The New York Times slips the Downing Street Memo into its back pages in the form of a Frank Rich column. I don't really like him--his way of massaging the week's news into a single jocular story line is clever but ultimately toothless. If the column had any meaning, the Times would fire Judith Miller, the reporter who printed the WMD lies from the Iraqi exiles, fire the editors who approved her stories, and go front-page aggressive with Downing Street and other hard evidence that Bush committed impeachable offenses. I mean, the President's not popular any more, his numbers are the 40s, so what's to lose? Anyway, here's an excerpt from Rich's "tough" column. Nice to read, but big whoop. The attacks continue to be so successful that even now, long after many news organizations, including the Times, have been found guilty of failing to puncture the administration's prewar WMD hype [uh, how about "spoonfeeding its prewar hype to the public"?], new details on that same story are still being ignored or left uninvestigated. The July 2002 "Downing Street memo," the minutes of a meeting in which Tony Blair and his advisers learned of a White House effort to fix "the intelligence and facts" to justify the war in Iraq, was published by the London Sunday Times on May 1. Yet in the 19 daily Scott McClellan briefings that followed, the memo was the subject of only 2 out of the approximately 940 questions asked by the White House press corps, according to Eric Boehlert of Salon.
This is the kind of lapdog news media the Nixon White House cherished. Yeah, well, you ought to know. Actually Rich isn't a lapdog, more like a court jester. It should also be said that the MSB (mainstream bloggers like Atrios, Gilliard, and the ever-boring Kevin Drum) also passed on giving the Downing Street Memo big play. I think it's different from the Clarke revelations, et al, because no one has a bone to pick or a book to sell. It simply states the facts from that time period.
from brian lerhers blog yesterday :
Two British government documents raise questions, and shed some light on planning for the Iraq war and its aftermath. We'll be talking about the documents in the weeks to come, so if you want to come to the discussion armed (with facts and opinions) check out the articles below (the list will be updated periodically).
The July 23 memo (the "Downing Street memo")
Michael Kinsley: "I don't buy the fuss"
Mark Danner: "the President's decision to go to war had long since been made"
Tod Lindberg: "there is nothing in the document but more proof for partisans already persuaded"
John Hindraker: "It adds nothing to our knowledge of the important issues surrounding the Iraq war"
The July 21 memo
Ray McGovern: "Blair did a good job of obfuscating"
What do you think? Feedback!"
4 out of 5 links pooh-poohing the significance of the memo? Seems fair to me. Kinsley's idiotic arguments (he's supposedly on our side) have been shredded by the better bloggers.
Must be tough to be a winger these days and have to gin up meager arguments for Bush while Iraq is clearly going to shit under his bad leadership.
more yeahs then neahs in this thread (from fatherflot on the fmu board)
"How many reasons do you commies need to acknowledge that the unspeakable evil of that regime just begged for a change? That guy invaded another country without a security council resolution, insisted on his right to use weapons frowned upon by most nations, and generally acted as if international law and treaties didn't apply to him, disregarding even the Geneva convention. He even condoned the use of torture and had no notion of due process, holding people without trial or charges. Just look at the yes men with creepy mustaches around him, with that blatant scorn for the UN and office-bully mean streak. Did they look like diplomats to you? Or like the kind of guys who would talk about blowing a few floors out of NYC buildings? Do I really have to mention the disgusting use of religion to further his party's hold on power?"
|
The New York Times slips the Downing Street Memo into its back pages in the form of a Frank Rich column. I don't really like him--his way of massaging the week's news into a single jocular story line is clever but ultimately toothless. If the column had any meaning, the Times would fire Judith Miller, the reporter who printed the WMD lies from the Iraqi exiles, fire the editors who approved her stories, and go front-page aggressive with Downing Street and other hard evidence that Bush committed impeachable offenses. I mean, the President's not popular any more, his numbers are the 40s, so what's to lose? Anyway, here's an excerpt from Rich's "tough" column. Nice to read, but big whoop. Yeah, well, you ought to know. Actually Rich isn't a lapdog, more like a court jester. It should also be said that the MSB (mainstream bloggers like Atrios, Gilliard, and the ever-boring Kevin Drum) also passed on giving the Downing Street Memo big play. I think it's different from the Clarke revelations, et al, because no one has a bone to pick or a book to sell. It simply states the facts from that time period.
- tom moody 6-12-2005 8:38 pm
from brian lerhers blog yesterday :
Two British government documents raise questions, and shed some light on planning for the Iraq war and its aftermath. We'll be talking about the documents in the weeks to come, so if you want to come to the discussion armed (with facts and opinions) check out the articles below (the list will be updated periodically).
The July 23 memo (the "Downing Street memo")
Michael Kinsley: "I don't buy the fuss"
Mark Danner: "the President's decision to go to war had long since been made"
Tod Lindberg: "there is nothing in the document but more proof for partisans already persuaded"
John Hindraker: "It adds nothing to our knowledge of the important issues surrounding the Iraq war"
The July 21 memo
Ray McGovern: "Blair did a good job of obfuscating"
What do you think? Feedback!"
- bill 6-15-2005 7:08 pm
4 out of 5 links pooh-poohing the significance of the memo? Seems fair to me. Kinsley's idiotic arguments (he's supposedly on our side) have been shredded by the better bloggers.
Must be tough to be a winger these days and have to gin up meager arguments for Bush while Iraq is clearly going to shit under his bad leadership.
- tom moody 6-15-2005 7:19 pm
more yeahs then neahs in this thread (from fatherflot on the fmu board)
"How many reasons do you commies need to acknowledge that the unspeakable evil of that regime just begged for a change? That guy invaded another country without a security council resolution, insisted on his right to use weapons frowned upon by most nations, and generally acted as if international law and treaties didn't apply to him, disregarding even the Geneva convention. He even condoned the use of torture and had no notion of due process, holding people without trial or charges. Just look at the yes men with creepy mustaches around him, with that blatant scorn for the UN and office-bully mean streak. Did they look like diplomats to you? Or like the kind of guys who would talk about blowing a few floors out of NYC buildings? Do I really have to mention the disgusting use of religion to further his party's hold on power?"
- bill 6-20-2005 5:46 pm