[NV Greens] Fwd: Smoking Gun Memo?

Fri May 13 00:56:00 PDT 2005

>Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 15:02:09 -0700
>Subject: Smoking Gun Memo?
>To: "Paul Etxeberri" <eusko at earthlink.net>
>From: "FAIR" <fair at fair.org>
>Reply-To: fair at fair.org
>X-ELNK-AV: 0
>
>                                  FAIR-L
>                     Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
>                Media analysis, critiques and activism
>
>http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2511
>
>MEDIA ADVISORY:
>Smoking Gun Memo?
>Iraq Bombshell Goes Mostly Unreported in US Media
>
>May 10, 2005
>
>Journalists typically condemn attempts to force their colleagues to 
>disclose anonymous sources, saying that subpoenaing reporters will 
>discourage efforts to expose government wrongdoing.  But such 
>warnings seem like mere self-congratulation when clear evidence of 
>wrongdoing emerges, with no anonymous sources required-- and major 
>news outlets virtually ignore it.
>
>A leaked document that appeared in a British newspaper offered clear 
>new evidence that U.S. intelligence was shaped to support the drive 
>for war.  Though the information rocked British Prime Minister Tony 
>Blair's re-election campaign when it was revealed, it has received 
>little attention in the U.S. press.
>
>The document, first revealed by the London Times (5/1/05), was the 
>minutes of a July 23, 2002 meeting in Blair's office with the prime 
>minister's close advisors.  The meeting was held to discuss Bush 
>administration policy on Iraq, and the likelihood that Britain would 
>support a U.S. invasion of Iraq.  "It seemed clear that Bush had 
>made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not 
>yet decided," the minutes state.
>
>The minutes also recount a visit to Washington by Richard Dearlove, 
>the head of the British intelligence service MI6: "There was a 
>perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as 
>inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, 
>justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the 
>intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
>
>That last sentence is striking, to say the least, suggesting that 
>the policy of invading Iraq was determining what the Bush 
>administration was presenting as "facts" derived from intelligence. 
>But it has provoked little media follow-up in the United States. 
>The most widely circulated story in the mainstream press came from 
>the Knight Ridder wire service (5/6/05), which quoted an anonymous 
>U.S. official saying the memo was ''an absolutely accurate 
>description of what transpired" during Dearlove's meetings in 
>Washington.
>
>Few other outlets have pursued the leaked memo's key charge that the 
>"facts were being fixed around the policy."  The New York Times 
>(5/2/05) offered a passing mention, and the Charleston (W.V.) 
>Gazette (5/5/05) wrote an editorial about the memo and the Iraq War. 
>A columnist for the Cox News Service (5/8/05) also mentioned the 
>memo, as did Molly Ivins (WorkingForChange.com, 5/10/05). 
>Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler (5/8/05) noted that Post 
>readers had complained about the lack of reporting on the memo, but 
>offered no explanation for why the paper virtually ignored the story.
>
>In a brief segment on hot topics in the blogosphere (5/6/05), CNN 
>correspondent Jackie Schechner reported that the memo was receiving 
>attention on various websites, where bloggers were "wondering why 
>it's not getting more coverage in the U.S. media."  But 
>acknowledging the lack of coverage hasn't prompted much CNN 
>coverage; the network mentioned the memo in two earlier stories 
>regarding its impact on Blair's political campaign (5/1/05, 5/2/05), 
>and on May 7, a short CNN item reported that 90 Congressional 
>Democrats sent a letter to the White House about the memo-- but 
>neglected to mention the possible manipulation of intelligence that 
>was mentioned in the memo and the Democrats' letter.
>
>Salon columnist Joe Conason posed this question about the story:
>
>
>"Are Americans so jaded about the deceptions perpetrated by our own 
>government to lead us into war in Iraq that we are no longer 
>interested in fresh and damning evidence of those lies? Or are the 
>editors and producers who oversee the American news industry simply 
>too timid to report that proof on the evening broadcasts and front 
>pages?"
>
>
>As far as the media are concerned, the answer to Conason's second 
>question would seem to be yes.  A May 8 New York Times news article 
>asserted that "critics who accused the Bush administration of 
>improperly using political influence to shape intelligence 
>assessments have, for the most part, failed to make the charge 
>stick."  It's hard for charges to stick when major media are 
>determined to ignore the evidence behind them.
>
>       ----------
>Your donation to FAIR makes a difference:
>http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=103
>
>SUBSCRIBE TO EXTRA! AND GET FAIR'S NEW BOOK FOR FREE:
>The Oh Really? Factor
>http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=114
>
>FAIR SHIRTS: Get your "Don't Trust the Corporate Media" shirt today 
>at FAIR's online store:
>http://www.merchantamerica.com/fair/
>
>FAIR produces CounterSpin, a weekly radio show heard on over 130 
>stations in the U.S. and Canada. To find the CounterSpin station 
>nearest you, visit http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=5
>
>Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair at fair.org ). We can't reply to 
>everything, but we will look at each message. We especially 
>appreciate documented examples of media bias or censorship. And 
>please send copies of your email correspondence with media outlets, 
>including any responses, to fair at fair.org .
>
>You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site: http://www.fair.org . 
>Our subscriber list is kept confidential.
>                                   FAIR
>                              (212) 633-6700
>                           http://www.fair.org/
>                           E-mail: fair at fair.org
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to fair-l as: eusko at earthlink.net
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to:
>leave-fair-l at comet.sparklist.com
>
>NOTE: To change your address, simply unsubscribe your old address, 
>and re-subscribe with your new address.


-- 
Paul Etxeberri

"Forests precede civilizations and deserts follow"   ---Chateaubriand