Downing Street Memo

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, woulndn't there be a little problem since Kerry sent a letter to Clinton about Iraq's WMD's?  Should we impeach most of Congress?  If there is no Congress, how could a president be impeached? :-)

 

That just proves that Kerry is no peacnik. That letter was from 1998 or so, and was based upon bad information that was found to be bad before we invaded Iraq. It's irrevelant to the Downing Street memo, which indicated that Bush started planning to invade Iraq shortly after 9/11, and didn't care about evidence or diplomaacy, he was going to invade no matter what.

Enough of blaming the Democrats for Bush's mistake. That's ing pathetic.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, woulndn't there be a little problem since Kerry sent a letter to Clinton about Iraq's WMD's?  Should we impeach most of Congress?  If there is no Congress, how could a president be impeached? :-)

 

That just proves that Kerry is no peacnik. That letter was from 1998 or so, and was based upon bad information that was found to be bad before we invaded Iraq. It's irrevelant to the Downing Street memo, which indicated that Bush started planning to invade Iraq shortly after 9/11, and didn't care about evidence or diplomaacy, he was going to invade no matter what.

Enough of blaming the Democrats for Bush's mistake. That's g pathetic.

I'm not blaming anyone in office for an intelligence failure.  You've just demonstated that there was bad information that was circulating during the Clinton period.

Bad information during the Clinton adminstration that was later found out to be wrong isn't going to save Bush's ass since

1. He didn't care whether the intelligence was right (See Iraq Niger story, that Joe Wilson pointed out was false, and then had the White House commit grand treason by outting his CIA agent wife)
2. He was clearly going to go to war no matter what
3. All of the reasons given for war were crap

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We already did a thread on this.  Most people agreed that public lies are not criminal and that the Downing Street Memo is not credible on grounds that:

a) It contains no quotes from government officials, only paraphrases which could easily be distorted
b) Has been taken out of its own context by anti-Bush forces
c) Provides no new information even if assumed to be true

I guess you guys had so much luck with the National Guard docs you all came back for more?

There is a problem, even if the memo is accurate.  According to what has been released, Blair, et al. are referring to how they would handle a WMD attack, as Blue Rectangle pointed out.  If they know that Iraq does not WMD's why would they be worried about what would happen if they are used.

Which is why people like jfern and freedomburns have had to spin the contents of the memo, to make it appear as if it were something its not.

There are two problems.

1.  The memo may not be authentic.

2.  If it is authentic, it shows that Blair, at least, was worried about WMD's being by Saddam.

Ah, this might be why the US isn't playing it up too much.

1. There's no question to authenticity. Blair has not denied it.
2. How is this relevant to anything?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

New information related to to this.

A UK diplomat has gone on the record as saying claims about Iraqi WMD were "totally implausible", and that everyone knew that before we invaded.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1510259,00.html

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No one would give a sh**t about the middle east if it wasn't for oil. The Congo recently had a war where 3 million people died. Funny how that didn't get reported on.