The Downing Street Memo: All Smoke, No Gun

[Pryderi]

I just emailed idiot. This guy doesn't understand, nor does he read the US Contitution.

"What's clear from all of this is that this so-called 'smoking gun' has very little substance of any controversy to it. It's mostly information we already knew and there's nothing in the memo which raises any questions of impropriety. What the memo does demonstrate is that Bush wanted to make invading Iraq a high priority after Afghanistan. That's not exactly a bolt from the blue. Most of us realize he wanted to invade Iraq since before he was president. The War on Terror just gave him the opportunity. And truthfully, if he was going to continue with the military appraoch to the WoT, where better to go after Afghanistan than Iraq?"

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/24/111000.php

[ET Awful]

1. Where better to go after Afghanistan than Iraq?

Well first you could FINISH THE FUCKING JOB IN AFGHANISTAN. There's this guy called Osama bin Laden, perhaps you've heard of him .

[jobycom]

4. Just about any place would have been better than Iraq

Iraq was a stable government and an enemy of al-Queda. There was more support for Bin Laden in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Somolia than in Iraq.

Some people have no capacity to think for themselves. The memo argues that Iraq wasn't as big a threat as Libya, Iran or North Korea, and that evidence was being fixed. True, many of us knew both those details before the invasion, but that is not what Bush was saying when he invaded. Bush lied to invade, and the writer of the inanity in the original post admits that, not in so many words. Bush lied to invade a nation. He put our troops in harm's way based on a lie--that's treason. He slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent people--that's a war crime. The original writer has basically admitted this crimes by Bush, but is too stupid, lazy or brainwashed to follow through on his own ideas.

In short, if the Downing Street memo doesn't tell us anything we didn't know already, then it proves Bush's guilt even more, because it proves HE knew it was all a lie before we went in.

[Pryderi]

5. Post messages on neocon blogs to educate/annoy about DSM and gain attentio

Everyone here is pretty much in agreement, why not bring it to the attention to the opposition? Maybe the necons anger would bring the memo to an even larger audience.

[Mountainman]

2. Iraq has nothing to do with the so called "war on terror"

There is no such war on terror. That is the propaganda mime that the neocons use to sell their PNAC ideas to the stupid masses like this writer.

The memo backs up what others have said and that is that Bush lied about the reasons to invade Iraq and no amount of sugar coating can change that.

We should start a list of the bull shit excuses the bush apologists come up with to try to poo poo the memo. It should be laid right up against the list of changing reasons to go to war in Iraq.

[Ilsa]

3. I think it might be the political equivalent to

batter-wife syndrome. These folks love the lying fascist Chimperor, and they'll make excuses for all the lies, stealing, and violence. They are even more swept up when he approaches a state of contrition with offerings of supporting far religious right planks and spouting of their dogma.

[Demit]

6. I think the guy understands. It just doesn't bother him.

He is dismissing the outrage about a president lying us into war, and pooh-poohing the Downing Street Memo (with a ridiculous parsing of the word "fixed" that is pure tautology), and all this is essentially to say, "So what?" He thinks it's just lovely that Bush invaded Iraq and anyone who doesn't is just showing their irrational hatred of Bush. He shows no intellectual curiosity--despite being a self-described teacher--about the reasons people might have to hate Bush.

We've all seen that before, and it's impossible to overcome. Some people are just fine with Empire. I guess it might give them the same rush that driving their oversized SUV's does.

[leesa]

10. This is very true. Many people have no problem with stealing ME oil

and killing many people in the process. We need oil and they have it. I've seen people on this board pose the same question. If we need it, doesn't that justify taking it? Very ethically challenged, these folks.

[Democrats_win]

7. When someone starts out with such personal attacks does anything they

write matter? I'll admit that once you get past the hate, it was well written.

He didn't discuss the idea that bush lied. bush actually said that he hadn't yet made up his mind on Iraq but this memo proves that he had made up his mind and he was manipulating the American people into supporting the unnecessary war.

[Pryderi]

8. Wow. That was fast! Who's "kimmer"? she linked to this site

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/24/111000.php <scroll down>

[leftofthedial]

9. Pakistan

Saudi Arabia

Egypt

Yemen


all would have made more sense that Iraq.

[Pryderi]

11. Well, since my post was removed from their site, I'll put it here

On July 23, 2002, seven months before the invasion of Iraq, the head of British foreign intelligence reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair that President Bush wanted to militarily oust Saddam Hussein.

The memo warned that Washington intelligence was "being fixed around the policy," and that “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 memo goes on to say, “that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. “

The following is a brief timeline of statements made by members of the Bush administration, that take on new meaning in light of the leaked Downing Street Memo.

On February 13, 2002 in testimony given by Secretary Colin Powell to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs, Powell stated:

“At the end of the day, we have not ruled out other options with respect to Iraq. We still believe strongly in regime change in Iraq”

In his State of the Union Address on January 28, 2003, President Bush reported:

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.”

Both of those claims later proved to be false. It’s unfortunate that the Bush Administration demands more from Newsweek, than it does from itself when reporting information.

In an article published by John Dean in July of 2003, he warned:

“Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

It's important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned, he was about to be impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and FBI. After Watergate, all presidents are on notice that manipulating or misusing any agency of the executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of presidential power.”

The Founding Fathers had some thoughts regarding the impeachment of the president.

James Iredell, a future Supreme Court justice speaking at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 said,

"... must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate. He is to regulate all intercourse with foreign powers, and it is his duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives. If it should appear that he has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them, -- in this case, I ask whether, upon an impeachment for a misdemeanor upon such an account, the Senate would probably favor him."

James Madison also at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 stated,

“A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution."

WMDs were the reason the Bush Administration gave in order to go to war. None have been found.

According to the Constitution, only Congress can declare war, or spend the taxpayers' money.

It would seem that President Bush went before Congress and purposely presented incomplete information, and false evidence in order to get permission and the funding to invade Iraq.

The spending of over 300 billion dollars of taxpayer money is “injurious” to the United States.

The huge, ballooning deficits resulting in foreign countries holding IOUs is “injurious” to the United States.

The loss of our soldiers lives, blood and limbs is “injurious” to the United States, particularly if they were sent to war under false pretenses, as the Downing Street Memo states, “intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”


Representative John Conyers has sent a letter, signed by fellow Congressmen, to President Bush requesting he answer questions that are raised by the Downing Street Memo.

Mr Conyers also has a letter for the public to sign that will be sent to President Bush. The following is the text of the letter:
"The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Mr. President:

We the undersigned write to you because of our concern regarding recent disclosures of a “Downing Street Memo” in the London Times, comprising the minutes of a meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers. These minutes indicate that the United States and Great Britain agreed to by the summer of 2002 to attack Iraq, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority to engage in military action, and that U.S. officials were deliberately manipulating intelligence to justify the war.

Among other things, the British government document quotes a high-ranking British official as stating that by July, 2002, “Bush had made up his mind to take military action.” Yet, a month later, the you stated you were still willing to “look at all options” and that there was “no timetable” for war. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, flatly stated that “he president has made no such determination that we should go to war with Iraq.”

In addition, the origins of the false contention that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction remains a serious and lingering question about the lead up to the war. There is an ongoing debate about whether this was the result of a “massive intelligence failure,” in other words a mistake, or the result of intentional and deliberate manipulation of intelligence to justify the case for war. The memo appears to resolve that debate as well, quoting the head of British intelligence as indicating that in the United States “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

As a result of these concerns, we would ask that you respond to the following questions:
1) Do you or anyone in your administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?
2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization to go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain’’s commitment to invade prior to this time?
3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?
4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?
5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to “fix” the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?

These are the same questions 89 Members of Congress, led by Rep. John Conyers, Jr., submitted to you on May 5, 2005. As citizens and taxpayers, we believe it is imperative that our people be able to trust our government and our commander in chief when you make representations and statements regarding our nation engaging in war. As a result, we would ask that you publicly respond to these questions as promptly as possible.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,"

Now that you understand why lying to go to war is unconstitutional, I expect you to be a signee. Thanks.
http://www.johnconyers.com/index.asp?Type=SUPERFORMS&SE...