the Downing St. memos

[theknife]

what's the opposite of accountability?

Analysts Behind Iraq Intelligence Were Rewarded

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 28, 2005; Page A01

Two Army analysts whose work has been cited as part of a key intelligence failure on Iraq -- the claim that aluminum tubes sought by the Baghdad government were most likely meant for a nuclear weapons program rather than for rockets -- have received job performance awards in each of the past three years, officials said.

The civilian analysts, former military men considered experts on foreign and U.S. weaponry, work at the Army's National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC), one of three U.S. agencies singled out for particular criticism by President Bush's commission that investigated U.S. intelligence.

The Army analysts concluded that it was highly unlikely that the tubes were for use in Iraq's rocket arsenal, a finding that bolstered a CIA contention that they were destined for nuclear centrifuges, which was in turn cited by the Bush administration as proof that Saddam Hussein was reconstituting Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

The problem, according to the commission, which cited the two analysts' work, is that they did not seek or obtain information available from the Energy Department and elsewhere showing that the tubes were indeed the type used for years as rocket-motor cases by Iraq's military. The panel said the finding represented a "serious lapse in analytic tradecraft" because the center's personnel "could and should have conducted a more exhaustive examination of the question."

Pentagon spokesmen said the awards for the analysts were to recognize their overall contributions on the job over the course of each year. But some current and former officials, including those who called attention to the awards, said the episode shows how the administration has failed to hold people accountable for mistakes on prewar intelligence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052701618.html

[theknife]

incidentally, if you feel, as i do, that the Downing St. memo raises questions that your government should answer, go to here to sign the following letter, sponsored by Michigan Congressman John Conyers:

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Mr. President:

We the undersigned write to you because of our concern regarding recent disclosures of a “Downing Street Memo” in the London Times, comprising the minutes of a meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers. These minutes indicate that the United States and Great Britain agreed to by the summer of 2002 to attack Iraq, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority to engage in military action, and that U.S. officials were deliberately manipulating intelligence to justify the war.

Among other things, the British government document quotes a high-ranking British official as stating that by July, 2002, “Bush had made up his mind to take military action.” Yet, a month later, the you stated you were still willing to “look at all options” and that there was “no timetable” for war. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, flatly stated that “[t]he president has made no such determination that we should go to war with Iraq.”

In addition, the origins of the false contention that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction remains a serious and lingering question about the lead up to the war. There is an ongoing debate about whether this was the result of a “massive intelligence failure,” in other words a mistake, or the result of intentional and deliberate manipulation of intelligence to justify the case for war. The memo appears to resolve that debate as well, quoting the head of British intelligence as indicating that in the United States “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

As a result of these concerns, we would ask that you respond to the following questions:
1) Do you or anyone in your administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?
2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization to go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain’’s commitment to invade prior to this time?
3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?
4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?
5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to “fix” the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?

These are the same questions 89 Members of Congress, led by Rep. John Conyers, Jr., submitted to you on May 5, 2005. As citizens and taxpayers, we believe it is imperative that our people be able to trust our government and our commander in chief when you make representations and statements regarding our nation engaging in war. As a result, we would ask that you publicly respond to these questions as promptly as possible.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

[albed]

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Petty Deluded
Insignificant
Ankle Biters

Let's see how promptly they get the attention they desperately seek.

[theknife]

from the Memorial Day editorial page of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

Nothing young Americans can do in life is more honorable than offering themselves for the defense of their nation. It requires great selflessness and sacrifice, and quite possibly the forfeiture of life itself. On Memorial Day 2005, we gather to remember all those who gave us that ultimate gift. Because they are so fresh in our minds, those who have died in Iraq make a special claim on our thoughts and our prayers.

In exchange for our uniformed young people's willingness to offer the gift of their lives, civilian Americans owe them something important: It is our duty to ensure that they never are called to make that sacrifice unless it is truly necessary for the security of the country. In the case of Iraq, the American public has failed them; we did not prevent the Bush administration from spending their blood in an unnecessary war based on contrived concerns about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. 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.

The "smoking gun," as some call it, surfaced on May 1 in the London Times. It is a highly classified document containing the minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting at 10 Downing Street in which Sir Richard Dearlove, head of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service, reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair on talks he'd just held in Washington. His mission was to determine the Bush administration's intentions toward Iraq.

At a time when the White House was saying it had "no plans" for an invasion, the British document says Dearlove reported that there had been "a perceptible shift in attitude" in Washington. "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 (National Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. 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."

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.

[theknife]

finally:

"There's nothing farther from the truth," Mr. Bush said in his first public comments about the so-called Downing Street memo, which has created anger among the administration's critics who see it as evidence that the president was intent to go to war with Iraq earlier than the White House has said.

"Look, both of us didn't want to use our military," Mr. Bush added. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."

Mr. Blair, standing at Mr. Bush's side in a joint news conference in the East Room of the White House, said, "No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all."

of course not. it was our last option. we really had no choice whatsoever. but Blair doesn't look to happy...

Mr. Blair, generally unsmiling through the 25-minute news conference, went home after dinner at the White House on Tuesday night with much less than he had wanted.

hmmm...how could Blair fail to be inspired by the President's words?

"Glad you're here," Mr. Bush said to Mr. Blair. "Congratulations on your great victory. It was a landmark victory, and I'm really thrilled to be able to work with you to be able to spread freedom and peace over the next years."

maybe Tony is spreading all the peace and freedom he can handle in Iraq and he'd really like to move on to other problems like aid to Africa and global warming. hopefully, these issues can wait til we're done spreading peace and freedom.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by theknife

maybe Tony is spreading all the peace and freedom he can handle in Iraq and he'd really like to move on to other problems like aid to Africa and global warming. hopefully, these issues can wait til we're done spreading peace and freedom.

Nah, we can leave African hunger and global warming up to Hollywood to fix, they seem to know a lot about it and the Lord knows they can certainly afford to fix it.

[floydian slip]

too bad there is no oil in zimbabwe, sudan, somalia ect. or exxonmobil would be there to "FIX" things.

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by floydian slip

too bad there is no oil in zimbabwe, sudan, somalia ect. or exxonmobil would be there to "FIX" things.

If there was oil there what would need to be fixed??? Countries with oil are not poor. Their people live pretty well, aslong as a murderous rapist like Saddam is not in power that is.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Sinner

...as long as a murderous rapist like Saddam is not in power that is.

which apparently is a good thing, as long as someone else has to go get rid of him.

[miss_silver]

Originally Posted by theknife

which apparently is a good thing, as long as someone else has to go get rid of him.

Hear, hear, you are so right TheKnife. So easy to say you back up some retard's decision but so easy to enjoy the protection of the Canadian citizenship. It's not like he's gonna get drafted if your gov becomes desperate for soldiers to fight this war. It's truly easy to complain when you are totally secured and not submitted to the rules of a gouv that doesn't have power over you.

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by miss_silver

Hear, hear, you are so right TheKnife. So easy to say you back up some retard's decision but so easy to enjoy the protection of the Canadian citizenship. It's not like he's gonna get drafted if your gov becomes desperate for soldiers to fight this war. It's truly easy to complain when you are totally secured and not submitted to the rules of a gouv that doesn't have power over you.

LOL---Very funny post!!!!!


Would you like me to quote your past posts you have made about America or their President you hypocrite, First I could not be drafted anyway, I am over the age limit for one and I have tried to join the military but I have a respiratory condition and I failed the medical. Which I will say pissed me off more then anything that has happened in my life seeing it really was not a real problem, to me anyways. ----I am just going to stop because I am just wasting my time with this post.

[miss_silver]

eh???

[Mazer]

Ah, to be deaf and smug is pure happiness, no?

[albed]

No need to hear others when you know everything.










Except what you need to know most.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by albed

No need to hear others when you know everything.

Except what you need to know most.

sadly true. hopefully the next president won't be so tragically flawed.

but this explains a lot:

One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency. - George Bush, as told to Mickey Herskowitz, 1999 A Charge to Keep : My Journey to the White House

obviously, the Prez decided a long time ago that launching and waging war, preferably in Iraq, was a prerequisite to being a great president. he got all the political capital he needed on 9/11 and spent it in Iraq.

As told to Herskowitz, Bush and his advisors were quite impressed -- politically speaking, of course -- with the minor military victories of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (the Falklands War) and former presidents Ronald Reagan and dear old dad (the first Gulf War was a bad scene, as mentioned, but the Grenada and Panama “campaigns” were terrific political coups). Said Herskowitz of Bush & Co.’s view of Thatcher: "They were just absolutely blown away, just enthralled by the scenes of the troops coming back, of the boats, people throwing flowers at her and her getting these standing ovations in Parliament and making these magnificent speeches." Looking back further, they believed Jimmy Carter's political troubles emerged as the inherent result of a peaceful presidency.

ah, this explains Cheney's "dancing in the streets of Baghdad, greeting us as liberators" fantasy.

So what a successful presidency came down to for Bush, according to Herskowitz, was this: “Start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade.” Once accomplished the chief executive will have secured the support needed for ramming through his domestic agenda. Seen through this lens, then, 9/11 for George W. Bush wasn’t so much tragedy as opportunity. He had his “chance to invade.”

which is why the Downing St. documents Minutes (they are actually not a memo, but rather minutes of a meeting with the head of British intelligence) dovetail perfectly with every aspect of the run-up to the war. from PMCarpenter:

the Bush interviews reveal that the president was genuinely fixated on war as a policy staple -- it would secure what you might call a permanent revolution. Nothing was to be left to chance. Peace presented a constant political threat.

Now of course we have the Downing Street Memo as proof that we would have war -- justified or not, necessary or not. Thousands of lives for “political capital” -- Bush's “basic essence.”

[theknife]

The Freeway Blogger strikes again:

[Mazer]

The impeachment of George W. Bush is a matter for Congress, not the media.

Somebody please inform the Freeway Blogger.

[theknife]

it will take the media to light a fire under this Congress.... but this story just will not go away.

from the links above, from news outlets all around country, all within the last 48 hours:

Put aside the question of "fixed" intelligence. The DSM demonstrates that Bush was dishonest with the public about his intentions and that the intelligence he did have in hand--fixed or not, faulty or not--did not support the case for war. I can understand why conservative cheerleaders of the war don't want such matters being discussed. But to call the Downing Street memo an item of no importance is to descend into the land of total spin.

As C's comments are summarized, he had found in Washington that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of going to war to remove Saddam, "justified by
the conjunction of terrorism and WMD"; C went on: "Military action was now [as of July 2002] seen as inevitable." According to comments attributed to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, "The case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

There we have it in black and white: Bush lied about WMD and cooked the intelligence to support his position. At last, proof enough to start the impeachment proceedings.

PRESIDENT BUSH apparently thinks he can dismiss the damning "Downing Street memo" with a few glib words.

If he is right, it is a sad commentary on the state of American democracy and values.

Weeks after it dominated front pages in Europe, the so-called Downing Street Memo finally has bored its way into the U.S. press. The 2002 document describes comments by Britain's intelligence chief, Richard Dearlove, concerning talks with U.S. officials eight months before the invasion of Iraq. Identifying Dearlove as "C," the leaked memo summarizes his report: "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."

After six weeks in the political wilderness, the Downing Street Memo yesterday finally burst into the White House -- and into the headlines.

The memo, which dates back to 2002, conveys a British intelligence official's conclusion that President Bush was manipulating intelligence to build support for war with Iraq -- and that he was already set on invasion long before acknowledging as much in public

A simmering controversy over whether U.S. media have ignored a secret British memo about how President Bush built his case for war with Iraq bubbled over into the White House this week.

At a Tuesday news conference, Reuters correspondent Steve Holland asked Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair about a memo that's been widely written about and discussed in Europe but less so in the United States.

It was the most attention paid by the U.S. media so far to the "Downing Street memo," first reported May 1 by The Sunday Times of London. The memo is said by some of the president's sharpest critics, such as Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, to be strong evidence that Bush decided to go to war and then looked for evidence to support his decision

...and on and on.

[miss_silver]

Originally Posted by Mazer

Ah, to be deaf and smug is pure happiness, no?

Yes it is, especially if you are projecting your uneasyness about your prez on this situation

[theknife]

the Downing St. Minutes are only a part of the picture....there's lots more:

Ministers were told of need for Gulf war ‘excuse’
Michael Smith

MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.

The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.

The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal.

this means that Bush and Blair were both lying at last week's joint press conference:

"Look, both of us didn't want to use our military," Mr. Bush added. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."

Mr. Blair, standing at Mr. Bush's side in a joint news conference in the East Room of the White House, said, "No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all."

Michigan Congressman John Conyers opens congressional hearings next week on the Downing Street Minutes.

the ongoing leak of these various documents to the British press suggests a faction within the British government is determined to set the record straight. watch for corroboration from the US side under similar circumstances.