Rice to reporter: Which [memo] is that? Andrea, which one is that? Oh, that one

Underreported | May 30, 2005

Democracy I assume UnderReported.com readers are familiar with the story that has consumed the blogosphere for the first half of May, 2005 : the Downing Street memo revealed by a May 1, 2005 Times of London article that reads:

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. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record.

It was finally reported two weeks later in a page 18 Washington Post article on May 13.

What's hilarious -- if that's possible -- is the May 17 State Department transcript of a press conference with Condoleezza Rice and Jack Straw, as highlighted by whatreallyhappened.com (emphasis in original):

QUESTION: [...] And if I could then ask both of you to comment on the very well-publicized British memo that was leaked to the Times of London, or to the London Times. Madame Secretary --

SECRETARY RICE: Which one is that? Andrea, which one is that?

FOREIGN SECRETARY STRAW: Which one is that?

QUESTION: On Iraq. That came out about 10 days ago, 12 days ago. Are you not aware of this memo?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, a lot of them are, unfortunately, out. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: In particular, this memo -- and I can quote -- said that the intelligence -- and this was a memo that was leaked from the minutes of a meeting that took place in July of 2002 with Tony Blair --

SECRETARY RICE: Oh, that one. Okay. Got it. Okay.

QUESTION: -- and some of his military intelligence advisors. In particular, it quotes one British official saying the intelligence and facts that the U.S. was putting forward were being fixed around the policy. We know what the U.S. administration's position is in the buildup to the war on Iraq. It's been made very clear. But could you speak to these allegations in particular, Madame Secretary, and whether or not this is true?

And Mr. Secretary Straw, if you could also speak to the authenticity of this memo and, in particular, you're quoted in here saying that the case was thin, Saddam was not threatening his neighbors and his WMD capacity was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

Thank you.

[...] SECRETARY RICE: [...] Look, we've gone over and over and over the issue about the intelligence and about the case against Saddam Hussein. Obviously, there were problems with the intelligence. That's now very clear. [Lots and lots more rambling like this.]

FOREIGN SECRETARY STRAW: [...] On Iraq, I don't have the document in front of me. Of all the things I thought I was going to be asked about at a press conference here, that was not one of them. I'd simply say this: that what people forget, too, as the Secretary has been implying, is the context that we were working in, and part of the context in the summer of 2002 was to get the international community to make a judgment about whether Iraq did or did not continue to pose a threat to international peace and security. [and much more rambling]

The Post can now claim they reported it. Rice can say she's "addressed" it. But nothing's come of it, and the U.S. public still doesn't know.

Evidence doesn't matter in this supposed democracy. The press does not hold the government accountable, and the government does not take responsibility.

<< HOME