Downing St. Memo Causes a Rude Awakening in U.S.
'Downing Street' War Memo Gains Traction in U.S. Press
By Greg Mitchell
Published: May 14, 2005 10:45 AM ET
NEW YORK For more than 10 days, the media in the U.S. nearly ignored it, but finally the so-called “Downing Street Memo” is finally gaining traction in the U.S. press. The Los Angeles Times featured a lengthy report on Thursday and Walter Pincus of the Washington Post followed on Friday.
The memo, obtained by the Sunday London Times and published on May 1, became a major issue in the closing days of the British elections but received little attention in the U.S. until a Knight Ridder report on May 6, which E&P carried. A Knight Ridder editor later told E&P that it received surprisingly little pickup. The New York Times has given it little notice.
The Washington Post ignored the memo until Pincus’s article, which appeared Friday on page A18. It arrived five days after Post ombudsman Michael Getler revealed that readers had complained about the lack of coverage.
Pincus opened his piece with a helpful summary: “Seven months before the invasion of Iraq, the head of British foreign intelligence reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair that President Bush wanted to topple Saddam Hussein by military action and warned that in Washington intelligence was ‘being fixed around the policy,’ according to notes of a July 23, 2002, meeting with Blair at No. 10 Downing Street.
“'Military action was now seen as inevitable,' said the notes, summarizing a report by Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, British intelligence, who had just returned from consultations in Washington along with other senior British officials. Dearlove went on, ‘Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.’
"’The case was thin,’ summarized the notes taken by a British national security aide at the meeting. ‘Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.’"
Continues...Link in headliner.
By Greg Mitchell
Published: May 14, 2005 10:45 AM ET
NEW YORK For more than 10 days, the media in the U.S. nearly ignored it, but finally the so-called “Downing Street Memo” is finally gaining traction in the U.S. press. The Los Angeles Times featured a lengthy report on Thursday and Walter Pincus of the Washington Post followed on Friday.
The memo, obtained by the Sunday London Times and published on May 1, became a major issue in the closing days of the British elections but received little attention in the U.S. until a Knight Ridder report on May 6, which E&P carried. A Knight Ridder editor later told E&P that it received surprisingly little pickup. The New York Times has given it little notice.
The Washington Post ignored the memo until Pincus’s article, which appeared Friday on page A18. It arrived five days after Post ombudsman Michael Getler revealed that readers had complained about the lack of coverage.
Pincus opened his piece with a helpful summary: “Seven months before the invasion of Iraq, the head of British foreign intelligence reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair that President Bush wanted to topple Saddam Hussein by military action and warned that in Washington intelligence was ‘being fixed around the policy,’ according to notes of a July 23, 2002, meeting with Blair at No. 10 Downing Street.
“'Military action was now seen as inevitable,' said the notes, summarizing a report by Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, British intelligence, who had just returned from consultations in Washington along with other senior British officials. Dearlove went on, ‘Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.’
"’The case was thin,’ summarized the notes taken by a British national security aide at the meeting. ‘Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.’"
Continues...Link in headliner.
posted by Christy at 12:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home