The Secret Way to War
May 25, 2005 7:09 PM   Subscribe

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.
posted by kirkaracha (16 comments total)

Thanks for this. I am *still* waiting for this story to break... But I guess (from the CS monitor article) that it never will.
posted by zpousman at 11:35 PM on May 25, 2005

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)
posted by Goofyy at 4:45 AM on May 26, 2005

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.
posted by 40 Watt at 9:03 AM on May 26, 2005

Juan Cole had a similar memo-based timeline piece in Salon recently (ad-free version).
posted by gubo at 9:11 AM on May 26, 2005

Even this thread is a little empty....scary.

Why wouldn't someone care?
posted by Smedleyman at 11:56 AM on May 26, 2005

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...
posted by haricotvert at 11:57 AM on May 26, 2005

Smedleyman, I almost made the same comment.

The silence is deafening in here.
posted by 40 Watt at 11:59 AM on May 26, 2005


*kicks can*

*wanders over to Rip Taylor thread*
posted by Floydd at 12:55 PM on May 26, 2005

Why wouldn't someone care?

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.
posted by bashos_frog at 1:32 PM on May 26, 2005

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.
posted by Freen at 3:39 PM on May 26, 2005

"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.
posted by russilwvong at 5:32 PM on May 26, 2005

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.
posted by wendell at 6:39 PM on May 26, 2005

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...
posted by Balisong at 6:42 PM on May 26, 2005

"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.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:32 AM on May 27, 2005

« Older may the boogie be with you   |   keep your science off my children! Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments