Downing Street Memo for Dummies

What is the Downing Street Memo? Is it a smoking gun or just another ember from the flaming pants pyre of Tony Blair and George Bush?

Have your well meaning liberal friends deluged you with emails lately bemoaning the lack of news coverage of the DSM? Have you found yourself at a dinner party bemused, yet determined to play along, when someone mentions the total lack of media interest in what's surely the equivalent of the Watergate police blotter? You frown and look concerned, afraid to admit you're as clueless as the media.

You consider yourself informed, yet you have a life too. You read the occasional blog—Atrios and dKos, maybe What Do I Know for the recipes—but somewhere you missed this particular boat, mainly because you heard the words Downing Street and assumed it had to do the British election, and you're still recovering from your own bruising encounter with American politics.

Now you're in a muddle, and don't know where to start unraveling the text from the tease.

What Do I Know? understands your confusion, having been somewhat preoccupied when the DSM first hit the blogosphere herself. But prepare to be enlightened: here's the DSM FAQ, an acronym-free guide to the Downing Street Memo.

Who wrote the memo, and should I trust a guy who spells defense with a "c"? Matthew Rycroft, foreign policy adviser to Tony Blair, wrote the "eyes only" memo, actually the minutes of a Downing Street cabinet meeting held in July 2002, eight months before the invasion of Iraq.

What exactly does the memo say, in American English, please? Some guy named "C" (Richard Dearlove, the head of Britain's spy agency MI6) reported on his recent visit to America. "C" said George Bush "wanted to remove Saddam Hussein through military action" and that "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." This is a fancy way to say they were cooking intelligence, which, in even plainer language, means lying.

Anything else, or was that it? There were other damning statements, too, like the fact that the evidence was "thin," and that "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran." (Opponents of the war were saying this at the time, too, but no one was listening...if only they'd had this "C" fellow at those peace rallies!) There was also talk about whether the war was legal, but those at the meeting agreed this fine point didn't bother the Americans.

Surely that's all there is...right? 'Fraid not. The memo also talks about the need for creating political cover by giving Saddam a UN ultimatum which they (mistakenly) thought he would ignore. It was Tony Blair who raised this point, not surprisingly. There was further discussion about goading Saddam into taking military action (perhaps even using those WMDs they couldn't otherwise prove existed!) by increasing bombing in the no fly zones. Plus "C" reports there was little planning taking place for the aftermath of war.

Why is this guy called "C" and why are his memos written in green ink? The head of MI6 is traditionally known as "C" and likewise traditionally writes memoranda in green ink. (Another interesting fact: This "C" was educated at Monkton Coombe School, in the village where I stayed recently.)

Where'd this guy "C" get his information? Isn't it all hearsay, and does the glove fit? "C" aka Richard Dearlove got his info straight from the horse's mouth...in this case, his counterpart at the CIA, George Tenet (remember Colin Powell and George at the UN presenting "evidence" that turned out to be rubbish?) as well as members of the National Security team in Washington. Rules against hearsay evidence don't apply, since no one's on trial (yet) nor does the memo fit the definition of hearsay evidence. (Conversations "C" participated in are not hearsay per se.) Plus, "C" didn't become head of MI6 by distorting conversations in meetings with his superiors, or by wearing gloves that don't fit.

The Bush administration has denied this, right? What if it's another Rathergate forged memo, and my hair gets singed for nothing? The British government has not denied the memo is authentic. A former senior American official has said the document is "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired during 'C's' visit to Washington." (Tenet, remember, is a former senior American official.) The press has failed to press George Bush on whether or not "C's" statements were accurate.

So why isn't the media paying attention? Aren't they supposed to be liberal? Probably for the same reason you didn't pay attention at first. It seemed like old news; similar claims were made by Paul O'Neill in his book "The Price of Loyalty" and by Richard Clark in "Against All Enemies" as well as Bob Woodward in "Plan of Attack" (books most Americans didn't bother reading). The decision to go to war was made three years ago, and the media hates to be accused of flogging a dead horse. They also hate to be called liberal, hence their tendency to bend as far to the right as they can in a dance they call "objectivity."

Is anyone in Congress concerned about the DSM, or is it only the flakes in the blogosphere whose hair is on fire? Rep. John Conyers and 88 of his colleagues have sent a letter to George Bush and to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. Members of congress generally follow the lead of their constituents, (aka "voters") as long as this doesn't interfere with their biggest donors (aka "special interests").

I'm concerned about the exploding deficit. Should we spend money investigating this when we could, say, be building bridges in Alaska to small near-deserted islands? We spent $70 million investigating a bad business deal called Whitewater. Why not spend a few bucks and find out whether our country was led into war under false pretenses?

Where is Downing Street anyway? I've looked at a map of London and it's nowhere to be found. Just up from Big Ben, off Whitehall to the left (west) before you get to the statue of Charles I that marks the spot where he lost his head after losing his iron grip on his British subjects. One day there'll be a similar statue of George Bush marking the spot where he lost his iron grip on the media.

Hasn't happened yet, but when even "dummies" like you and I know the truth about the Iraq war as revealed in the Downing Street Memo, a real revolution can't be far behind.

Comments

[The Heretik]

You probably have taken care of the fiery hair. Next time call me. I will have a hose ready.

[Kathy]

Excellent breakdown. Really great.

[Mad Kane]

Excellent job! Entertaining, yet very informative.

[Jarndyce]

Jeez, I live here and I didn't even know some of this stuff. Great post. BTW, OT and everything Kathy but you did ask me so... I'm back... but in a new home http://fairvotewatch.blogspot.com

I don't have a link thingie done yet but you're in my RSS of course. Would've emailed this but problems at my end on that front.

[Foodie]

Wondered what you thought of this notion--methinks that the Downing Street Memo will not fly here in these USA's, unless it is RENAMED. ( The Repubs are so good at this kind of thing...) It's the language thing, stoopid.

So--Bush's War memo? Iraqgate paper? Wargate?
Smoking gun memo?

[barb]

Liargate? GodSpeaksToMeGate?

[KathyF]

You've got it! GodSpeaksToMeGate! I'm gobsmacked.

[CackD]

Ok.. so we know they lied. We knew that years ago. Nothing has changed - and this memo ain't gonna change anything, either... regardless of what kind of media attention it gets. Bloggers have done an outstanding job in trying to rally the good forces... but I'm afraid its already lost. The great evil forces of the world... politics and money... have us beat. Only one thing to do now, my friends. Revolt.

[PaperBallotHandCounted]

Paper Ballots, Hand Counted -- the only solution. If Americans can regain the right to have their votes counted, the bush crime family and operatives in the Congress will be out on their ear.

All touch screen vote-stealing machines straight to the rubbish bin; all votes on paper counted by humans with multiple watchers.

[archers]

Even if 9/11 WTC downing was revealed as Bush&company act,the media would hide it in the sport pages.
Name me one politician that got conned into thinking that Iraq was a threat and all free beer on me.Weaking of Iraq was started ages ago with the result of invasion.Media knows that Iraq invasion and 9/11 was all a sinister plan by USA and Israel.But why does the media keep silent.API reported a quote from a rueters reporter and twisted the question to benifit the government on the memo.Americans should ask--what's up doc!--the answer could be here---why did hitler hate the jews sooooo much?
-United states of Israel fools

[Kathy]

Excellent post, Kathy. I've got to run now- but I'll point my readers here.

Great job!

[mastershake806]

john conyers and the democratic judiciary committee are supposed to hold a hearing on this downing street memo june 16 http://rawstory.com/news/2005/ if they dont manage to put this idiot on trial for all the shit hes caused in this world right bush is gonna create the start of a new world order which is what he and his cronies have planned all along people need to wake up before its too late

[TheVulchur]

So what was I supposed to learn from that? The whole article is biased beyond recognition and doesn't give a clear explanation of what Downey-Gate is, except for some agent of KAOS stating that George Bush wanted intelligence and facts to be fixed around the policy. What policy and where's the proof? Anyone can say those things, it doesn't make it true. Hey, George Bush wanted the New York Yankees to win the next World Series, I heard him say that so it must be true because I said it. I just don't understand why you expect me to buy anything written above. How about some clarification or elaboration to prove the statements you are presenting.
Thanx.

[KathyF]

The memo is an official record of what was said in a cabinet meeting, not, say, a conversation between some girlfriends. No one in Britain has come forward to say the memo writer mischaracterized the statements made at the meeting. On the contrary, the statements echo what others have said was going on in the Bush administration.

There's a lot of space between claiming you overheard someone long for the Yankees to win and the official minutes of a cabinet meeting, which are part of the historical record.

And Richard Dearlove is no agent of KOAS, but the very respected head of MI6. No one here--no one--has called into question his integrity. Nor has anyone in the Bush administration, I've noticed. They've simply ignored this damning evidence the way they did their own document entitled "Al Queda Determined to Strike in the U.S.".

[brown]

I sat and listened to the live broadcasted meeting on CSPAN2 tonight. I guess I haven't been "of this world" to not have heard of this memo before. How is it that so many "Politicing Americans" have sold the USA down the river by gong along (I didn't say believes) all the hogwash that the President spreads around? My question is "what did it take for Colin Powell to sell his country out just to stay on the good side of "the man". If he could do that and watch so many of our people die as they have in Iraq then he isn't worthy to be an American. What can I do to help?

[KathyF]

You can spread the word. Send articles to doubting friends, send letters to newspaper editors, telling them you want to see more coverage of the documents. Call your congressman and urge them to investigate this.