Does the DSM prove that Bush lied about reasons for war?

[kentuck]

Up to this point, everyone has pointed out that Bush and his regime went to war because of WMDs and the "imminent threat" to our country. Colin Powell made the case before the UN with glossy photographs. Dick Cheney and Condi Rice warned us about the "mushroom cloud". We know they lied about the reasons for going to war.

So why is the DSM important if we already know they lied about reasons for invading Iraq? Because it proves they did not "lie" just because they were mistaken. They lied intentionally. It was no mistake. It was planned. It was not a misjudgement. The DSM proves that Dubya had plans to invade Iraq up to a year before the actual invasion and specifically states that he was fixing the facts and the intelligence to promote his push for war. It was a war of choice. It was not a war of necessity. All the rhetoric about WMDs and aluminum tubes, and nuclear materials, and biological weapons, and threats to us and the world were lies that were built up as a rationale to the American people to support the war. The DSM proves it.

[Singular73]

1. It doesnt prove anything

Unfortunately.

This isn't "proof".

Its what some British Intel guy perceived out of conversation with Bush's people.

Thats called hearsay.

If there were direct quotes, it would be different.

I think thats why the MSM is not jumping on this without real cooberating evidence.

[lynch03]

3. Umm

I thought the memo was just a conversation from top american and british officials, not an interpretation...

[kentuck]

4. So, is the DSM a waste of time?

And was it really just "perceptions" of conversations.... or was it the reality?

[Singular73]

6. It's not a waste of time, but..

Read the minutes.

I wish, with all my heart, that Bush was impeached (because I believe the DSM is absolutely 100% true), but it is not proof, unfortunately.

[magellan]

8. It is NOT hearsay

First of all, only part of the official minutes deals with what Chief of MI6 Sir Richard Dearlove learned from a meeting in Washington with CIA Director George Tenet (not "what some British Intel guy perceived out of a conversation with Bush's people"). And what Dearlove says corroborates what Blair says about his meeting in Crawford TX with Bush** in April 2002.

The definition of hearsay is "rumor". Doesn't apply.

The definition of hearsay evidence is "evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath." What Blair and Dearlove are recorded as saying in the July 2002 meeting is their personal knowledge from meetings with Bush** and Tenet, respectively, not what a third party told them Bush** and Tenet said.

[G2099]

2. yes

[xray s]

5. almost

It provides the reason to open the inquiry, subpoena everyone involved to get their testimony and all related documents on the record. Then you will have all the proof you need.

[Singular73]

7. I agree with that..

Getting people on record would help lots...but remember Clark's testimony..he said the SAME THING, and that didn't seem to matter.