The bit below is from an op-ed piece in the LA Times, linked here. I’m going to take it apart a bit, because it annoys me. Then I plan to go looking for the entire infamous Downing Street memo and see if my tiny little brain can make any decisions for itself.
Pardon the sarcasm, but I think you’ll see why. I have to say, when someone talks down to me, I tend to look for the reason. Just what is it they want me to feel stupid for disagreeing with?
So. The Downing Street memo, as dismissed by Michael Kinsley, editorial and opinion editor of the LA Times.
It’s a report on a meeting of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and some aides on July 23, 2002. The key passage summarizes “recent talks in Washington” by the head of British foreign intelligence (identified, John Le Carre-style, simply as “C”). (Question: Is “C” someone we should expect the British government to name, is that why he mocks the way the man was protected? I’d think the head of British foreign intelligence should go unnamed, but that’s just me.) C reported that “Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. . . . There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.”
C’s focus on the dog that didn’t bark–the lack of discussion about the aftermath of war– was smart and prescient. You’re telling me. Nostradamus would have gotten an “A” on that one. But even on its face, the memo is not proof that Bush had decided on war. It says that war is “now seen as inevitable” by “Washington.” That is, people other than Bush had concluded, based on observation, that he was determined to go to war. Surprise! Looks like they were right. There is no claim of even fourth-hand knowledge that he had actually declared this intention. Hey, he’s stupid, but he’s not an idiot. There are un-patriotic people everywhere, so he didn’t say it out loud. Even if “Washington” meant actual administration decision makers, rather than the usual freelance chatterboxes, (and, of course, who would expect the head of British foreign intelligence to know the difference?) C is saying only that these people believe that war is how events will play out.
Of course, if “intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy,” rather than vice versa, that is pretty good evidence of Bush’s intentions, as well as a scandal in its own right. And we know now that this was true and a half. Fixing intelligence and facts to fit a desired policy is the Bush II governing style, especially concerning the war in Iraq. But C offered no specifics, or none that made it into the memo. Nor does the memo assert that actual decision makers had told him they were fixing the facts. Although the prose is not exactly crystalline, it seems to be saying only that “Washington” had reached that conclusion.
Okay, it’s not a “smoking gun.” But excuse me, it’s pretty damn indicative. It’s more specific than any horoscope, and we all know people live by those things. So yeah, I’ll join the chant. Just as soon as I find the real text, and make sure this guy hasn’t left out any hard-to-understand bits.
And, pardon me? Fixing intelligence and facts to fit a desired policy is the Bush II governing style, especially concerning the war in Iraq. Be afraid, people. Be terrified for your rights, your liberties, and your country.