Downing Street Memo and Iraq War Draw a Crowd at White House

By Lisa Bennett, Communications Director and Michelle Kline, Communications Intern

June 24, 2005

The Downing Street Memo has outraged social justice groups and intrigued progressive media, but has generated little heat in the mainstream press and only cursory response from the Bush administration.

On June 16, AfterDowningStreet.org, a coalition of activist organizations, sponsored a rally at Lafayette Square Park in front of the White House to protest the apparent lies leading up to the Iraq war. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., delivered a petition with more than half a million signatures demanding President Bush answer questions raised by the memo.

NOW Membership Vice President Terry O'Neill speaks in front of the White House at the June 16 rally.

"Someone in the administration needs to stand up and show some integrity," said NOW Membership Vice President Terry O'Neill, speaking at the rally. "If they're really the 'values' party, they should prove themselves by telling us the truth about the war; not dodging our questions with partisan rhetoric."

The Downing Street Memo, first published by the Sunday Times of London on May 1, 2005, is a once-secret document—the minutes of a July 2002 meeting chaired by British Prime Minister Tony Blair and attended by his military and intelligence chiefs. The memo suggests that the Bush administration planned to go to war with Iraq months before seeking congressional authorization and that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

According to British military officials quoted in the memo—officials who had traveled to Washington, D.C., to meet with the Bush administration—the case for war "was thin," but if Saddam Hussein were given an ultimatum to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors it would "help with the legal justification for the use of force."

Blair was quoted as saying: "If the political context were right, people would support regime change."

A second leaked memo contends that Blair had already agreed to back U.S. military action in Iraq during a summit at Bush's Texas ranch three months before the Downing Street meeting.

What happened next is common knowledge.

Bush worked to link Iraq to Al Qaeda, as Al Qaeda had taken responsibility for the Sept. 11 attacks. The Bush administration also made claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and was continuing to build up its supply. These two charges made Iraq and Saddam Hussein appear to be a looming threat to the people of the U.S.—a threat that would allow Bush to sell the country on swift and violent action.

The war began on March 19, 2003, and since then no evidence of WMD has been uncovered, nor have any ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda surfaced. In that time, more than 1,700 U.S. troops have died in Iraq and the cost is expected to exceed $200 billion before the end of this year.

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., demands answers from the Bush administration.

Since the release of the Downing Street Memo, it has become increasingly apparent that neither U.S. nor British officials are in any hurry to admit an error in judgment or the falsification of intelligence reports, and the U.S. media apparently don't intend to press them for a response.

Why are the Downing Street Memo and the war in Iraq of concern to feminists? A number of reasons make this a NOW issue—starting with the women who are killed or injured during war, both service members and civilians. The high cost of war diverts funds from programs designed to help women and their families. Also, the media's failure to play the role of investigator and truth-teller does not bode well for feminists who believe that an independent press is crucial to a healthy democracy.

Finally, a government that misleads its people, that refuses to be held accountable for its actions, is a government that cannot be trusted to respond to the needs of its people—particularly groups like women who are struggling to achieve equality through legislative and judicial means.

Grassroots efforts are underway to push forward a Resolution of Inquiry to investigate whether or not Bush violated the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996. Under this act, it is illegal to knowingly use materially false, fictitious or fraudulent documents with respect to matters within the branches of government.

Bush may have violated the act when he wrote to Congress within 48 hours of attacking Iraq, stating that Iraq posed a grave threat to national security—if he knew at the time that this claim was false.

"The media must start asking the tough questions about Iraq. Challenge the rhetoric of the White House," O'Neill said. "Bush is not a modern-day George Washington, but rather following in the footsteps of Richard Nixon and trying to steal the government."