To DailyKOS's user JPOL

This post is in response to Jerry Policoff's editorial titled "Memos show U.S. fixation on Iraq" which appeared in the June 27th edition of the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal. I wanted to correct some misinformation provided in this piece.

The article incorrectly states, "the latter being the last [memo] in the series but the first one leaked, and the one that has received the most attention", referring to the July 23, 2002 memo as originally reported in London's "The Sunday Times" on May 1, 2005.

However, on September 18, 2004, Michael Smith wrote an article for the Daily Telegraph called "Failure is not an option, but it doesn't mean they will avoid it" which contained numerous references and doctored photographs of what Policoff has referenced as "eight memos spanning from the period of March 8, 2002" to the July 23, 2002 Blair memo.

Thus, I question whether or not the May 1, 2005 Sunday Times memo was actually "leaked first" as Policoff asserted.

However, this wouldn't be the first time that someone has confused their facts on this story.

On Thursday, June 16, 2005 Reuters mislabelled a photograph of what it claimed was "a copy of the Downing Street Memo".

It turned out to actually be a picture of a document found in an April 28, 2005 Guardian Unlimited story. (At this link, view this PDF:
07.03.03: Attorney general's full advice on Iraq war (pdf)) This PDF detailed Lord Goldsmith’s confidential advice on the legality of the Iraq war and does not match the text of any of the alleged Downing Street Memos. It's an entirely different document.

I don't mind people questioning or opposing the war. But these types of behaviors, whether intentional or not, should cease or be corrected in some way. This does nothing to help rational discourse or promote democracy.


This is actually Lord Goldsmith's legal advice stating that current UN resolutions permitted an invasion into Iraq. Reuter's incorrectly identified this photograph to the public as a picture of the "Downing Street Memo". It isn't. Check for yourself here.



This is the real PDF. Here is some Q&A on this memo.



These are allegedly doctored copies of the actual Downing Street Memos as they appear in the Daily Telegraph article from September 18, 2004.

Week 9

In response to this.

This week, Gil starts off with this poll, which was conducted with about 1,006 adults nationwide:

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

(CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. June 16-19, 2005. Margin of Error + or - 3)

The question posed was "Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war with Iraq?"

Contrary to what Gil states, this question is not phrased in such a way that you can answer with as a "yes" or "no" response.

39% responded that they "favor" the war. 59% responded that they "oppose" the war. And 2% were "unsure".

First of all, this poll is of 1,006 people. How can one reach the conclusion that this single poll accurately reflects the opinion of the entire American population? That's a stretch of the imagination, to say the least!

Next, Gil states "And perhaps there are some who now believe we were misled into war. It is clear, from the Downing Street Memos, that the administration believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."

I think Gil might have been mixed up with the many prominent Democrats that believed this?

Did the Downing Street Memos really say that the American administration believed Saddam had WMDs?

No, it expressed concern by the British that Saddam would use WMDs (as he had before on his own people and in the Iran/Iraq war).

It says the regime was "producing the WMD" (not necessarily that they "had" them).

It says Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.

Note that it says there was a "conjuntion" between terrorism and WMD. Not Iraq "having" WMD -- but rather, the possibility of terrorists having them.

Next, Gil refers to the Dolchstoßlegende, the German "dagger-blow legend" that led to the rise of Hitler.

In this legend, republican politicians signed a peace treaty ending WWI.

Many German nationalists and commanders considered this a "stab in the back" to nationalism.

They referred to the republican treaty signers as the "November criminals".

This is ironic on so many levels when you think about this in relation to modern day America.

The November criminals were considered to have great wealth and influence.

(The Republicans are considered to have great wealth and influence. Look on the right panel on a past DNC website)

Rather than finding fault amongst themselves, the German commanders blamed the November criminals for the deaths of 1,770,000 German soldiers and 760,000 German civilians, devastated the economy, and brought losses in both territory and national sovereignty.

(Rather than finding fault amongst themselves, the Democrats blamed Republicans for Iraq War deaths and a recessed economy.)

These "November criminals", nationalists alleged, had "stabbed them in the back" on the "home front," by either criticizing the cause of German nationalism, or by simply not being zealous-enough supporters of it.

(Democrats want to "take back their country").

Gil, I think you're onto something there?

Ok, just kidding.

In reality, Gil was trying to say modern day Republicans (such as Rush Limbaugh) are accusing Democrats of being November criminals -- or "unpatriotic".

Oh wait, then Gil states "But we haven’t been stabbed in the back. In believing that jingoism and wishful thinking amounted to effective policy, we did this to ourselves."

Oh right...the title. I almost forgot.

In actuality, Republicans weren't using German propaganda that in the past led to the rise of Hitler?

Thanks for clearing that up, Gil. It would be twisted and wrong to compare Republicans to Nazis, especially in relation to Dolchstosslegende. After all, we are a far cry from 1,770,000 dead soldiers and 760,000 dead civilians, a devastated economy, and losses in both territory and national sovereignty.

Here we go. Downing St. Memo "retyped", original destroyed

That's right. Did I call it? The Downing St. Memo authenticity is being questioned.

All Things Conservative Blog

Captain's Quarters Blog

Actually, I kind of agree that this might be a legitimate memo. However, it's fishy that the memo, according to Michael Smith (memo source), that the memo was "retyped" and then the original memo was destroyed. If it were evidence, wouldn't you put it somewhere safe, such as an undisclosed location?

Democrats learned after Memogate I (the Dan Rather incident) that the memo at least needed to appear somewhat legit.

Then in Memogate II (Harkin-Schiavo Memogate, as discussed on the original Smart Retorts website), they made it look more legitimate. They used an actual draft and blew it up into a "Senate Republican talking points memo" (none of which anyone recognized later).

Now in Memogate III (Downing St.), they had to go to a foreign country to get the memos.

Are we sensing a pattern of deception yet?

Week 8

This week's column focuses on an interview with Dick Cheney conducted by Sean Hannity on Foxnews. It's called "Fair, balanced and lying down at the feet of power". Notice the deceptive word usage to get "lying" in there without actually meaning dishonesty. The first line in the paper reads: "Fair, balanced and lying")

You can read it in its entirety here:

Immediately, I thought of this column by Gil called It’s not about balance or bias, it’s all about the Benjamins.

Gil implies that the Downing Street Memo and Guantanamo were two issues not raised in the interview.

However, they were raised -- just not in the way Gil wanted them to be.



HANNITY: Let's talk about Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Guantanamo Bay (search). He said it's not being considered for closing. There was a little bit of ambiguity there. The people weren't sure if the president was saying they're looking for all alternatives there. Is there any consideration to close Gitmo?

Hannity also alluded to the Downing Street Memo with the following question:

HANNITY: You keep, in the administration, coming under fire for Iraq.

The Downing Street Memo? The Downing Street Memo? PLEASE!

Here's what the Downing Street Memo says:

...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...

...Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD...

So, Bush wanted to remove Saddam by military action, BUT...

But?

...but the intelligence and facts were fixed around the policy.

Why would Bush "fix facts" if something was preventing himself from removing Saddam by military force?

This could mean that the UN was "fixing facts" to prevent Bush from taking action.

As I've previously discussed on my blog, it appears that "fixed intelligence" means that it was "agreed on" intelligence, not that it was "fixed" in a slang sense of the word (according to Microsoft Encarta dictionary and dictionary.com). The alleged author of the memo used that term in a 2002 interoffice email.

What did Tony Blair and Bush say about the Downing Street Memo?

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. On Iraq, the so-called Downing Street memo from July 2002 says intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military action. Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Well, I can respond to that very easily. No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all...

BUSH: ...There's nothing farther from the truth...

If Gil had bothered to read anything other than Daily KOS or Democratic Underground, he would realize that the reason the memo has not received a wide amount of American media attention is that no one has actually produced a copy of the memo -- just the alleged "text" of this "memo".

Actually, Foxnews has provided alot of coverage on the Downing Street Memo -- much more than it really deserves as it's pretty much a non-issue that attempts to rehash an old Democrat argument defeated years ago.

The memo says alot of other things that seem to contradict this interpretation.

No decisions had been taken...

...the timing was not yet decided.

Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy.

But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions.

...we were considering a range of options.

There is a good article here.

So which is it, Gil? Should there be media bias? Or should it just be biased in the direction that you want it to be?

For someone who frequently puts his perspective on the Lancaster page (no indication that it's perspective), I would have thought he would be supportive of Foxnew's right to put perspective in News without saying it?

I think it was Sean Hannity's interview and Gil needs to butt out of it. Last time I checked, he was not a Foxnews reporter.

That's my perspective on it.

And did anyone catch this phrase?

"A few years ago, when Democrats controlled both Congress and the White House..."

Last time I can remember Democrats being in a majority in the Senate and House with a Democrat President was 1993-1994, 11-12 years ago.

Senator Durbin and Al-Zawahiri meet eye to eye

Disturbing parallel.

Read this:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159922,00.html



Then read this:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050616/D8AP129O1.html

Week 7 another dud

No Smart Retort this week, either. This article appeared to be a dud and no one has even bothered to comment on it thus far on Lancaster Online.

Week 7 continues to be stalled...

Oh, and still no response from John Carey of Businessweek on where he got his figures on South Korean embryotic stem cell funding. Must be on vacation? (wink)

One thing I did note in this week's article...

Only 19 of the 46 homes in the event were between the specified range of $300,000 - $400,000. I found that info here.

Gil had indicated "most" homes were in that range. To me, if I were saying it, I would say that "most" homes were not in that range (27 of them, minus the 4 that are "unpublished" is 23 -- half of them). Note also that "unpublished" is in the same category as the highest figure ($700,000). Somewhere on the site, they give the highest figure as $1.2 million. So we know at least half are not in that range.

Actually, they look pretty scattered to me as far as the value?



Maybe the print edition was different than the online edition, though?

Alright, one other thing I noticed is that Gil's column this week appears to be the "incredible shrinking column of Gil". His traditional placement on the Lancaster page (along the bottom of the page) was invaded and dwarfed by a much more interesting article. Bravo, Lancaster Newspapers!

Logical Proof Downing Street Memo is widely misinterpreted

The memo is being misinterpreted.

Let's start with this phrase from the Downing Street Memo:

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.

Let's condense this down a little so it makes more sense:

Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, BUT the facts were being fixed around the policy.

It certainly sounds like the intelligence and the facts being "fixed" around the policy were PREVENTING Bush from removing Saddam through military action??

Something was stopping Bush from removing Saddam through military action?

What was?

The facts fixed around the policy.

Now, if someone tries to convince us that Bush "fixed the facts", or manipulated them, then according to the Downing Street Memo, Bush was preventing himself from using military action to remove Saddam.

The memo goes on to say: "No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January [2003]..."

It appears the Downing Street Memo interpretation being passed around on blogs such as the Democratic Underground (which state the memo is a "smoking gun") is inconsistent with what is even in the memo, itself.

Downing Street Memo fraud

The fraud becomes more and more exposed on this Downing Street Memo.

A link has emerged online attributed to Matthew Rycroft, the alleged author of the Downing Street Memo which shows that Rycroft sent an interoffice email in which he used the word "fixed" in a totally different sense of the word than "manipulated".

Still, no one appears to have verified which sense of the word Mr. Rycroft or Richard Dearlove was using in this memo.

You can view it here.

As for John Carey of Business Week and his requested reference on the $100 million dollar figure for South Korea funding on embryotic stem cells? Still a "no show".

Bush and Blair say facts not "fixed".

A press conference was held today by Bush and Blair.

Here are some high points:

Q Thank you, sir. On Iraq, the so-called Downing Street memo from July 2002 says intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military action. Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Well, I can respond to that very easily. No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, I -- you know, I read kind of the characterizations of the memo, particularly when they dropped it out in the middle of his race. I'm not sure who "they dropped it out" is, but -- I'm not suggesting that you all dropped it out there. (Laughter.) And somebody said, well, you know, we had made up our mind to go to use military force to deal with Saddam. There's nothing farther from the truth.

Getting the Business?

Well, it's now been 3 days since I sent this email. Still no response back. Maybe Mr. Carey is on vacation this week?

Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 16:30:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: ***Personal Email Account***
Subject: The Stem-Cell Also-Ran: America
To: John_Carey@businessweek.com

Hi John.

I am doing some research on the issue of embryotic
stem cells.

I was wondering where you got the following
information?

"Korea alone is estimated to be spending more than
$100 million a year on embryonic stem-cell work".

Any online references? Other references?

If you could point me to a website, that would be
tremendously helpful.

Thanks and I look forward to hearing back.

Lefties harping on Downing Street Memo

Much like Al Jazeera, Lefties have been harping about the so-called "Downing Street Memo", a memo that allegedly "proves" that Bush "fixed" the war in Iraq.

They are ranting about this passage:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. 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. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

But why is slang being used in a formal document of UK minutes?

According to the North American Edition of the Encarta Dictionary, the word "fixed" is slang.

7. dishonestly arranged: unfairly or illegally arranged ( slang )

Most likely, there is another meaning. Of course, to tell that to a Leftie, you will probably be labelled a "conspirator".

Bush had better grades than Kerry!

But not by much, really.

Still, you have to compare Yale photos:




Full article here.

A little closer to $100 million, but still far off

I ran across this link this morning.

It states "Korean scientists receive about 10 billion won a year" for stem cell research -- about the same amount that the University of Minnesota alone spends ($10 million). The implication is that the $10 million is for all forms of stem cell research, not just embryotic.

Remember, NIH funded $383 million for adult stem cell research last year, plus the 24.3 million for embryotic stem cell research, which still appears way ahead of funding levels of South Korea.

It's now the second day since I requested the source from the Business Week contributor for the figure of "$100 million annually" for Korean "embryotic stem-cell work".

Still no answer. Looks like another possible mislead? I'm also interested in finding out if Gil requested Carey's references to confirm the numbers.

No Week 7 Yet

I hate to call this "Week 7" since Gil basically rewrote his same article filled with inaccuracies and misleading statements from last week.

I am currently checking with John Carey by email to check his references on this little piece. So far, no answer back. I will post his response, if I ever get one. Interestingly, I have not been able to confirm the following figure in bold.

In a remarkable essay in the May 27 edition of BusinessWeek titled “The Stem-Cell Also-Ran: America,” John Carey notes that while the National Institutes of Health spent $24 million on embryonic stem-cell research last year, South Korea is estimated to be spending $100 million annually.


Getting there....

The FY 2004 budget for embryotic stem cell research?

$24.3 million.

However, according to this, the South Korean government provides $24.4 million in facility assistance for stem cell and related research (the facility where Hwang works -- the South Korean that made the breakthrough).

I also discovered that last year, the NIH funded $383 million for adult stem cell research. Those have lead to alot of promising cures and treatments.

However, this site says:

According to a South Korean scientist, Hwang's study is funded with less than $200,000 a year in largely government grants.

Hwang says that about $2 million in funds available to him this year is shared by 20 teams conducting various research projects under his supervision. South Korea's presidential adviser for information, science and technology Park Ky-young says that the cost was equivalent to about one hundredth of the funds that scientists in the United States work with on similar projects.

Still more funding needed?

Gil's numbers don't add up.

In Gil's recent column on stem cells, he stated that there are 400,000 to 500,000 frozen embryos -- most of which will be discarded.

However, I found an interesting link disputing that fact.

According to a 2002 survey by the RAND Corporation of IVF clinics in the United States

• the vast majority of the 400,000 currently frozen embryos are NOT slated for destruction. The vast majority — 88.2% — are being held for family building.

• Only a small fraction — 2.2% --- are slated to be discarded.

• An only slight higher percentage –- 2.8% — have been designated for research. That means of the original 400,000 frozen embryos, only 11,000 are actually available to be destroyed for their stem cells.