Downing St. Memo - Can You Guess What *'s Strategy Will Be? BIOC!

[NashVegas]

Blame it on Clinton!

Lookie what I found:

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/2235942822

After remaining almost silent since losing the 2004 election by thirty four electoral votes, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts is reportedly planning to to present Congress with The Downing Street Memo, reported last month by the London Times.

....

However, All Headline News has re-discovered that a bill signed by then President Clinton named "The Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998" gave President Bush all of the legal recourse necessary for the war.

Stating directly from the bill: "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government. "

The H.R. 4655 law was signed into effect October 31,1998.

Republicans plan to issue a response to Senator Kerry by using his own words against him, a tactic used in the 2004 Election. Where Sen. Kerry was quoted as saying the war was justified and Saddam Hussein needed to be removed.


Did you see the thread where someone told us RW radio is getting ready for the story for next week? You bet your ass they've got their talking points.

Weak ones, if you ask me.

[FloridaPat]

1. BS! Total BS. It's a policy, not a right to invade a foreign country

based on lies.

[dogday]

26. Absolutely, this is policy only, not an intent to invade Iraq, but to

curtail it's activities and practices....

[stepnw1f]

2. I Say the GOP Gets a Backbone and Comes Clean

Then again, it'll never happen and the more they f*ck this country up, the more we can bury them. Shit they are already doing a great job in screwing themselves. Maniacs!

[sam sarrha]

3. i hope Bu$h's responce is to drink the "Grape" Kool-Aid.. !!!

[DawnneOBTS]

4. * will say

"You're either with us or you're against us." The September 11th invocation garbage. Myself, I'm against "us." "Us" is a bunch of no good liars and thieves who wouldn't tell you the truth if their lives depended on it.

[Gin]

8. He needs to say... I trusted my president...and believed what he said...

Use the same damn tactic.

[oasis]

5. A C-SPAN caller came up with the same b.s. this a.m. Rove has his

people working overtime on this one.

[NashVegas]

14. Oh Yeah - The Other Thing

Just as it was the *republicans* bringing up the word, "impeachment," on that show, it is them using it in this scenario as well. Another conservative site I found headlined their article, "Kerry to Call for Bush's Impeachment," or some other ridiculousness.

[kentuck]

6. It's in the interpretation, isn't it?

If Clinton says our policy should be to remove Saddam, that means we can do it anyway we want. We can lie to the people. We can invade the country illegally. We can kill thousands of people and turn the world against us because...Clinton said our policy should be to "remove Saddam"...So what's the big deal?

[NashVegas]

10. Doh!

How could I have forgotten that?!? Thanks for the reminder of Bill's omnipotence, Kentuck.

[countingbluecars]

7. 9-11

9-11, 9-11, war on terror, war on terror, war on terror

[seabeyond]

9. the whole point of the minutes is congress was given misinformation

so quoting kerry from the past when he had drawn conclusions from bush lies, lays totally on bush's back, not kerry.

kerry response, if bush had been honest in his presentation my answer would obviously have been different. hence, the issue i present to senate and american people today

[undeterred]

13. which is very simple and truthful,

but still much too complicated and nuanced for right wingers to understand...

[seabeyond]

19. this is what is so stupid, that is hard for me

the people are not this stupid, they get it. but since 9/11 if anyone goes beyond thought of talking point, their mind seems to stop, cant go around that walll of talking point. it then becomes nuance.

i voted for resolution, not going to war
i dont like abortion, i dont tell another how to believe
i voted 87b for my bill, i voted against bush bill for 87b

none of these are a challenge for me. yet media./......along, not to mention my smart brother, father and inlaws all look at me, there you go again, you liberal.

wtf

[Stirk]

11. So if Bush decides to nuke North Korea, we blame... Truman?

Must be nice to be in the party of personal responsibility.

[lady lib]

12. I would like some of the lawyers on DU to weigh in on this one.

It seems to me that just because the US has a policy, that policy doesn't override or supercede the legalities involved in attacking a sovereign nation.

[Pryderi]

15. Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

It calls for revolution, not invasion.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm

(12) On May 1, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-174, which made $5,000,000 available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

[lady lib]

16. Okay, am I reading this right?

Is the U.S. policy to support the insurgents (insofar as their activities involve removing Saddam)?

BTW, a big THANK YOU for finding the link Pryderi!

[Coexist]

17. looks like it to me, but I'm no lawyer

doesn't mention a Star Chamber or Gulag or flattening cities who don't throw us flowers, though.

[lady lib]

18. And we've overspent the $5,000,000 budget by a tad.

[Coexist]

21. just a wee bit.

but is it treasonous to support the insurgents while fighting them? Or is that standard hedge-your-bets Republican policy?

[lady lib]

22. I think the argument could be made

that we didn't give our own policy a chance to work - that Bush violated The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.

[Coexist]

23. so we undermined our own initiative

for democracy to march on its own by the will of the people.

Someone didn't give Bush the Cliff Notes. Think the Dem strategists would use this argument? Nope - they will hem and haw and sound wishy-washy again.

[lady lib]

25. Well put, FLDem5!

As for the Dem strategists: The policy of supporting opposition groups is outlined in a very straightforward manner, so you would think that crafting a rebuttal would not be difficult. You would think at least. Get it down to a few talking points and blast the media with them. Look, if they can't manage this one, we're really in trouble (or in need of some new strategists).

[LunaC]

34. And Clinton NEVER FUNDED THE BILL

See post #33

[Stinky The Clown]

20. "I trusted the Praysident. The Praysident LIED to me."

And for emphasis, one could add: "My vote was based on that LIE from the Praysident"

End of talking points' effectiveness.

[Straight Shooter]

24. But bush never invoked the ILA of 1998 when stating his case for war.

Rove can reach as far down into his bag of magic tricks as his dirty little fingers will go, but the truth is that if there were any power in the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 as a justification for war, bush would have pounded it like a drum.

Fact is, Clinton, for all intents and purposes, ignored the PNAC letter calling for the ouster of Saddam. Which makes me wonder, is that when the right wing ramped up their witchhunt on the Clintons?

[NashVegas]

28. Maybe * Learned His Lesson on Invoking Stuff

Remember the 2002 SoTU? Or was that 2003? Fuck, what a blur.

[Coexist]

27. kick

[salin]

29. why it will only work for the most loyal bushies

the issue is

a) deciding to go to war - while telling the public they were just trying to get pressure on saddam to force him to comply with weapons inspections

This - could very loosely be tied - in a logical argument sense - to the 1998 item...

but the bigger concern to the public is
b) manipulating intelligence, to manipulate the public and congress into supporting a war.

IF the 1998 law gave cover for the policy - then they wouldn't have needed to manipulate intelligence; and the law had nothing about manipulating intelligence and lying to congress within it.

So - for those who are desperate to still believe in bush as goodguy - they will buy it.

for those who are growing skeptical - just the use of such a weak response will make that skepticism grow.

[NashVegas]

30. Oh, Heck, Even the Bushbots Know Better

The question is: will Bush loyalists use this to continue giving him a pass, even though they know it's bullshit.

[salin]

31. pure loyalists - yes

but ... there are a lot of bush voters who didn't nec. like him that much - they were just either "scared" into voting for him.... or convinced by the propoganda that he was "at least better than that other guy." THESE folks - are the ones who won't buy it. THESE folks may already be unhappy with the SS push, among other things. THESE folks may have been turned off by the double whammy of Schaivo and "The Nuclear Option" - the naked demonstration of the power of the religious radical right over the DC GOP. THESE folks might also be a tad uncomfortable with a pres and vice pres claiming great gains in Iraq - and claiming that an increase in insurgency attacks is a sign of winning. FOR THESE FOLKS... this well could be the last straw. I just hope they keep watching/reading or listening to the news. Because the next ten outrages - whatever they are (and at least one or more will most likely involve Tom DeLay) - may just push them away from voting GOP for quite some time - out of sheer disgust.

[LunaC]

32. I want to read H.R. 4655 for myself

The Pugs have a tendency to twist the Truth and sometimes go to the extreme of just making shit up. Once the meme is implanted in the dittohead's lizard brain, they keep on repeating it until they believe it's true. This is a classic pre-emptive Rove mind-fuck in the works.....and we get to track it through it's infancy.

[LunaC]

33. BULLSHIT AlERT!

This bill is to support the IRAQI OPPOSITION. It never came close to opening the door for direct U.S. military intervention.

And here's another handy tidbit to know.....Clinton may have signed the bill but he never funded it! Why? Because a huge portion would heve gone to Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress

Speaking on behalf of the bill in the Senate, Trent Lott said:

"The United States has many means at its disposal to support the liberation of Iraq. At the height of the Cold War, we supported freedom fighters in Asia, Africa and Latin America willing to fight and die for a democratic future. We can and should do the same now in Iraq.

"This year, Congress has already provided $5 million to support the Iraqi political opposition. We provided $5 million to establish Radio Free Iraq . We will provide additional resources for political support in the FY 1999 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, including $3 million for the Iraqi National Congress

"Enactment of this bill will go farther. It requires the President to designate at least one Iraqi opposition group to receive U.S. military assistance. It defines eligibility criteria such a group or groups must meet. Many of us have ideas on how the designation process should work. I have repeatedly stated that the Iraqi National Congress has been effective in the past and can be effective in the future. They represent the broadest possible base of the opposition. There are other groups that are currently active inside Iraq: the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan ,the Kurdish Democratic Party and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq The State Department seems to believe there are more than 70 opposition groups, many of which do not meet the criteria in H.R. 4655. Many barely even exist or have no political base. They should not be considered for support. We should also be very careful about considering designation of groups which do not share our values or which are simply creations of external forces or exile politics, such as the Iraqi Communist Party or the Iraqi National Accord.

"This is an important step. Observers should not misunderstand the Senate's action. Even though this legislation will pass without controversy on an unanimous voice vote, it is a major step forward in the final conclusion of the Persian Gulf war. In 1991, we and our allies shed blood to liberate Kuwait. Today, we are empowering Iraqis to liberate their own country."


Jesse Helms Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, commented:

"This bill will begin the long-overdue process of ousting Saddam. It will not send in U.S. troops or commit American forces in any way. Rather, it harkens back to the successes of the Reagan doctrine, enlisting the very people who are suffering most under Saddam's yoke to fight the battle against him."


According to Senator Bob Kerrey

"Second, this bill is not a device to involve the U.S. military in operations in or near Iraq. The Iraqi revolution is for Iraqis, not Americans, to make. The bill provides the Administration a portent new tool to help Iraqis toward this goal, and at the same time advance America's interest in a peaceful and secure Middle East.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Iraq_Liberation_Act_of_1998

[Straight Shooter]

35. Good catch!

:thumbsup: