Kevin Drum, of The Washington Monthly. writes today that, “One of the reasons the previous Downing Street Memo hasn’t gotten much traction with the press — and the reason these new memos will probably get limited attention as well — is that I don’t think anyone really finds any of this a surprise.”

Frank Rich (I think it was) made a similar point on the Al Franken Show recently, and it’s a point that’s getting some play. this idea that the media’s not really that impressed by the Downing Street Memo because the war was a foregone conclusion and everybody knew it.

So, it’s old news, is it? Perhaps, but isn’t that beside the point? This memo doesn’t just bolster our paranoid fantasies about a corrupt Bush administration, it fairly well proves the case. Here’s direct evidence of an American administration planning and prosecuting a bogus war, and cynically manipulating the public, the press, and the international community. This is the smoking gun that could, in the hands of an independent prosecutor, build a legal case for impeachment, and possibly war crimes, as well.

How does Drum and the rest of the press just yawn at this? I have one rather cynical theory: evidence doesn’t matter, because nothing will be done anyway. There will be no independent prosecutor. There will be no congressional investigation. The NeoCons own the government. They control the levers of power. There is no oversight, no mechanism for remedy. At least, that seems to be the media’s calculation.

I kind of expected better from Kevin Drum.

Update to my not-even-posted-yet-post: Just as I finished typing, Drum switched course (a bit) in this post, which responds to Michael Kinsley’s editorial in the LA Times.

I’m somewhat swayed by Kinsley’s point that perhaps this memo isn’t direct evidence of anything. But given that it’s the recorded discussion of the highest-level officials in the British government, isn’t it more than just a passing curiosity?

Moreover, Kinsley again makes this weak argument: What a surprise! Bush was fixing intelligence to fit his intentions. Kinsley even calls it a scandal, yet dismisses this as non-newsworthy; we KNOW this already.

I guess I still don’t get it. Why is this not getting more play? Why is there no investigation? Why does the press seem to be actively shirking its responsibility to follow up, to ask questions, and to tell the full story of the run-up to the Iraq war?

Maybe there’s a larger question. Why, if as Kinsley says, the press knew full well that the war in Iraq had been decided on far in advance of any official declaration, was there no detailed coverage of this? Why didn’t we raise more of a ruckus? Are we, as a country, okay with being manipulated? Are we okay with how this war was initiated, planned, and executed? Are we as Americans just not too upset with how the whole thing went down?

More reaction at Voices of Reason.

Also, via BoingBoing, here’s an excellent site detailing the Downing Street Memo: what it says, what it means, and why we should care.

• No Related Post

Sunday, June 12th, 2005 @ 12:07 pm Politics Matters
RSS 2.0 Both comments and pings are currently closed.