Scott McClellan: "no need" to respond to the Democratic letter on UK memo

[G_j]

At least this hasn't gone completely away. NYT article today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/politics/20weapons.html?pagewanted=print

May 20, 2005

British Memo on U.S. Plans for Iraq War Fuels Critics
By DOUGLAS JEHL

WASHINGTON, May 19 - More than two weeks after its publication in London, a previously secret British government memorandum that reported in July 2002 that President Bush had decided to "remove Saddam, through military action" is still creating a stir among administration critics. They are portraying it as evidence that Mr. Bush was intent on war with Iraq earlier than the White House has acknowledged.

Eighty-nine House Democrats wrote to the White House to ask whether the memorandum, first disclosed by The Sunday Times on May 1, accurately reported the administration's thinking at the time, eight months before the American-led invasion. The letter, drafted by Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said the British memorandum of July 23, 2002, if accurate, "raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own administration."

<snip>
Two former Bush administration officials, Richard A. Clarke, the former terrorism adviser, and Paul H. O'Neill, the former treasury secretary, have written books saying that Mr. Bush decided to invade Iraq by the summer of 2002. But the British memorandum, which records the minutes of a meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair's senior foreign policy advisers, does provide some contemporaneous validation for those accounts, though only through secondhand observations.

<snip>
The White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, told reporters on Tuesday that the White House saw "no need" to respond to the Democratic letter. Current and former Bush administration officials have sought to minimize the significance of the memorandum, saying it is based on circumstantial observations and does not purport to be an authoritative account of American decision making.

..more..

[RubyDuby in GA]

1. So basically he's saying there's no need to respond to the other

half of the country?

Motherfucking cocksuckers (I'm so glad Deadwood has re-introduced that word to the mainstream).

[woodsprite]

17. Scotty's pulling a "Blackwell". n/t

[comsymp]

22. Or no need to respond to Congress

Fark oversight, right?

[BR_Parkway]

2. Arrogance, thy name is Republican

So, does this violate their oath of office? Choosing only one side instead of all Americans?

[Just Me]

7. I've been arguing breaches of oathes of office for years *LOL*.

Isn't intentional misrepresentation for purposes of manipulating the American people into doing what, had they known the truth, they would not otherwise do,....a form of fraud and example of "high crimes and misdemeanors" in addition to a blatant breach of oath of office?

Combine that behavior along with the intentional conspiracy to breach U.S. and international laws pertaining to waging war and torture, and you'd think these neoCONfascists' butts would be booted out of office and placed in solitary confinement for the rest of their natural lives.

But, NOOOOO,...in a tyranny, the tyrants do NOT have to live by their oathes or the rule of law.

[wicket]

3. asshole!!!!

:grr: :grr: :grr:

[bryant69]

4. Hmmmmm

So is it not telling the truth? I'm confused. Who should I believe, the lyin' decievin' double dealin' phoniest cowpokes in all of Washington DC? Or the memo?

I'm so confused.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[LynnTheDem]

5. FINALLY it's official; America a dictatorship under King George.

The Founding Fathers had a solution to this...

[acmejack]

21. They didn't have to contend with brain dead sheeple

It is appalling how uninformed most are. Here you are dealing with an engaged audience, but there are too few. FEMA is well prepared for that eventuality and are merely waiting for an opportunity to implement martial law.

Which is not to say that I'm not in agreement with you.

[bowens43]

6. From the mouth of the idiot:

"I do not need to explain why I say things. — That's the interesting thing about being the President. — Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."

[G_j]

12. No George it is NOT the interesting thing

about being the President. It IS the "interesting thing" about subverting the Presidency and anointing yourself dictator.

[fasttense]

16. He particularly

doesn't think he owes the American people an explanation. George Washington refused to be given a crown and be called by royal names. Do you think brush would refuse? So much for honorable leaders.

[Toots]

8. does not purport to be an authoritative account of American decision maki

That is a bold faced lie. The memo is based on Official Government Minutes of an Official Government Meeting It doesn't get any more authoritative than that.

[Vincardog]

26. YES Official Government Minutes of an Official Government Meeting

Confirmed by the British Government.

Let's see we have official Government Records showing a secret treaty between the Fascist rulers of Amerika and their biggest supporter Tony.

They (The British) were the ones who named their colony Iraq in the first place.

Can anyone say Illegal immoral impeachable offense?

[peacetalksforall]

9. Isa law suit possible? Peopl for the American Way? n/t

[SalmonChantedEvening]

10. Dear Puffy McMoonface

We see no need for you to say another word about Newsweek.

Now answer the question Scotty.

Why were we lied to?


Nevermind, we already know. Lying is what you do.

[MisterP]

11. and just this week, No-Neck was decrying Newsweek for "costing lives"

and destroying our "international status" or summat like that
P am liking new Bizarro World. P am not wanting to go home right away!

[peacetalksforall]

13. I hope those leaders don't back down.

This morning the swarmy, vile right wing insider ABC radio program host had an entire hour with Bryan Lamb with noone on the left to balance him out. They guy is articulate, but not clever.

He was asked up front about the fact that Bush and Blair plotted to take Iraq and discussed the proof. Unfortunately, the caller asked a second question and this phoney deliberately answered the other question.

At the same time...based on his self-acclaimed insider status as a propagandist...he told us what the new talking points are...

WE ARE IN A WORLD WAR TO SAFEGUARD OIL.

They are finally admitting it.

With all the emphasis on the horror of having poor us to be in a WORLD WAR.

Also, the real WMD's are missile engines.

I've been out of the loop, so maybe these new talking points have already been discussed throughly on DU.

In the meantime....our cuontry is being taken down by these people and they won't even respond to our leaders.

I am ready to give them war...I want to split the country.

[katinmn]

14. I think they are baiting us to riot

I am so sickened by this bunch of thieving, lying murderers.

[doodadem]

15. "no need" to respond to the Democratic letter???

Excuse me? You have an official letter of inquiry signed by 89 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, and you feel it's within your rights to tell them to piss up a rope?
No checks and balances. And telling the Senate Dems that they have to just rubber stamp anything Bushco wants. They want to turn the Dem party into a token, while accusing them of being obstructionist.
Obstructionist. Like the word Liberal, I don't think that's a bad thing right now. It means actually standing up for the principles that Bushco constantly mouths, but really means just the opposite--Freedom and Democracy.
We ARE fighting for freedom and democracy, but we are fighting our own King.

[sinkingfeeling]

18. Nothing new. Asscroft wouldn't provide documents or responses

to the 9-11 Commission. Biden mentioned,'contempt of Conress', but nothing was ever done.

[G_j]

19. yep, nothing new, par for the course n/t

[bunny planet]

20. There's no need for you to have a job lying to the American people on a

daily basis either Puffy McMoon face.
:smoke:

[progressoid]

23. "no need" - - I'm shocked. Just shocked.

[oxbow]

24. Funny, I just got a letter from FAIR about this very thing

Excerpts:

Following FAIR's call for more mainstream coverage of the "smoking gun
memo"--the secret British document containing new evidence that the Bush
administration manipulated intelligence to justify its plan to invade Iraq--a
steady trickle of news reports have appeared. But that coverage has been
downplayed in general and is still completely absent from the nightly news.

<....>

While the memo has begun to get wider coverage in print, broadcasters have
maintained a near silence on the issue. The story has turned up in a few short
CNN segments (Crossfire, 5/13/05; Live Sunday, 5/15/05; Wolf Blitzer Reports,
5/16/05), but the only mention of the memo FAIR found on the major broadcast
networks came on ABC's Sunday morning show This Week (5/15/05), in which host
George Stephanopoulos questioned Sen. John McCain about its contents. When
McCain declared that he didn't "agree with it" and defended the Bush
administration's decision to go to war, Stephanopoulos didn't question him
further. A look at the nightly news reveals not a single story aired about the
memo and its implications.

When finally questioned by CNN (5/16/05), White House press secretary Scott
McClellan claimed he hadn't seen the memo, but that "the reports" about it were
"flat-out wrong." British government officials, however, did not dispute the
contents of the memo--which can be read in full online at
http://downingstreetmemo.com / --and a former senior American official called it
"an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" (Knight Ridder, 5/6/05).



This letter reminded me how hard we've worked here to get coverage by the papers, CNN and MSNBC among others for this disturbing story. The next step is to get it on the nightly news, which polls show more Americans still get their news from.

Let's make one final push to get this out, people. It's always better to call in person, so here are the phone #'s:

CONTACT:
ABC World News Tonight
Phone: [phone]

CBS Evening News
Phone: [phone]

NBC Nightly News
Phone: [phone]

PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer
Phone: [phone]



If you prefer EMAIL though, just paste this into your 'bcc:' slot:

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Please don't let this important story be forgotten y'all. Im so f-ing proud of all of us!

[oasis]

25. What if the gave a White House briefing and nobody came?

[BringEmOn]

27. Nobody but Gannon/Guckert

[Old and In the Way]

28. So let's recap what we know.

(1) PNAC lays out their agenda to grab ME Oil in the mid-90s. Chenney, Jeb Bush, and other players in this club say we need a "New Pearl Harbor" to get it underway.

(2) Annecdoctal evidence from ex-administration officials say the planning to invade Iraq started as soon as they stole the election in Florida in 2000.

(3) Chenneys secret energy policy meetings appear to be cover for planning the Iraqi invasion.

(4) Bush ignores warnings of a pending Al-Qaeda attack throughout 2001.

On September 11, 19 alledged hijackers, 15 of whom are Saudi nationals and none are Iraqis, attack Washington and New York, killing 3,000 Americans. PNAC gets their "New Pearl Harbor".

(5) After a short forray into Afghanistan...advance positioning?, the marketing of Invading Iraq starts in ernest in 2002, just before the mid-terms. Turns out that the compelling evidence on WMD and imminent use on America was forged or simply fabricated by this administration.

(6) Bush invades, killing 100's of thousands of innocent Iraqis and 1600 Americans...so far. Billions of USD have been 'lost' or funneled to war profiteering friends, close to this administration.

No wonder this administration cannot respond to the Congressional Inquiry. What's to deny? They are guilty of crimes against this country and the world.

It would only take the heroic actions of a couple of dozen Republican Representitives and Senators becoming Independents to wipe the smirk off the boy-king's face forever. Then the only question would be, could the impeachment occur before these Criminals facilitate another "event" to impose marital law and save them from deserved justice?

[jbnow]

30. Don't trivialize Afghanistan invasion as "advance positioning"

There were bigger reasons. We wanted oil lines there. Cheney was talking about that for years before...

A quick page I found now: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oil.html
In 1998, Dick Cheney, now US vice-president but then chief executive of a major oil services company, remarked: "I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian."
But the oil and gas there is worthless until it is moved. The only route which makes both political and economic sense is through Afghanistan from Guardian

One of the links leads to:
In the words of MSNBC

`President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News.

Nope, we didn't go there just for positioning.

[Old and In the Way]

32. I'm aware of the Caspian Basin Oil....

I probably should have included that in my post. I think the point is that Afghanistan was the easy point to start the PNAC invasion of the Mid-East.....that's where OBL was hiding out....or so we were told. But it did condition the American people to having US troops invading countries in the ME on the easy, emotional reason of revenge.

Personally, I wonder why they didn't go straight into Saudi Arabia, but then I remember that the House of Bush owes everything to the House of Saud..and they'll be the last country Bush betrays in the ME.

[jbnow]

33. I agree and

was being sarcastic with the "don't trivialize it". Most of us see that invasion as pure patriotism, only done for our defense, no other motivation.

The planning and concerns of our oil companies well before bush was in president are documented. A jolly coincidence that they provoked the attack and we had "no choice". Heck, the world would support that one.

We are living in a bad novel.

[steve2470]

29. kick nt

[Disturbed]

31. Will more actual Conservatives step up?

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/roberts.cgi

America can redeem itself only by holding Bush accountable.

As intent as Republicans were to impeach President Bill Clinton for lying about a sexual affair, they have a blind eye for President Bush’s far more serious lies. Bush’s lies have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people, injured and maimed tens of thousands more, devastated a country, destroyed America’s reputation, caused 1 billion Muslims to hate America, ruined our alliances with Europe, created a police state at home, and squandered $300 billion dollars and counting.

America’s reputation is so damaged that not even our puppets can stand the heat. Anti-American riots, which have left Afghan cities and towns in flames and hospitals overflowing with casualties, have forced Bush’s Afghan puppet, “President” Hamid Karzai, to assert his independence from his U.S. overlords. In a belated act of sovereignty, Karzai asserted authority over heavy-handed U.S. troops whose brutal and stupid ways sparked the devastating riots. Karzai demanded control of U.S. military activities in Afghanistan and called for the return of the Afghan detainees who are being held at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Abundant evidence now exists in the public domain to convict George W. Bush of the crime of the century. The secret British government memo (dated July 23, 2002, and available here), leaked to the Sunday Times (which printed it on May 1, 2005), reports that Bush wanted “to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. . . . But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. . . . The (United Kingdom) attorney general said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defense, humanitarian intervention or UNSC (U.N. Security Council) authorization. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult.”


http://www.conjur.com/blog - Conjur Blog

[Octafish]

34. Bush lied. People died.

It wasn't Newsweak what got the nation into war.



Liar. Thief. Mass Murderer. Traitor.

[G_j]

35. note: NYT story comes out 19 days after

it broke in the UK.

[oxbow]

36. as far as I'm concerned

this thing is just picking up steam. Conyers and the others won't let it go down the memory hole if we don't.

[G_j]

37. Louise Slaughter said they would hold hearings on the lawn

if they had to. I sure hope so.

[annabanana]

38. kickin it again