My post of a few days ago regarding the so-called "Downing Street Memo" led to my receipt of a lengthy email which appears to be mostly a reprint of this Daily Kos diary. The point of the email (and the diary) is that the "memo" is in fact not a "memo," but rather "minutes" of a meeting. And, the author concludes, because "minutes" are "legal documents" while "memos" are not, the Downing Street "minutes" could lead to some sort of legal action against someone (Bush?), whereas a "memo" would not have the same impact.
I’m not so sure. Yes, "minutes" is the term normally used to refer to a record of what happened at a meeting, whereas a "memo" is just a communication from one person to another. And yes, "minutes" do have legal import in the context of corporate law. But whether they have any legal import in a context like this is quite another matter. The problem is twofold. First, unlike the corporate context, I am not aware that government officials are under any sort of legal obligation to maintain accurate "minutes" of their meetings – it may be a good idea, but I don’t know that it’s required. Second, it is (unfortunately) not illegal for the government to lie to the people (in contrast, it is illegal for a corporation to lie to its shareholders, at least in certain contexts). So let us assume that these "minutes" do in fact "prove" that Bush lied to the people of this country when he told us that he had not decided to go to war in Iraq prior to March of 2003 (when in fact he had), and that he was not bending intelligence to fit the policy (when in fact he was). What then? Anyone who thinks that some international tribunal is going to make Bush and Blair out to be war criminals is not living on this planet, and if it were to come to an impeachment trial in this country (ha ha), the distinction between "memo" and "minutes" would be relatively unimportant because an impeachment trial is not a courtroom proceeding and is not bound by rules of evidence.
So let me be clear: as I’ve said from the very first day that the contents of this document were revealed, this is an important development that shows – perhaps more clearly than any other single piece of evidence – that Bush misled this country about Iraq. But whether we call it a "memo" regarding a meeting, or "minutes" of a meeting, or a "memo" that contains "minutes," or anything else, strikes me as relatively unimportant (and, since the catch-phrase "Downing Street Memo" seems to have taken hold, I don’t see much harm in sticking with it). What’s important is the contents. They are very important indeed.
Thanks for that David…..My name is Mikecan1978 on dailykos one of the founders of the memo site…..This fight over terminology has been hurting our efforts somewhat. And some clairty is needed.
Well, they are important in that the public might view them differently if described as one and not the other, IMHO.Although sometimes memos seem to cause quite a stir too…Anyone listen to the Media Forum in DC today? I tried to listen to a stream from Air America but they punctuated the thing with too many commercials, then I had to reboot so I gave up. Was there anything exciting said there? I’m hoping C-SPAN will have a video up on the web or at least run it in the next few days on the TV.
I’d be quite surprised if John Q. Public’s reaction was “Oh — you mean these are minutes??!! Why didn’t anyone say so? I thought it was just a memo, but if it’s minutes, that a different kettle of fish!” The important thing is that it is a contemporaneous and by all appearances totally reliable account of what British intelligence thought was going on in the US in July of 2002, months before Bush claims he had decided to go to war. That’s what John Q. Public should want to know. The legal technicalities regarding “minutes” are pretty much beside the point, and the distinction is too technical for most in the wide world (including myself) to care very much.
The problem is that they aren’t really Minutes…..It’s a Briefing Memorandum from MI-6 to the Prime Minister. It describes the meeting held but it’s not minutes in the sence you might think of here in North AMerica.http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmfaff/196/2102406.htmThis link is a good example
I fail to see anything that implies Bush misled the country on Iraq in this document.Certainly other countries had equal or greater WMD threats. Certainly there were other reasons for the war besides WMD, but the only thing from the document that even implies lying is the phrase:”But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”I don’t know if that means they were ‘sexing up the intelligence’ or merely presenting their case. Later in the document of course there is concern that the American plan would not work because of Saddam utilizing WMD at the start of the battle, hardly leading support to the idea that they knew all along Saddam had no WMD.
I absolutely enjoy it when people deliberatey argue the wrong point.Let’s take this step by step:1. First, they steart out with a total reverals.