OK, I have a stupid question here, please forgive me.

[SmileyBoy]

I have heard a lot of talk about the "Downing Street Minutes", or something like that. I have also seen links to a Michigan Representative, John Conyers' website, where he has a letter of impeachment, or something???:shrug:

The question is, what is this all about, and is this something that would impeach *??

I'm sorry that I have not followed this story at all recently.

[tk2kewl]

1. click the link in my sig line

[babylonsister]

2. Here's a couple of links to further enlighten you!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1824353

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3773503

[Inland]

3. Just wondering what its about makes you smarter than the entire MSM.

It doesn't have that much curiosity.

[BattyDem]

4. Asking a question because you want to be informed ...

is never stupid. :-) If more people asked questions, this country would be in much better shape than it is right now.

[FtWayneBlue]

5. I talked to a fellow at work today, asking him if had heard of

the Downing Street Minutes. Nope. So I filled him in with the cliff notes version. He agreed that Bush is impeachable.

[chalky]

6. Check out Wikipedia. Great summary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

They even zero in on the most damning parts of the memo, including:

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change."

Thus showing:
A) They were already attacking Iraq before the discussions even began.
B)The WMD case they eventually shoved down our throat was bogus. Not based on faulty intel, as the freepers are fond of saying--THERE WAS. NO. INTEL.
C)We had no legal basis for attacking Iraq.

[dweller]

7. John Conyers recommends this

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18034

Conyers entered it into the Congressional record as evidence.
dp