# A Second "Downing Street Memo" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 12, 2005, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-second-downing-street-memo/307930 "2005-06-12T03:38:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-second-downing-street-memo/307930/41 "2005-06-14T04:15:52Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > They don’t seem to see that by defending themselves only against the memo’s implication of incompetence, they grant credence to the rest of the document. Nah, you’re being too logical and insufficiently spin conscious. Your point is far too subtle to matter. By aggressively denying the minor issue, they can sidetrack the debate away from the major issue. My prediction is that Bush’s spin team (and they are the reigning Champions of Spin) will ensure that if in a month or two’s time you were to hold a poll of the US public about what this Memo implied, an astonishing proportion would say: “that planning for the post war period was inadequate”. ---
**Author:** ![I\_don\_t\_care\_about\_your\_cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f08c70/32.png) [@I\_don\_t\_care\_about\_your\_cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_don_t_care_about_your_cat)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-second-downing-street-memo/307930/42 "2005-06-14T05:19:50Z")
This is absolutely false. The Iraq invasion was not pre-determined in 2002… It was more like 2000. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-second-downing-street-memo/307930/43 "2005-06-14T05:33:19Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > By aggressively denying the minor issue, they can sidetrack the debate away from the major issue. Sure, but rather than ignore the whole thing, and thus signal the press that the story’s not newsworthy, they trotted out a b-team white house spokesman out for a rare sunday news conference. When Team Bush acts quickly, it usually means that a) they’ve done something wrong, and b) they’re nervous about it. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-second-downing-street-memo/307930/44 "2005-06-14T05:55:44Z")
Yes, well you may be right about that but I’d still say that while you are interested enough to notice these details, I suspect that Bush’s spin doctors have got it right, in terms of playing to Joe Average. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Highwayman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@The\_Highwayman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Highwayman)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-second-downing-street-memo/307930/45 "2005-06-15T00:31:50Z")
Personally, I wouldn’t take the bait until I was absolutely sure that the memo(s) is real and has a considerable amount of irrefutable proof behind it. It seems to me that the Repukes are waiting for the media to take the bait in a way similar to that document that was going to prove Bush got out of Vietnam because of his daddy’s clout. We all know this is probably true but the issue is now dead because CBS jumped on it prematurely. Seems to me that this was intended by someone who wanted to take the wind out of the sails of this controversy. Seems to me like it was set up. The Downing Street Memo is probably correct but we should not blame the media for not taking what could be a well contrived plan to diminish the argument that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq by any means nessessary. Hopefully, someone in the media is tracking all of this down and is assembling a case against dumbfuck that he will be unable to slither out of. The moral is: Don’t take the bait so quickly. Seems to me like no one (ie Bush and his cronies) is really refuting the document. It’s almost like an invite to blow it out of proportion only to later prove that the document is disingenuous and thus rendering the whole question moot. I think that the media should be careful at this point because I believe that this administration is not above sabotage. P.S. Notice that the Newsweek story dropped off the radar because, guess what? There _WAS_ abuse of the Koran at Gitmo! Sounds to me like good reporting. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-second-downing-street-memo/307930/46 "2005-06-15T00:46:51Z")
> [@wring](#): > > and since the MJ verdict just came in, I predict that any potential splash this story had will be lost in the rush to have all of the talking heads implode simultaneously about _the latest trial of the century_ Well, it was the 2nd lead story on ABC evening news tonight. BTW, Michael Kinsley wrote an interesting editorial today on the Downing St Memo. [British memo shows only that liberals are excitable](http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/11890003.htm). ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-second-downing-street-memo/307930/47 "2005-06-15T01:20:16Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > BTW, Michael Kinsley wrote an interesting editorial today on the Downing St Memo. [British memo shows only that liberals are excitable](http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/11890003.htm). Got a non-subscription link? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-second-downing-street-memo/307930/48 "2005-06-15T01:39:35Z")
> **[Downing Street memo pretty mild](https://mtstandard.com/news/opinion/downing-street-memo-pretty-mild/article_d11fd3c2-9ee2-54a0-8db1-f6a17990c6b1.html)** > > After about the 200th e-mail from a stranger demanding that I cease my personal cover-up of something called the Downing Street Memo, I decided to read it. Kinsley is one hundred percent right. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Highwayman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@The\_Highwayman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Highwayman)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-second-downing-street-memo/307930/49 "2005-06-15T01:57:13Z")
Kinsley is 100% right about what? The memo being mild or that no one cares? I think that I care. I think many people on the board care. I think people with friends and family in Iraq care. I think the majority of the American people care. Just because the Republicans dismiss it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t matter. As far as the memo being mild, it’s hard to get out from under “fixing” intelligence around justification for war. This story has legs and will continue to grow. I hope the memo is genuine as well. I pray that someone is doing follow-up because this memo may not have presaged everything that happened but it sure draws focus to the justifications for a fucked up war that is going nowhere fast. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-second-downing-street-memo/307930/50 "2005-06-15T03:10:52Z")
One must assume Mr. Kinsley’s eyes are brown. > [@](#): > > …It is proof positive that President Bush was determined to invade Iraq a year before he did so… Of course it isn’t. Its merely another drip, of the drip, drip, drip that occurs when someone pees down your neck and tells you its raining. On its own, damaging but not damning. It is not, however, remotely on its own, we have testimony from any number of knowledgeable sources, Mr. Allen and Clarke, for instance. Mr. Kinsley is firmly denying a claim never made: that the DSM, on its own, is proof positive. > [@](#): > > …The whole ‘‘weapons of mass destruction’’ concern was phony from the start, and the drama about inspections was just kabuki: going through the motions… Well, yes and no. Just about a year before, Colin Powell and the delightful Ms. Rice had publicly declared Iraq’s utter helplessness. A charitable man might be able to convince himself that the Bushiviks truly believed that Saddam had WMD, but the leap of faith required to make that an urgent threat to the US is the faith that surpasseth understanding. > [@](#): > > …But even on its face, the memo is not proof that Bush had decided on war. It states that war is ‘‘now seen as inevitable’’ by ‘‘Washington.’’… “I say, C, is this official Washington you’re talking about? Any substance to this?” “Why, no, Tony, just the tone I surmised from cocktail parties and policy wonk chit-chat. Now that you mention it, I maybe should have checked that out a bit more…” Please. Kinsley is making a suggestion he cannot begin to substantiate, that somehow “C” was a shallow observer, connected only to an ethereal entity called “Washington”. “Rummy, this is Your Leader. That English intelligence guy is here. Look, take him out to a titty bar, get him drunk, but don’t tell him nothing…” Sure. Right. > [@](#): > > …There is no claim of even fourth-hand knowledge that he had actually declared this intention… But he did. Woodward told the story, how he stuck his head into Condi Rices office and said “Bleepity bleep! We’re taking Saddam out!” So far as I know, the Bushiviks never denied this story, mostly because they were so giddy and giggly about Woodward’s depiction as a firm, oh-so-manly Leader who thinks from his gut. (Funny, when the chicks do it, we call it “intuition”, when we do it, its “thinking from our guts”. Testosterone poisoning. All great leaders rely on such viseral cognition. Custer, for instance) > [@](#): > > …But C offered no specifics, or none that made it into the memo… Why would he be expected to have specifics? Was the memo supposed to have the order of battle a year in advance? At this point, the war was merely a playful gleam in Death’s eye. > [@](#): > > …Nor does the memo assert that actual decision-makers told him they were fixing the facts… Quite so. Merely an observation. From an intelligence professional. Apparently one rather well respected amongst the Blair Boys, else they would not have sent him, now would they? > [@](#): > > …Although the prose is not exactly crystalline, it seems to be saying only that ‘‘Washington’’ had reached that conclusion… Ah, there’s those quote marks again. Isn’t wonderful how much you can imply with just a couple of jumped-up apostrophe’s. Too bad he doesn’t have a “wink” smiley availabe. > [@](#): > > …Left-wing Los Angeles Times columnist Robert Scheer… If Robert Scheer is left wing, I’m a bomb throwing anarchist Wobbly. Anybody else want to take a crack at this silly sumbitch? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-second-downing-street-memo/307930/51 "2005-06-15T03:39:36Z")
Oh My: [http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/](http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/) ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-second-downing-street-memo/307930/52 "2005-06-15T03:43:55Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Oh My: > [http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/](http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/) I have this feeling that Thursday is going to consist mostly of me trying to check updates on those hearings while pretending to work… ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-second-downing-street-memo/307930/53 "2005-06-15T04:22:51Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Of course it isn’t. Its merely another drip, of the drip, drip, drip that occurs when someone pees down your neck and tells you its raining. On its own, damaging but not damning. It is not, however, remotely on its own, we have testimony from any number of knowledgeable sources, Mr. Allen and Clarke, for instance. [Drip drip drip…](http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/muriel/path_of_war_timeline_613.htm) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-second-downing-street-memo/307930/54 "2005-06-15T04:32:26Z")
Oooops. Not “Mr. Allen” but Mr. O’Neill. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-second-downing-street-memo/307930/55 "2005-06-15T06:54:21Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Testosterone poisoning. All great leaders rely on such viseral cognition. Custer, for instance) ‘Poison from the goonads [sic].’ ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2005, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-second-downing-street-memo/307930/56 "2005-06-15T19:55:19Z")
Hey, does Condoleeza Rice count as a “nobody” for the right-wing apologists? From the [Los Angeles Times](http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-britmemos15jun15,1,3416385,print.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true) (subscription required, don’t know of a non-subscription link): > [@](#): > > **New Memos Detail Early Plans for Invading Iraq** > _British officials believed the U.S. favored military force a year before the war, documents show._ > > … The new documents indicate that top British officials believed that by March 2002, Washington was already leaning heavily toward toppling Hussein by military force. **Condoleezza Rice, the current secretary of State who was then Bush’s national security advisor, was described as enthusiastic about "regime change."** > > … The documents contain little discussion about whether to mount a military campaign. The focus instead is on how the campaign should be presented to win the widest support and the importance for Britain of working through the United Nations so **an invasion could be seen as legal** under international law. > > … In one memorandum, dated March 14, 2002, and labeled “secret — strictly personal,” Blair’s chief foreign policy advisor, David Manning, described to the prime minister a dinner he had had with Rice. … The memo went on to say: > > "Condi’s enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed. But there were some signs, since we last spoke, of greater awareness of the practical difficulties and political risks…. From what she said, Bush has yet to find answers to the big questions: > > • How to **persuade international opinion that military action against Iraq** is necessary and justified; > > • What value to put on the exiled Iraqi opposition; > > • How to **coordinate a US/allied military campaign** with internal opposition (assuming there is any); > > … The new documents also include an earlier 10-page options paper, dated March 8, 2002, from the overseas and defense secretariat of the Cabinet Office, sketching out options for dealing with Iraq. … **"Washington believes the legal basis for an attack already exists.** Nor will it necessarily be governed by wider political factors. The U.S. may be willing to work with a smaller coalition than we think desirable," it said. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2005, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-second-downing-street-memo/307930/57 "2005-06-16T14:30:51Z")
I’ve finally heard a story about this on the local news. (CBS affiliate KIRO-7 from Seattle.) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2005, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-second-downing-street-memo/307930/58 "2005-06-16T14:42:59Z")
There was a front page article in today’s SJ Mercury News. Congressional hearings are going to be held. Back to the Kinsley editorial, I think his point was that there isn’t any news there. If you want to make the case about an early decision to go to war, just look at the news articles in 2002. And the idea that Condi was “enthusiastic about regime change” is just silly if that’s supposed to be damning. Regime change was the freakin’ official policy of the US ever since Congress passed a resolution about it in the late '90s. She damn well better have been enthusiastic about it. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2005, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-second-downing-street-memo/307930/59 "2005-06-16T15:00:54Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > If you want to make the case about an early decision to go to war, just look at the news articles in 2002. That’s true, but the major difference is the level of confidence in the predictions of the authors of those articles versus the authors of the memos. The authors of the memos had either first-hand knowledge of the policymakers or were policymakers. The authors of the news stories were working off of much less direct evidence. The memos also speak to the issue of WMD being a cover for yet unknown motives. The newspaper stories had no such information and had to take the Admin at its word that the war was to defuse a WMD-based threat. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2005, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-second-downing-street-memo/307930/60 "2005-06-16T15:16:59Z")
I dunno. Why does anyone need more than the famous Wolfowitz statement about WMDs. I can’t remember the exact wording, but it was something like-- “We just used that reason since it would be the most likely one to actually convince people.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-second-downing-street-memo/307930.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-second-downing-street-memo/307930.md?page=4)