54] published on 18 September 2004. The documents describe issues relating to the meetings held between Bush and Blair at Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch in April 2002. They are:

  1. Iraq: Options Paper, prepared by the Overseas & Defence Secretariat in the Cabinet Office, dated 8 March 2002, describing options available for pursuing regime change in Iraq
  2. Iraq: Legal Background, prepared by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office Legal Department, dated 8 March 2002
  3. a report from David Manning to Tony Blair on his meeting with Condoleezza Rice, dated 14 March 2002
  4. a report from Christopher Meyer to David Manning on his meeting with Paul Wolfowitz, dated 18 March 2002
  5. a memo from Peter Ricketts, Political Director, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, to the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, dated 22 March 2002, with background and opinion for Straw's advice to Tony Blair ahead of his meeting with George Bush in April
  6. a memo from Jack Straw to Tony Blair, 25 March 2002 containing advice ahead of Blair's meeting with George Bush in April.

On receipt of the documents, in September 2004, acting on the advice of lawyers, Smith says he photocopied them and returned the originals to his source, then, after the Telegraph's legal desk secretary typed transcripts on an "old fashioned typewriter", the Telegraph destroyed their copies of the originals, in order to frustrate any future police investigation of the leaks. (As reported in Rawstory.[55])

The documents were widely quoted in the British press immediately following the Telegraph's story, for example in The Guardian[56] and The Sunday Herald.[57]

On October 5, 2004, a zipped file (leaks-brief.zip), containing facsimiles of these documents in PDF form, appeared on Cryptome,[58] provided by Professor Michael Lewis of Cambridge University, who had also housed the file at Iraq expert Glen Rangwala's Middle East Reference website.[59] The file derives ultimately from the typed transcript of the documents made by Smith and the Telegraph.

Interest in these documents was revived around 8 June, 2005, following their appearance in a discussion thread at Democratic Underground[60] and subsequently they began to be quoted in US media, after Rawstory and NBC verified their authenticity with Smith and British government sources.

The Los Angeles Times published an article on June 15, 2005, describing several of the "new" documents; the article says that "Michael Smith, the defense writer for The Times who revealed the Downing Street minutes in a story 1 May, provided a full text of the six new documents to the Los Angeles Times."[61]

The six documents are available in PDF form from the Think Progress web site.[62]

A further document, a July 21, 2002, cabinet office paper titled "Conditions for Military Action", which is a briefing paper for the meeting of which the Downing Street Memo is the minutes, was published (with the last page missing) by The Sunday Times on June 12, 2005.[63]

Another document was the Rycroft email, showing the author of the Downing Street Memo actually believed that Saddam should be removed because of a threat by Iraq getting WMDs into the hands of terrorists.[64][65]

The 18 September 2004 Daily Telegraph article contains the only known reproductions of the original memos (scanned from a photocopy). That article is called "Failure is not an option, but it doesn't mean they will avoid it".[53]

On Thursday, 16 June 2005 Reuters mislabelled a photograph of what it claimed was "a copy of the Downing Street Memo".[66]

It turned out to actually be a picture of a document found in an 28 April 2005 Guardian Unlimited story. (At this link, view this PDF: 07.03.03: Attorney general's full advice on Iraq war (pdf)) This PDF detailed Lord Goldsmith’s confidential advice on the legality of the Iraq war and does not match the text of any of the alleged Downing Street Memos. It's an entirely different document that describes legal authorization for the invasion of Iraq under standing UN resolutions.[67]

Criticism of the Memo

It has also been pointed by many observers that in the same exact memo, the mention of the possible use of WMD is discussed. Critics argue (i.e. Fred Kaplan of Slate), this contradicts the purported “smoking gun” of the issue of WMDs being fabricated.[68]

"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." [69]

Fixed

Robin Niblett, a member of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, says it would be easy for Americans to misunderstand the reference to intelligence being "fixed around" Iraq policy. " 'Fixed around' in British English means 'bolted on' rather than altered to fit the policy," he says. This view was seconded by the writer Christopher Hitchens and Fred Kaplan

Others have dismissed this criticism, saying the British usage of the term is the same as in the US, and that the meaning of "fixed around" in the memo is clear from context.[70]

See also

Wikisource links

External links

References

  1. ^ "Thomas Query for current number". Retrieved 2006-03-11.
  2. ^ "fixed-in Compact Oxford English Dictionary". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |view= ignored (help)
  3. ^ "fix-See 7b in Merriam-Webster". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |view= ignored (help)
  4. ^ "Email from Matthew Rycroft, 18 September 2002 17 52" (PDF). Retrieved 2006-03-11.
  5. ^ "fix as "fraudulently arrange" in British English, see sense 7 of the verb". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |view= ignored (help)
  6. ^ Alexandrovna, Larisa (2005). "Coalition of citizen groups seek formal inquiry into whether Bush acted illegally in push for Iraq war". The Raw Story. Retrieved 2006-03-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  7. ^ Tony Allen-Mills and Tom Pattinson (2005). "Blair faces US probe over secret Iraq invasion plan". The Sunday Times. Retrieved 2006-03-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  8. ^ "An error occurred on the server when processing the URL". Retrieved 2006-03-11.
  9. ^ "Conyers' Downing Street Letter to Bush: '86,000 signatures' and counting '110,000 and growing'..." 2005. Retrieved 2006-03-11. {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help)
  10. ^ "Congressman John Conyers, Jr. Home Page". Retrieved 2006-03-11.
  11. ^ "The Downing Street Memos :: Related Info and Documents". Retrieved 2006-03-11.
  12. ^ "AfterDowningstreet.org". Retrieved 2006-03-11.
  13. ^ smintheus (2005). "Iraq: The Fix was on in July, 2002". Daily Kos. Retrieved 2006-03-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  14. ^ smintheus (2005). "Iraq: Fix was on in July, 2002". MYDD. Retrieved 2006-03-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  15. ^ smintheus (2005). "Bush / Iraq Bombshell This Morning". Retrieved 2006-03-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  16. ^ "The Downing Street Memo(s)". Retrieved 2006-03-11.
  17. ^ "Downing Street Memo Blog". Retrieved 2006-03-11.
  18. ^ "Blogpulse Tools Trend Results". Retrieved 2006-03-11.
  19. ^ "Big Brass Alliance". Retrieved 2006-03-11.
  20. ^ smintheus (2005). "Awaken the MSM: Downing Street Memo Alert (6/1)". Retrieved 2006-03-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  21. ^ "The Downing Street Memos :: Take Action!". Retrieved 2006-03-11.
  22. ^ "ConyersBlog". Retrieved 2006-03-11.
  23. ^ Roberts, Paul Craig (2005). "A Reputation in Tatters". Retrieved 2006-03-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  24. ^ "FindLaw: US Constitution: Article II: Annotations pg. 18 of 18". Findlaw. Retrieved 2006-03-11.
  25. ^ Ralph Nader and Kevin Zeese (2005). "The 'I' word". The Boston Globe. Retrieved 2006-03-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  26. ^ "The Downing Street memos — On learning to play the white pawn". Holocaust Now. 2005-06-26. Retrieved 2006-03-11.
  27. ^ "The Impeachment of George W. Bush". Retrieved 2006-09-17.
  28. ^ Alexandrovna, Larisa. "Coalition of citizen groups seek formal inquiry into whether Bush acted illegally in push for Iraq war". The Raw Story. Retrieved 2006-03-11.
  29. ^ "The memo: Boston constitutional lawyer seeks Resolution of Inquiry on Iraq". Retrieved 2006-03-11.
  30. ^ Fertik, Bob (2005). "$1000 Reward For Getting Bush to Answer Downing Street Minutes". Retrieved 2006-03-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  31. ^ "Network Viewers Still in the Dark on "Smoking Gun Memo" - Print media continue to downplay story". Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. 2005. Retrieved 2006-03-11.
  32. ^ "Mainstream media cover-up: In five weeks following its disclosure, Downing Street memo drew little attention". 2005. Retrieved 2006-03-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  33. ^ "404 error". Retrieved 2006-03-11. {{cite web}}: Cite uses generic title (help)
  34. ^ Clark, Matthew (2005). "Why has 'Downing Street memo' story been a 'dud' in US?". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2006-03-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  35. ^ "Registration required for access". The New York Times. Retrieved 2006-03-11.
  36. ^ "NewsHour transcript, audio and video". Retrieved 2006-03-11.
  37. ^ "404 error". Star Tribune. 2005. Retrieved 2006-03-11. {{cite web}}: Cite uses generic title (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  38. ^ Mitchell, Andrea (2005). "More British memos on prewar concerns Officials deny intelligence that facts were fixed to invade Iraq". NBC News. Retrieved 2006-03-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  39. ^ Ewen MacAskill and Michael White (2004). "Leaks cast doubt on PM's motive". The Guardian. Retrieved 2006-03-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  40. ^ Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott (2005). ""Downing Street" memo indicates Bush made intelligence fit Iraq policy". Knight Ridder Newspapers. Retrieved 2006-03-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  41. ^ The Associated Press (2005). "Text of Bush, Blair News Conference". SFGate.com. Retrieved 2006-03-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  42. ^ "House of Commons Hansard Debates for 29 Jun 2005 (pt 2)". Retrieved 2006-03-11.
  43. ^ "Russia spied for Iraq - paper". CNN.com. 2003. Retrieved 2006-03-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  44. ^ "Online NewsHour: Tony Blair Discusses US Aid to Africa, the EU Constitution and the Downing Street Memo — June 7, 2005". Retrieved 2006-03-11.
  45. ^ "White House challenges UK Iraq memo". CNN.com. 2005. Retrieved 2006-03-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  46. ^ Jehl, Douglas (2005). "British Memo on US Plans for Iraq War Fuels Critics". Retrieved 2006-03-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  47. ^ "BTC News White House writer Eric Brewer on "The Brad Show"". Retrieved 2006-03-11.
  48. ^ "White House does not dispute substance of Downing Street Memo". Retrieved 2006-03-11.
  49. ^ "Remarks with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw After Meeting". US Department of State. 2005. Retrieved 2006-03-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  50. ^ "The secret Downing Street memo". Sunday Times - Times Online. March 29 2006. Retrieved 2006-03-29. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)
  51. ^ Van Natta Jr., Don (March 27, 2006). "Bush Was Set on Path to War, British Memo Says". New York Times. Retrieved 2006-03-29.
  52. ^ "Author says Bush war bound from beginning". MSNBC. March 28, 2006. Retrieved 2006-03-29.
  53. ^ a b Smith, Michael (2004). "Failure is not an option, but it doesn't mean they will avoid it". Telegraph. Retrieved 2006-03-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  54. ^ Smith, Michael (2004). "Secret papers show Blair was warned of Iraq chaos". Retrieved 2006-03-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  55. ^ "404 error". Retrieved 2006-03-11. {{cite web}}: Cite uses generic title (help)
  56. ^ Ewen MacAskill and Michael White (2004). "Leaks cast doubt on PM's motive". The Guardian. Retrieved 2006-03-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  57. ^ "Bush and Blair: Secrets and Lies". Sunday Herald. 2004. Retrieved 2006-03-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  58. ^ "Analysis of Leaked UK Cabinet Office Papers". Retrieved 2006-03-11.
  59. ^ "Middle East Reference: Chronologies and Biographies". Retrieved 2006-03-11.
  60. ^ "An earlier leaked memo to Downing Street ..." Retrieved 2006-03-11.
  61. ^ Daniszewski, John (2005). "New Memos Detail Early Plans for Invading Iraq". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2006-03-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  62. ^ "FULL TEXT OF BRITISH BRIEFING PAPERS REVEALED: More Evidence Intel Was Fixed". Think Progress. Retrieved 2006-03-11.
  63. ^ "Cabinet Office paper: Conditions for military action". The Sunday Times. 2005. Retrieved 2006-03-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  64. ^ "Matthew Rycroft email September 11 2002 11:59" (JPG). Retrieved 2006-03-11.
  65. ^ "Matthew Rycroft email September 11 2002 11:59" (PDF). Retrieved 2006-03-11.
  66. ^ "404 error". Retrieved 2006-03-11. {{cite web}}: Cite uses generic title (help)
  67. ^ Simon Jeffery and Tom Happold (2005). "Full Iraq legal advice released". Retrieved 2006-03-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  68. ^ url=http://www.slate.com/id/2120886
  69. ^ "What's really in the Downing Street memos?" (PDF). 2005. Retrieved 2005-06-15.
  70. ^ "British sources confirm that meaning of "fixed" — as in "manipulated" or "cooked" — is the same in Britain and America". 2005. Retrieved 2006-03-21.

Petitions

Mainstream media coverage

  • CSMonitor.com - 'Why has "Downing Street memo" story been a "dud" in US? A mid-2002 British memo saying US was planning to "fix" intelligence to fit plans to invade Iraq has not been big news', Matthew Clark, Christian Science Monitor (May 17, 2005)
  • Guardian.co.uk - 'No. 10 blocks envoy's book on Iraq', Martin Bright and Peter Beaumont', The Guardian (July 17, 2005)
  • NewsDay.com - 'Memo: Bush manipulated Iraq intel', Newsday (May 9, 2005)
  • RealCities.com - 'Special Reports' (collection of articles on Iraq intelligence) Knight-Ridder
  • L.A. Times Michael Kinsey - 'The Left Gets a Memo'
  • Reason - 'The Downing Street Downer: Be Careful What You Ask For in May, You May Get it in June.'

Downing Street memo sites, etc.

Blogs

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Downing_Street_memo&oldid=106166786"