|
Smoking Gun Memo?
Iraq Bombshell Goes Mostly Unreported in US Media
Media Advisory
05/10/05 "FAIR"
- - 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.
Copyright © FAIR
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
