There are times the cynic in me rises to the surface, and I am tempted to wave my hands in frustration and simply say, “Y’all got it.” Such is the case with what has come to be known as the Downing Street memo and the mock impeachment inquiry of President Bush conducted by Michigan Congressman John Conyers recently in the capital basement (Never let it be said that Democrats don’t have a flair for the dramatic.). 

Conyers and his troupe contend that minutes taken from a meeting of British government and intelligence officials on July 23, 2002 offer a smoking gun proving that the Bush administration lied about U.S. involvement in Iraq -- charges which, if true, certainly warrant our outrage and the theatrics of Conyers and company.

Unfortunately, the show and the documents only succeed in leaving one with a lukewarm "been-there, done-that" familiarity. 

According to Conyers, the documents seem to indicate “that the United States and Great Britain agreed, by the summer of 2002, to attack Iraq, and that U.S. officials were deliberately manipulating intelligence to justify the war.”

Regrettably, what we do not have is context. The memo neither quotes George W. Bush nor anyone from the Bush administration. In fact, it never quotes anyone. We don’t know who said what, how it was said or why. All we have are the author’s summary and interpretation of diplomatic meetings with U.S. officials. And because Michael Smith, the reporter who obtained the documents, destroyed the originals after photo copying them and having a secretary retype them on an old typewriter, we may never know for sure.

There is, of course, evidence that contradicts the DSM, not the least of which are the 9/11 Commission and the WMD Commission reports, both of which found “no evidence of 'politicization' of the intelligence community's assessments concerning Iraq's reported WMD programs.” The New York Times further contradicts the DSM, reporting that a memorandum written by Prime Minister Tony Blair's cabinet office in late July of the same year states “no political decisions have been taken.” 

Interestingly enough, the memo best succeeds at countering the anti-war contention that the Bush and Blair administrations lied about their knowledge of WMDs (or the lack thereof). It is clear throughout the memo that all parties believed Iraq in possession of WMDs, even if those weapons were, in the words of the DSM, less than other nations in the region. What changed the equation was 9/11. Blair is quoted in a March 2002 memo as saying: "The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September."

Further clouding our clarity was the invitation Conyers extended to former intelligence analyst Ray McGovern to testify. Under questioning from Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), McGovern proclaimed with a straight face that the war in Iraq was launched so "the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world."

It is difficult to maintain one’s credibility (much less the public’s credulity) when witnesses such as McGovern are allowed to spout such anti-Semitic nonsense, even if for the dramatic effect of a mock impeachment hearing for cable television.

The implications of the charges levied by Conyers are serious. If this administration led this nation down the garden path, no one wants to know more than those who have supported this administration. Our integrity is not for sale.

Unfortunately, there is no smoking gun in the DSM, and the recent John Conyers Show was little more than a rerun of the same anti-war rhetoric we have heard before, repackaged with a smattering of anti-Semitism and offered to the American people on free cable.