Comments on: The Secret Way to War

The Secret Way to War

kirkaracha — Wed, 25 May 2005 19:09:10 -0800

The Secret Way to War: The New York Review of Books does a close reading of the Downing Street memo. Comparison of public statements by the Bush Adminstration vs. the memo's timeline.

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Wed, 25 May 2005 19:10:49 -0800

By: zpousman

zpousman — Wed, 25 May 2005 23:35:31 -0800

Thanks for this. I am *still* waiting for this story to break... But I guess (from the CS monitor article) that it never will.

By: Goofyy

Goofyy — Thu, 26 May 2005 04:45:43 -0800

This is quite like that old anti-war slogan from the 60's: "What if they held a war, and no one showed up?" Only, in reverse. What if they held a scandal, and no one reacted? If the administration acts like there's nothing to it, then 'obviously' there is nothing to it. Its a tactic Rove uses all the time. Ha, a tactic I used with my parents as a teen! (its amazing sometimes how the administration gets away with acting like teenagers. Perhaps no one expects such things from the Whitehouse, so it has to be something else)

By: 40 Watt

40 Watt — Thu, 26 May 2005 09:03:14 -0800

I love the fact that just about the only press the Memo has gotten here in the US is stories along the lines of "The Downing Street Memo hasn't gotten any press here in the US." It's almost like nobody wants to touch the original story for fear or incurring the wrath of the Bush administration. Liberal media, my bunghole. The Chicago Tribune, for example, buried the initial story on page 16 in two paragraphs. Nice to see SOMEONE'S still paying attention.

By: gubo

gubo — Thu, 26 May 2005 09:11:37 -0800

Juan Cole had a similar memo-based timeline piece in Salon recently (ad-free version).

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Thu, 26 May 2005 11:56:05 -0800

Even this thread is a little empty....scary. Why wouldn't someone care?

By: haricotvert

haricotvert — Thu, 26 May 2005 11:57:08 -0800

Meanwhile, Bush shock troops gathered outside the Washington Post building to protest Newsweek's misrepresentation of the truth, includng one with a sign that read: NEWSWEEK LIED, PEOPLE DIED. They're furious that a misstatement of fact could result in deaths, you see...

By: 40 Watt

40 Watt — Thu, 26 May 2005 11:59:48 -0800

Smedleyman, I almost made the same comment. The silence is deafening in here.

By: Floydd

Floydd — Thu, 26 May 2005 12:55:58 -0800

*whistles* *kicks can* *wanders over to Rip Taylor thread*

By: bashos_frog

bashos_frog — Thu, 26 May 2005 13:32:47 -0800

Why wouldn't someone care? Well, 40% of the U.S. obviously didn't even care enough to vote. 30.6% (which is 51% of the voters) will swallow any crap the administration serves up. How this affects their ability to breathe through their mouths is still unknown. 15.2% Completly exhausted their supply of outrage in the weeks after the election. 7.1% Have a little bit of outrage left, but they're saving it for the congressional midterms. 3.6% Have enough outrage, but they're going to a free Mumia event, and then there's finals, and OMG WTF - they built another Starbucks?! 2% are in locked in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, or Wal-Mart. 1.5% know enough to be outraged, care enough to do something about it, and have decided that what they will do is post to a blog.

By: Freen

Freen — Thu, 26 May 2005 15:39:30 -0800

Look, either this story fits your conception of reality or it doesn't. Surely we will see Dios, ParisParamus, Witty et. all offering their multiple mea culpas any moment. For everyone with half a brain, this is not a revelation. We've known it all along, and have told everyone we know about it. For those with less than half a brain, reading this article, much less believing it would induce far too much cognitive dissonance, so they just won't even bother to acknowledge it's existence. that and what bashos_frog said.

By: russilwvong

russilwvong — Thu, 26 May 2005 17:32:36 -0800

"1.5% know enough to be outraged, care enough to do something about it, and have decided that what they will do is post to a blog." It's better than doing nothing. At least Danner's article makes it clear exactly what was going on: Bush had decided on war by mid-2002 at the latest, the only question was how best to justify it. In fact, Bush may have decided on war as early as the 2002 State of the Union speech.

By: wendell

wendell — Thu, 26 May 2005 18:39:22 -0800

Time Magazine, March 31, 2003, started an article with a bowdlerized quote from Bush (corroborated by three Senators): " F___ Saddam. we're taking him out." No "we must contain the threat" or "we must plant the seeds of democracy", just "Fuck Saddam" (in his underwear). This ain't news, it's history.

By: Balisong

Balisong — Thu, 26 May 2005 18:42:25 -0800

I care and shine up my weapons every couple days or so when (the next thing) outrages me enough to go and make sure I'm ready for the revolution. I'll be killed while people cheer if I go to soon. I'll be killed while people cheer if I go too late. I'm just biding my time and waiting on the "go"word. What'd you say? Oh... Grow... Whatwasthat? Oh, Glow...

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Fri, 27 May 2005 09:32:13 -0800

"1.5% know enough to be outraged, care enough to do something about it, and have decided that what they will do is post to a blog." I'd point out bashos_frog - et al - that posting in a blog is a useful method of disseminating information as an individual. You reach more people than Ben Franklin's printing press. I'd futher point out that reading a blog is a method of figuring out what it is to do and getting a sense of what others are thinking. We wouldn't want Balisong not knowing when to revolt. Hell, I'm seriously making preparations for it. Not just guns & ammo, but converting some of my cash to gold, etc. - the whole anatomy - while I'm working for change. What would you have us do though? Work within the system!?!? HA HA HA HA. No, seriously. I'm with Socrates on that. Any change must come from motivated individuals working for it. As far as I can tell this is a target rich environment for that.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 09 Jun 2005 21:15:59 -0800

The ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee has scheduled hearings on the 2002 minutes between senior British and American officials which asserted that intelligence was "being fixed" to support the case for war in Iraq, RAW STORY has learned. The hearings, which will be held next Thursday, will bring renewed attention to what is being called the "Downing Street memo," actually official minutes of a secret 2002 meeting. Conyers office has revealed that they will introduce new documents that corroborate the Downing Street Memo at the hearings June 16. ...