Downing Street Memo

[freedomburns]

Memo to Mainstream Media
by Geov Parrish, Seattle Weekly 6/8-6/14

"I have a three-word response to the media frenzy that followed revelation of the long-secret identity of Deep Throat: Downing Street Memo.

Here's what John Dean, a key Watergate figure, wrote about Dubya's case for the Iraq war in a June 2003 column for www.findlaw.com : "To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. . . . Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be a 'high crime' under the Constitution's impeachment clause."

...

"The information needed to impeach George Bush for lying to Congress, the United Nations, and the American public about the most serious imaginable matter—the misuse of military force—is all out there. It's been reported, in foreign media, in the alternative press, in the margins. But it has not been championed by major media, and so it has not been taken to heart by either the American public or Congress. "

http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0523/050608_news_geovparrish.php 

fb

[Smash255]

The fact this has gotten hardly any coverage after beng out for a month shows how really 'liberal' the U.S media really is...

[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? :-)

 

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[A18]

Um, the fact that some guy involved in Watergate, which has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq in any way at all, has accused the president of lying about Iraq, is supposed to be news?

Are you really that dumb?

[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.

[Smash255]

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 Intelligence is one problem.  Possibly framing or fixing Intelligence in order to go to war is a whole different problem

[○∙◄☻¥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

[PBrunsel]

I'm sure this will be made of so much by the far left (see DU and MoveOn) that mainstream Americans will call it "far left popycock" or whatever and continue their lives.

[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?"

[freedomburns]

This memo may have some legs.  They just leaked another one. 

Anyway, Bush is already a lame duck 6 months into his second term.  He has the lowest approval ratings of his presidency and some of the worst ratings in presidential history.

[Blue Rectangle]

"The information needed to impeach George Bush for lying to Congress, the United Nations, and the American public about the most serious imaginable matter—the misuse of military force—is all out there."

Actually, the DSM has several references to Saddam's WMD, which were discussed because Bush and Blair believed at the time that they existed.  Therefore the DSM proves that Bush did not lie to Congress, the United Nations, and the American public.

[Palefire]

"The information needed to impeach George Bush for lying to Congress, the United Nations, and the American public about the most serious imaginable matter—the misuse of military force—is all out there."

Actually, the DSM has several references to Saddam's WMD, which were discussed because Bush and Blair believed at the time that they existed.  Therefore the DSM proves that Bush did not lie to Congress, the United Nations, and the American public.

But when we consider that the basis for most of their beliefs comes from information obtained from "curveball", a source that was noted as being more than a little bit questionable, it would still seem to me that Bush and Blair were more than a little bit irresponsible in the manner they conducted themselves and the information they passed along to the public. Now in your defense, being an irresponsible jack ass isn't an impeachable offense (generally speaking), but I can see how it might make some people question the fitness of their leader and his ability to make other judgments, and thus want him removed.

[The Duke]

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?

[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.

[The Duke]

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.

[Nation]

I'm sure this will be made of so much by the far left (see DU and MoveOn) that mainstream Americans will call it "far left popycock" or whatever and continue their lives.

Possibly, although I'd bet you're one of the few remaining souls who uses the word "poppycock," PBrunsel. :-p

[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.

[freedomburns]

Sorry right-wing ideologues, this story has legs and is building to a crecendo.  I don't know where it leads, but it sure is leading...like leading on the front pages of major newspapers, on CNN all the time, and many major newsmagazines...like Newsweek for instance...the LA Times for another instance...

The spin is coming from you guys, because you have no choice.  Nice try, but you better start spinning faster...you are running out of yarns...

fb=happy boy 

LA TIMES: Feature Article On DSM - Memos Detail Early Plans for Invasion

The documents help flesh out the background to the formerly top-secret "Downing Street memo" published in the Sunday Times of London last month, which said that top British officials were told eight months before the war began that military action was "seen as inevitable." President Bush and his main ally in the war, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, have long maintained that they had not made up their minds to go to war at that stage. The new documents indicate that top British officials believed that by March 2002, Washington was already leaning heavily toward toppling Hussein by military force. Condoleezza Rice, the current secretary of State who was then Bush's national security advisor, was described as enthusiastic about "regime change."

.......

Meyer wrote that he had argued that Washington could go it alone if it wanted to. "But if it wanted to act with partners, there had to be a strategy for building support for military action against Saddam. I then went through the need to wrong-foot Saddam on the inspectors and the and the critical importance of the as an integral part of the anti-Saddam strategy. If all this could be accomplished skillfully, we were fairly confident that a number of countries would come on board."

.........

"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

[freedomburns]

Let us please not forget to mention the new Newsweek article:



June 15 - Two senior British government officials today acknowledged as authentic a series of 2002 pre-Iraq war memos stating that Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program was "effectively frozen" and that there was "no recent evidence" of Iraqi ties to international terrorism—private conclusions that contradicted two key pillars of the Bush administration's public case for the invasion in March 2003.

A March 8, 2002, secret "options" paper prepared by Prime Minister Tony Blair's top national-security aides also stated that intelligence on Saddam's purported weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was "poor." While noting that Saddam had used such weapons in the past and could do so again "if his regime were threatened," the options paper concluded "there is no greater threat now than in recent years that Saddam will use WMD."

The options paper was written just one month before Blair met with President Bush in Crawford, Texas. According to another leaked internal memo, Blair agreed at the meeting to support a U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam’s regime provided that “certain conditions” were met. Those conditions, according to the newly leaked memo, were that efforts be made to “construct a coalition” and “shape” public opinion; that the Israeli-Palestinian crisis was “quiescent,” and that attempts to eliminate Iraqi WMD through the return of United Nations weapons inspectors be exhausted.

The British documents are becoming something of a cause celebre among Capitol Hill Democrats and other critics of the Iraq war who see them as evidence that the Bush administration had privately committed to an invasion far earlier than it has publicly acknowledged—and then “fixed” the intelligence about Iraq to justify the policy.

{emphasis added}

SOURCE: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8234762/site/newsweek/

You Republicans are such total dupes.  I respect the guys in the Army for fighting and being brave, but they are dupes, too.

fb

[○∙◄☻¥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?

[A18]

It proves the UK believed there were WMDs, and no one was "duped" like the idiot freedomburns likes to claim.

[freedomburns]

idiot freedomburns

Goddamn, I love pissing off retarded Republicans by skewering them with the truth.  I forgot how much fun this forum can be!

[A18]

[freedomburns]