Downing Street Memo

[J. J.]

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? :-)

 

[J. J.]

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.

[J. J.]

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

What a complete load of bull.  We wouldn't have needed to wait three years, go to the UN, if Bush was clearly going to war.  Since one of the reasons was how terrible Saddam was, do you thing Hussein was a really nice guy who liked to pick flower and sing "Kumbaya?"

[J. J.]

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.

[J. J.]

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.

[J. J.]

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

Since the memo shows that Blair, et al., thought that there were WMD's in Iraq, it is huge support for the reasons to go to war.  It's evidence to motivation, i.e. Iraq had WMD's.

Now, even though it supports the reasoning behind going to war, it might not be accurate.

I actually hope it is accurate, but I'm willing to withold judgment on that point.

[J. J.]

"The U.S. has lost confidence in containment," the document said. "Some in government want Saddam removed. The success of Operation Enduring Freedom , distrust of U.N. sanctions and inspection regimes, and unfinished business from 1991 are all factors.

"Washington believes the legal basis for an attack already exists. Nor will it necessarily be governed by wider political factors. The U.S. may be willing to work with a smaller coalition than we think desirable," it said.The paper said the British view was that any invasion for the purpose of regime change "has no basis under international law." The best way to justify military action, it said, would be to convince the Security Council that Iraq was in breach of its post-Gulf War obligations to eliminate its store of weapons of mass destruction. The document appeared to rule out any action in Iraq short of an invasion.

Failed to state "Intelligence was fixed behind policy."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-britmemos15jun15,0,3650829.story?page=2&coll=la-home-headlines

I'm stunned to think that the US government would want to invade another counttry because it violated previous obligations, and would find, in 2002, that sactions were not working!  WOW!

(Ah, that is sarcasm.)

[J. J.]

Sunday Times today

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/14/DI2005061401261.html?referrer=email

The Downing Street Memo

Michael Smith
Reporter, Sunday Times of London
Thursday, June 16, 2005; 10:00 AM

The closest it came to saying there were actually any weapons was to say there "may be" 1.5tons of VX gas, a conclusion that went back to the conclusions of the UNSCOM weapons inspectors in 1998. The CIA's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on the other hand, said there were probably up to 500 tons of chemical weapons in Iraq. That gives you a feel of the kind of distortion that was going on. But as for the idea that he had very active programmes going on, well everyone, including the French and the Russians, thought that. There was a kind of group think that no-one was challenging. Long answer but I hope it's helpful.

_______________________

If this is correct, it shows that all parties thought Iraq had WMD's.  I'm seeing this is as proof of anything but faulty intelligence.  I've been saying that since the summer of 2003.

[J. J.]

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.

Enough with this intelligence failure spin. They badly wanted to control Iraq long before 9/11. They needed a smart way to sell it to the naive American people.

You have to ask why they felt a need for war; it is clear, if the memo is accurate, that all parties believed Iraq had stockpiles of WMD's.

[J. J.]

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

Here is one of the "implausible" things the diplomat, Richard Norton-Taylor said:  "There was a very good alternative to war that was never properly pursued, which was to close down Saddam's sources of illegal revenue."  (same source)


Now, there were calls for more than a decade to do this, but the UN could not enforce them.  If Norton-Taylor thinks that this is an "alternative," we really should question his judgment.  We should probably have him drug tested too.