Top U.S. and U.K administrators sent secret memo about fixing facts on Iraq... - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-12-2005, 07:45 AM

For the record Manx, Bush only manipulated America, he told the UN and the world to piss off.

Manx · 05-12-2005, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

For the record Manx, Bush only manipulated America, he told the UN and the world to piss off.

I feel much better.

Of course, that's not true. He manipulated them AND told them to fuck off when they weren't buying the lies.

host · 05-12-2005, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Yes I can see myself defending this war to my children in 15 years. As myself and other have stated here before, the who/what/why's are someone elses means to an end, not mine. I see Bushs actions, regardless of motives, as correcting one of the worlds greatest injustices through our action in Iraq. We hung those people out to dry after Gulf War I and we put them in a world of hell with the sanctions. Because of Saddam it is not a lie or exaggeration to say that MILLIONS of people are dead because he had no regard for his own people, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people are dead because the guy was a total paranoid nutbar, now he'll never be able to hurt anyone again. I have always been big on the saying that all evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing, well we did nothing and millions upon million needlessly suffered... I see our action in Iraq as finally doing something in a mess we started. What you fail to realize is that words or bureaucracy(sp) (read the UN and it's actions) have no power and no authority, they don't get shit accomplished, all they are is hot air. I would've been fine with going into Iraq without the build up of WMD's, it was our mess to fix.

On top of that, I know the world will be a better place for them as Americans to grow up in because of our actions now. People like you are too shortsighted and blind to the policy behind the actions, that being the bottomline. We will never fully know the effects of our actions, because I'm willing to bet the farm that a great deal of drama and conflict is being averted by American blood in Iraq. As such in the long run America will be a stronger nation for this, as this action in Iraq keeps the world political landscape favorable to us.

Yeah.....if you give your kids the background info, so they'll know who "get shit accomplished". Don't hold anything back, better that they hear it from you!

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true
U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds

By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 30, 2002; Page A01

High on the Bush administration's list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists. What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally.

Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.

The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Throughout the 1980s, Hussein's Iraq was the sworn enemy of Iran, then still in the throes of an Islamic revolution. U.S. officials saw Baghdad as a bulwark against militant Shiite extremism and the fall of pro-American states such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and even Jordan -- a Middle East version of the "domino theory" in Southeast Asia. That was enough to turn Hussein into a strategic partner and for U.S. diplomats in Baghdad to routinely refer to Iraqi forces as "the good guys," in contrast to the Iranians, who were depicted as "the bad guys."

A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

Opinions differ among Middle East experts and former government officials about the pre-Iraqi tilt, and whether Washington could have done more to stop the flow to Baghdad of technology for building weapons of mass destruction...............

Quote:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...elp-list_x.htm
9/30/2002 - Updated 02:31 PM ET
A look at U.S. shipments of pathogens to Iraq

Shipments from the United States to Iraq of the kinds of pathogens later used in Iraq's biological weapons programs, according to records from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Senate Banking Committee and U.N. weapons inspectors:

ANTHRAX

Iraq admitted making 2,200 gallons of anthrax spores and putting some of them into weapons. U.N. inspectors said Iraq could have made three times as much anthrax as it acknowledged, and could not verify Iraq's claims to have destroyed all of its weaponized anthrax.

The American Type Culture Collection, a biological samples repository in Manassas, Va., sent two shipments of anthrax to Iraq in the 1980s. Three anthrax strains were in a May 1986 shipment sent to the University of Baghdad, which U.N. inspectors later linked to Iraq's biological weapons program. A 1988 shipment from ATCC to Iraq also included four anthrax strains.

BOTULINUM

Iraq admitted making 5,300 gallons of botulinum toxin, a deadly poison produced by the Clostridium botulinum bacteria, and putting some of it into weapons. Five warheads filled with botulinum toxin are missing.

ATCC sent six strains of Clostridium botulinum to the University of Baghdad in the May 1986 shipment. The September 1988 ATCC shipment to Iraq also contained one strain of Clostridium botulinum.

In March 1986, the CDC sent samples of botulinum toxin and botulinum toxiod (used to make a vaccine against botulinum poisoning) directly to Iraq's al-Muthanna complex, a center for Iraq's chemical weapons program and the site where Iraq restarted its dormant biological weapons program in 1985.

GAS GANGRENE

U.N. inspectors concluded Iraq could have produced hundreds of gallons of the germs that cause gas gangrene, though Iraq admitted producing just a fraction of that amount. Gas gangrene, caused by the Clostridium perfringens bacteria, causes toxic gases to form inside the body, killing tissues and causing internal bleeding, lung and liver damage.

ATCC sent three strains of Clostridium perfringens to the University of Baghdad in the May 1986 shipment and another three strains in the 1988 shipment.

OTHER

The CDC sent bacteria samples to Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission in 1985, 1987 and 1988. The commission was involved in Saddam's attempts to build a nuclear bomb and other weapons of mass destruction.

The CDC also sent bacteria samples to the Sera and Vaccine Institute in Amiriyah, Iraq in 1988. The institute stored samples and did genetic engineering research for Iraq's biological weapons programs, U.N. inspectors found.

Quote:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...q-ushelp_x.htm
09/30/2002 - Updated 02:33 PM ET
Report: U.S. supplied the kinds of germs Iraq later used for biological weapons

WASHINGTON (AP) — Iraq's bioweapons program that President Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show. Iraq had ordered the samples, claiming it needed them for legitimate medical research. (Related story: A look at U.S. shipments of pathogens to Iraq)

The CDC and a biological sample company, the American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and the germs that cause gas gangrene, the records show. Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including the West Nile virus.

The transfers came in the 1980s, when the United States supported Iraq in its war against Iran. They were detailed in a 1994 Senate Banking Committee report and a 1995 follow-up letter from the CDC to the Senate............

....................
Byrd asked Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld about the germ transfers at a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. Byrd noted that Rumsfeld met Saddam in 1983, when Rumsfeld was President Reagan's Middle East envoy.

"Are we, in fact, now facing the possibility of reaping what we have sown?" Byrd asked Rumsfeld after reading parts of a Newsweek article on the transfers.............

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true
(near the bottom............)
The U.S. policy of cultivating Hussein as a moderate and reasonable Arab leader continued right up until he invaded Kuwait in August 1990, documents show. When the then-U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, met with Hussein on July 25, 1990, a week before the Iraqi attack on Kuwait, she assured him that Bush "wanted better and deeper relations," according to an Iraqi transcript of the conversation. "President Bush is an intelligent man," the ambassador told Hussein, referring to the father of the current president. "He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq."

"Everybody was wrong in their assessment of Saddam," said Joe Wilson, Glaspie's former deputy at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, and the last U.S. official to meet with Hussein. "Everybody in the Arab world told us that the best way to deal with Saddam was to develop a set of economic and commercial relationships that would have the effect of moderating his behavior. History will demonstrate that this was a miscalculation."

host · 05-12-2005, 09:04 AM

Is this a sign of momentum driven by a growing awareness, or an isolated gesture?

Families of fallen US Soldiers organization demand the immediate resignations of Bush, Cheney, and their cabinet officials so that "A return to private citizen status will mean that the people responsible for so much death and destruction will be able to be held accountable to the laws of our land and for damaging humanity so thoroughly."

Quote:

http://www.gsfp.org/
May 7, 2005

As the official casualty count for the occupation of Iraq is rapidly approaching 1600 and on the eve of Mother�s Day, Gold Star Families for Peace issues the following statement to George W. Bush:

We represent families of fallen American troops who oppose the occupation of Iraq and refuse to let George W. Bush continue the killing in our name. We support the immediate withdrawal of American and Coalition Forces from Iraq.

George W. Bush has consistently iterated the hurtful and meaningless phrase: We need to keep our troops in Iraq to finish the mission to honor the sacrifices of fallen heroes. We at Gold Star Families for Peace disagree with George Bush on this and most other of his activities and words. It is too late for our loved ones and our families. Our sons and daughters; brothers and sisters; nieces and nephews; husbands and wives have already been killed in this needless and senseless war. We don�t want one more innocent person murdered, especially in our names. Just because our soldier�s blood has already been spilled does not mean we families are thirsty for more. We insist that George W. Bush stop justifying his bloodlust by assuming we families are blood thirsty also.

We demand that George W. Bush honors our family�s sacrifices by admitting to the �mistakes and miscalculations� (Washington Post, Jan. 17, 2005) of this invasion and occupation of Iraq by ending the occupation immediately and bringing our troops home now. This is not a request and it is not negotiable.

We individually, and as a group, are dismayed and broken-hearted anew as the memo from Great Britain dated 23 July, 2002 has recently surfaced. This invasion and occupation of a sovereign country was prefabricated and has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of human beings, has destroyed the lives of millions, and demolished a country that was no threat to the USA. In addition to withdrawal of the troops, we call for the immediate resignation of George Bush, Dick Cheney and the entire Cabinet. A return to private citizen status will mean that the people responsible for so much death and destruction will be able to be held accountable to the laws of our land and for damaging humanity so thoroughly.

Gold Star Families for Peace.

Cindy Sheehan
Founding Member of GSFP
Scindy121@aol.com

Elphaba · 05-12-2005, 05:07 PM

Another meta-media experience? Perhaps the mainstream press has awakened.

www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051205A.shtml

Indignation Grows in US over British Prewar Documents
By John Daniszewski
The Los Angeles Times

Thursday 12 May 2005

Critics of Bush call them proof that he and Blair never saw diplomacy as an option with Hussein.
London - Reports in the British press this month based on documents indicating that President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair had conditionally agreed by July 2002 to invade Iraq appear to have blown over quickly in Britain.

But in the United States, where the reports at first received scant attention, there has been growing indignation among critics of the Bush White House, who say the documents help prove that the leaders made a secret decision to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein nearly a year before launching their attack, shaped intelligence to that aim and never seriously intended to avert the war through diplomacy.

The documents, obtained by Michael Smith, a defense specialist writing for the Sunday Times of London, include a memo of the minutes of a meeting July 23, 2002, between Blair and his intelligence and military chiefs; a briefing paper for that meeting and a Foreign Office legal opinion prepared before an April 2002 summit between Blair and Bush in Texas.

The picture that emerges from the documents is of a British government convinced of the US desire to go to war and Blair's agreement to it, subject to several specific conditions.

Since Smith's report was published May 1, Blair's Downing Street office has not disputed the documents' authenticity. Asked about them Wednesday, a Blair spokesman said the report added nothing significant to the much-investigated record of the lead-up to the war.

"At the end of the day, nobody pushed the diplomatic route harder than the British government.... So the circumstances of this July discussion very quickly became out of date," said the spokesman, who asked not to be identified.

The leaked minutes sum up the July 23 meeting, at which Blair, top security advisors and his attorney general discussed Britain's role in Washington's plan to oust Hussein. The minutes, written by Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy aide, indicate general thoughts among the participants about how to create a political and legal basis for war. The case for military action at the time was "thin," Foreign Minister Jack Straw was characterized as saying, and Hussein's government posed little threat.

Labeled "secret and strictly personal - UK eyes only," the minutes begin with the head of the British intelligence service, MI6, who is identified as "C," saying he had returned from Washington, where there had been a "perceptible shift in attitude. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy."

Straw agreed that Bush seemed determined to act militarily, although the timing was not certain.

"But the case was thin," the minutes say. "Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capacity was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

Straw then proposed to "work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam" to permit United Nations weapons inspectors back into Iraq. "This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force," he said, according to the minutes.

Blair said, according to the memo, "that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors."

"If the political context were right, people would support regime change," Blair said. "The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work."

In addition to the minutes, the Sunday Times report referred to a Cabinet briefing paper that was given to participants before the July 23 meeting. It stated that Blair had already promised Bush cooperation earlier, at the April summit in Texas.

"The UK would support military action to bring about regime change," the Sunday Times quoted the briefing as saying.

Excerpts from the paper, which Smith provided to the Los Angeles Times, said Blair had listed conditions for war, including that "efforts had been made to construct a coalition/shape public opinion, the Israel-Palestine crisis was quiescent," and options to "eliminate Iraq's WMD through the UN weapons inspectors" had been exhausted.

The briefing paper said the British government should get the US to put its military plans in a "political framework."

"This is particularly important for the UK because it is necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action," it says.

In a letter to Bush last week, 89 House Democrats expressed shock over the documents. They asked if the papers were authentic and, if so, whether they proved that the White House had agreed to invade Iraq months before seeking Congress' OK.

"If the disclosure is accurate, it raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of our own administration," the letter says.

"While the president of the United States was telling the citizens and the Congress that they had no intention to start a war with Iraq, they were working very close with Tony Blair and the British leadership at making this a foregone conclusion," the letter's chief author, Rep. John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, said Wednesday.

If the documents are real, he said, it is "a huge problem" in terms of an abuse of power. He said the White House had not yet responded to the letter.

Both Blair and Bush have denied that a decision on war was made in early 2002. The White House and Downing Street maintain that they were preparing for military operations as an option, but that the option to not attack also remained open until the war began March 20, 2003.

In January 2002, Bush described Iraq as a member of an "axis of evil," but the sustained White House push for Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions did not come until September of that year. That month, Bush addressed the UN General Assembly to outline a case against Hussein's government, and he sought a bipartisan congressional resolution authorizing the possible use of force.

In November 2002, the UN Security Council approved a resolution demanding that Iraq readmit weapons inspectors.

An effort to pass a second resolution expressly authorizing the use of force against Iraq did not succeed.

host · 05-19-2005, 10:30 PM

Okay, thirteen days after 89 congressman signed this letter
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democ...emoltr5505.pdf

Here is the reported response from the propaganda ministry of our "war president":

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/po...20weapons.html
The White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, told reporters on Tuesday that the White House saw "no need" to respond to the Democratic letter.

The 89 congresspersons who signed the letter represent 600,000 people in each of the 89 congressional districts. The "war president" is responding to the letter with the reaction that there is "no need" to respond to an inquiry about this important new disclosure, to the congressional representatives of more than 50 million Americans.

Is there any point where Bush supporters, who exhibit such a low level of tolerance concerning the confirmation of Newsweek's recent report about "koran abuse", will consider it unreasonable for the president to openly avoid accountability about the circumstances that caused him to lead the U.S. to invade and occupy Iraq?

Lebell · 05-20-2005, 06:18 AM

Soooo,

In one post you're are pissed that we were trying to stop him with diplomacy (using gas on his own people) and then when we decided to act...you are pissed.

Ok...

guy44 · 05-20-2005, 07:07 AM

Oy. I can't believe I'm saying this yet again: the importance of this memo has nothing to do with whether you believe we should have invaded Iraq or not. Instead, its importance is entirely based on the issue of Bush and Blair concocting fake reasons to convince their populaces to support a war that the two of them wanted. It's about bamboozling, and lying to the public to gain support for a war rather than lay out an honest case.

For this, amongst other things, I'm quite certain that there's a special level of hell reserved for Bush.

Ustwo · 05-20-2005, 08:06 AM

As a neo-con I have a response for you.

*shrug*

Manx · 05-20-2005, 08:38 AM

By any means necessary. Of course, if one lie is acceptable - why not a dozen lies? Or nothing but lies? They're all acceptable if that's what it takes to "convince" the American public of what it doesn't know best. While we're subverting the American public, lets just get rid of this whole election thing anyway. I mean, since the American public clearly can't be trusted to do the "right thing", as defined by Ustwo and George Bush, why even give them the modicum of an option every 4 years?

But lo, if the lie is something totally innocuous, like an extra-marital affair - Ustwo will be leading the charge!

guy44 · 05-20-2005, 08:49 AM

Hey, Ustwo, I have an idea. 4 years from now, lets all elect a Democratic president. Then, he or she will decide, quite rightly, that neocons are by and large machiavellian chickenhawsk whose megalomaniacal designs for world power trump any known sense of decency. So the new president, in a rare and brilliant moment of irony appreciation, decides its best to send all the neocons to Abu Ghraib - as prisoners. Now, this new president shouldn't have to try and convince the American public or Congress that this should happen on its merits, should he/she? No. See, the new president knows best, and whatever the preznit wants, the preznit gets. So the preznit will lie, claim that neocons helped undertake 9/11, that they gave WMD to Saddam Hussein (oh wait, that one's true, thanks Rummy), and then trick the American people into doing something they wouldn't otherwise do.

But that's OK, right? Cause preznit knows best.

RangerDick · 05-20-2005, 08:58 AM

...someone forgot to take their meds this morning.

flamingdog · 05-20-2005, 10:26 AM

You shrug? A bare-faced lie takes two nations to war, and you shrug? There seem to be some seriously myopia going around out there. I, personally, care very much that the intelligence was shaped to fit the policy, because that leads us to ask, what, then, shaped the policy, if not the intelligence? That SCARES me. It's like a fucking shadow play out there or something.

And THIS:

Quote:

As such in the long run America will be a stronger nation for this, as this action in Iraq keeps the world political landscape favorable to us.

That's even scarier.

host · 05-20-2005, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Soooo,

In one post you're are pissed that we were trying to stop him with diplomacy (using gas on his own people) and then when we decided to act...you are pissed.

Ok...

Lebell, the talking point of the week is "Newsweek lied, people died". The following is a screencapture of the last speech that Bush made before the invasion and occupation of Iraq began.
The search words ("weapons" "mass" "destruction" "government" "threat" "disarm" "qaeda" "freedom" "free" "iraq" )are linked here:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...&hl=en&start=1
The words "democracy" and "democratic" are not found. There is only one reference to "free Iraq". New reasons to "fix the facts" came afterwards.
Here is an aptly titled reminder of how we got here:

<img src="http://me.to/images/svr018.gif">
<img src="http://me.to/images/svr020.gif">
<img src="http://me.to/images/svr021.gif">
<h4>Do you see the words "democratic" or "democracy", or much of an emphasis on anything but WMD, and a whole paragraph linking the discredited "Al Qaeda" link? "Deception" is highlighted at the top of the page. We want to know who intentionally deceived our country into invading and occupying another country.</h4>

Lebell · 05-20-2005, 12:08 PM

I was talking about your posts, not the previous ones.

In one, you seem upset over the fact that Saddam was attacking his own people while we were engaging him. In another you seem upset that we engaged him.

As to the charge made ad naseum, we've been over this ground at least a dozen times.

I too could provide dozens upon dozens of cut and pasted articles where people from both sides of the aisle state Saddam had WMDs. I could paste all the violations of the UN resolutions. I could paste articles on the first gulf wars. Yada yada.

But you've made up it very clear that you've made up your mind. So why bother?

Lebell · 05-20-2005, 12:12 PM

I see we need another warning.

I don't see any reason to pile on to a poster because you don't like his position.

And one of you knows better.

One seven day time out issued to Manx.

Anyone care to join him in the box?

Ustwo · 05-20-2005, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Anyone care to join him in the box?

How ya been keeping up Labell? Looks like things are more nutty than usual here.

stevo · 05-20-2005, 05:58 PM

happy to be back ustwo? I've hardly felt the urge to post until this week in a long time.

welcome back

Ustwo · 05-20-2005, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

happy to be back ustwo? I've hardly felt the urge to post until this week in a long time.

welcome back

I've been mostly actively avoiding politics in my personal life so I'm not as well informed as I was a few months ago. Since the same topics are being discussed here as when I left it most likely won't hurt my arguments

MoonDog · 05-20-2005, 10:53 PM

Quote:

The United States chief prosecutor at Nuremberg declared to the world in his closing statement at the trial of the principle Nazi war criminals, that "We charge unlawful aggression but we are not trying the motives, hopes, or frustrations which may have led Germany to resort to aggressive war as an instrument of policy. The law, unlike politics, does not concern itself with the good or evil in the status quo, nor with the merits of the grievances against it. It merely requires that the status quo be not attacked by violent means and that policies be not advanced by war.

-Robert H. Jackson

That is an interesting quote, and there is no denying that Robert H. Jackson was a man of many talents. But, if we are to base our arguments here at least in part on Justice Jackson - as Host would have us do, apparently - it is important to remember that current international law does not even offer a definition of aggression that could be applied to any trial of US citizens involved in the Iraq War. At least, I don't THINK that it does...it's on the books, but it's vague as vague can be.

The US - spanning years and multiple Administrations - has effectively spurned many of the ideas of Jackson regarding international law. I'm not saying whether this is good or bad, I'm just stating facts as they appear to me from official US policy stances over the years.

On another note, I fail to see why this topic is repeatedly jammed like a finger in my eye, and with such accusatory language. It's becoming insulting. The arguments presented here will most likely change NOT ONE SINGLE OPINION, and yet posters persevere? Haven't we reached a point where we have tired of the slick, sarcastic language, the information overload, and the attempts to use the English language to "one-up" perceived rivals on this forum?

The problem is that everyone who supports investigations on the Administration and Iraq needs to get someone who is willing to gather the evidence - THAT WILL STAND UP IN COURT UNDER SCRUTINY - and then get the indictments out! I have said it before and will say it again - I would support the rulings of a US court on any such investigation - even if it meant that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, etc. took a trip to Leavenworth as a result. I would hope that all of my fellow Republicans/Bush supporters would agree?

But you had better hurry, because these damn investigations take time, and there's always the very real possibility of Presidential pardons when the next person takes office. Hillary Clinton might not go the pardon route, but I could see Giuliani or Powell doing so in a hearbeat.

boatin · 05-21-2005, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Maybe instead of constantly posting inflammitory posts about those of us who support the war (still), trying to truely understand why we do.

I personally dont care how they justified the war. It's justified in my opinion simply because the good will outnumber the bad. You screaming at us about how there were lies, how he was oil hungry, how whatever else doesnt sway me. Not because I dont believe it, but because I dont care. The Iraqi people will be much better off at the end of this, and I believe they will look on us as we look on FDR doing shady things to attempt to provolk us into war with Germany. Most wont have a problem with it because hindsight grants clarity of vision. I'll let history judge my stance on it, not you.

This is the issue that has me conflicted about the whole thing. I'm glad he's gone. Given the binary choice between Saddam/No Saddam, I suspect 100% of people on this forum would choose the second option.

There is significant good that comes of him being gone.

But it wasn't a binary choice. And what I see you writing, Seaver, is that ends justify the means. I'm no philosopher, but I don't buy that. I think good things can happen from bad means, but more often it goes the other way.

Two things here:

[1]Time will tell the true cost
[2]What happens next time?

It's way to early to determine if the outcomes will be good. Because of the choices made, there were costs to:

Relations with the world
Increase in terrorism
Damage and trust between Administration and (some) public
Cost of American life
others?

Will the cost of those someday overwrite the benefit of Saddam being gone? Or does ANY amount of things on that list not outweigh Saddam being gone? I would find that hard to believe is your stance.

It's the second item that has my panties in a twist, however. It may have worked the first time (may being the operative word), but can you trust him next time?

Manipulating the American people to this degree can't be good. Doesn't that have a price? Or does it just not matter because Saddam is gone? That, too, is hard for me to believe.

Ustwo · 05-21-2005, 05:12 PM

In war the ends always justify the means. To think or act otherwise is inviting disaster. I do not think the American people were majorly manipulated by lies and whatnot. You will note who won the election in 2004. All of these 'facts' have been out there and quite frankly most of us dont' care or don't believe them.

For me the obvious conclusion is the straight forward one. The WMD reports were overstated, and Bush acted on the information he had. Had it been nothing but a lie, we wouldn't be having this debate because someone willing to mislead a nation into war would also have planted plenty of 'WMD' evidence. The iroinc thing is its the honesty of the Bush administration which allows people to claim they are dishonest. If the Bush admin was truely as bad and evil as they claim there wouldn't be debate since they would have covered their bases.

host · 05-21-2005, 11:02 PM

Those of you who embrace and support these pre-emptive, aggressive war policies of the Bush administration do not seem to recognize the effects on you personally that result from your empowerment of the Bush administration. You post your defenses, justifications, rationale for invading and occupying Iraq under false or at least circumstances misleading to the point that no argument can be made that it was necessary for our national security. None of you has apparently experienced a personal loss or the shedding of the blood of someone close to you because of this war.

You have suffered other losses, because you have crossed a threshhold of opinion and belief that permits and supports the conduct of the Bush administration. You no longer require sincere disclosure or justification by the CIC of the U.S. military before he orders the sons and daughters of other Americans into harms way. That is a big leap for you to make, and I have to ask you, <h4>How dare you? How the fuck do you dare to support, and as a result, empower the current president, or any president, to send a son of my family into harms way, telling him and all of us that he is risking his life to quell a threat to our national security, when it is not fucking true?</h4>

Quote:

<a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040531&s=savoy"> The Moral Case Against the Iraq War</a>
.......The problem opponents of the war have had in responding to President Bush's claim of moral legitimacy, as University of California linguistics professor George Lakoff suggests, is that they have addressed the moral issue in the terms the President has framed it rather than reframing the issue in their own moral terms. Talking about the world, or at least Iraq, being "better off" avoids confronting the civilian carnage caused by the war. As the late Robert Nozick cautioned in his classic work on the moral basis of freedom, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, we should be wary of talking about the overall good of society or of a particular country. There is no social entity called Iraq that benefited from some self-sacrifice it suffered for its own greater good, like a patient who voluntarily endures some pain to be better off than before. There were only individual human beings living in Iraq before the war, with their individual lives. Sacrificing the lives of some of them for the benefit of others killed them and benefited the others. Nothing more. Each of those Iraqis killed in the war was a separate person, and the unfinished life each of them lost was the only life he or she had, or would ever have. They clearly are not better off now that Saddam is gone from power.....................

You do yourself, your countrymen, and all of our brave young Americans who wear, or contemplate wearing the uniform of a branch of the U.S. military a grave disservice. Your support for this has helped to diminish the collective resolve of all of us to volunteer to defend our country, as a civilian or as a member of our military. In the weeks after 9/11, President Bush and his government had the nearly universal support of Americans and of the western world. Bush and the officials he selected to administer the policies that they determined and declared to be the most timely and effective to keep America secure in a post 9/11 world, do not have much to show for their efforts in terms of successes, 44 months later.

44 months after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. found itself in August, 1945. Germany had been defeated by then, and two Japanese cities had been bombed by nuclear weapons that on Dec. 7, 1941, were only on the drawing boards, with no existing process to refine the fissionable material that made their unprecedented destructive force compact and cost effective enough to be delivered on an enemy from the air.

In comparison the policies that you support have resulted in dividing the nation, slowing recruitment of volunteers to fill our military's manpower requirements, turned the outpouring of foreign sympathy for America post attack, and the sentiment to ally with Bush's intially declared "war on terrorism", into distance and disdain, and a measurable decline of foreign trust of the word of our president, state department, or of our military leaders.

Our military commanders just this week describe our presence in Iraq as <a href="http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/11693778.htm">Iraq outlook bleak, U.S. generals say</a> , even as CIC Bush spins their pronouncements in his own misleading way. <a href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=bush+progress+iraq&btnG=Search+News">http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=bush+progress+iraq&btnG=Search+News</a>

host · 05-21-2005, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

In war the ends always justify the means. To think or act otherwise is inviting disaster. I do not think the American people were majorly manipulated by lies and whatnot. You will note who won the election in 2004. All of these 'facts' have been out there and quite frankly most of us dont' care or don't believe them..........

I do not expect to change anyone's mind. If my efforts can strengthen the resolve of those who demand sincerity, disclosure, and accountability of our elected officials, as a minimum standard for those deserving of our vote and of our post election support, my participation here will be worth my while. Ustwo, I would not be impressed if Bush had received ninety percent of last November's vote. The damage he has done to the credibility of our government and to his administration is what it is, in the oipinion of some Americans, and in the opinion of many in other nations. Does the plurality of this poll result affect your opinion?:

Quote:

http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855
Released: August 30, 2004

Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals

A presentation that responds to "In war the ends always justify the means.":

Quote:

http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/ra...howtopic=50921
These are powerful lies.

Some of our fellow citizens seem to think it is okay to mislead people if the ends justify the means. The morality of this war can be debated. But here is the best article related to the morality (or lack thereof) of this war. http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040531&s=savoy

This analysis should be shared. So if you too are outraged by this information or this analysis, please forward it to everyone you know. It needs to be debated wether you agree or not.

One last question, what would have happened to you if you lied and it cost 10 lives and $1billion? Would you have been fired or jailed? Maybe both?

Sincerely,
An Honest American

Reference Web Sites and Footnote
1. http://democrats.reform.house.gov/Ir...record_rep.pdf, http://democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/
2. http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...351165,00.html
3. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/m...8/ritter.iraq/
4. http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern06232003.html
5. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in577975.shtml
6.http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true
7. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...895882,00.html
8. http://icasualties.org/oif/
9. http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
10. http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar/index.html

This post has been edited by lh beetle: May 17 2005, 11:22 PM

roachboy · 05-22-2005, 07:03 AM

huh--i seem to remember that, during the cold war, the folk who wore white hats characterized the folk who wore black hats--you know, stalin et al--as being evil because they approached politics using an "ends justify the means" rationality. at that time, this rationality was framed as a kind of "anything goes" element within a type of ideological fanaticism.

it is pretty funny to read precisely this type of argument being floated above to justify the end-run around all legal parameters that cowboy george and his administration engineered in order to invade iraq. but it seems to track other modes of drift in argument...

Quote:

In war the ends always justify the means

except that this memo--tip of an iceberg--was not written in the context of a war, but prior to, as a reflection on/about the process of constructing a (false) case *for* war.

unless what you mean by this argument, ustwo, to the extent that it is one, that war starts from the instant anyone thinks about war. in which case, the idea of war means nothing---it is a kind of psychological state, a formalised snippiness----only incidentally is war an actual event---for your argument to hold, war is a curiously nebulous thing the primary function of which is to legitimate any and all actions undertaken by an administration that you agree with politically--i expect that your definition of war would be very very different if, say, a democrat was in the white house. but that is the advantage of a nebulous idea--it is wholly instrumental from the outset, and in its use--the ends justify the means---right?

at this point, the right only has "saddam hussein was a bad man" to legitimate its actions. well that and the rove response, which is to pretend that questions about the legitimacy of the war were somehow "answered" in the last election--which assumes that this information about distorting information as a function of a decision to go to war based on nothing was already in the public sphere before novemebr--which of course it wasnt, not in this obvious and detailed a way. so two arguments really: the end justifies the means, and we already had this debate.

both these arguments are simply nuts.

what they point to is the amazing ability to avoid dissonant information that seems characteristic of conservative ideology--why face unpleasant facts when you can always just turn on fox news, which will not bother you with it?---this of course as an argument is at once not much different from the "war" argument above--for all the years of husseins rule that saw him a convenient tool of american foreign policy, he might have been a dickhead, but he was our dickhead and so nothing was said about him, about his actions--not even the infamous use of gas, which the reagan administration knew full well about and said nothing about because, at the time, the argument that it was directed against a military target was enough. after the invasion of kuwait, however he stopped being convenient and so became evil incarnate. hussein himself was a miserable, brutal piece character the entire time--what changed was the american relation to him.

is iraq better off without saddam hussein? probably. of course it is hard to know what is really going on in iraq still because the pooled press is still relaying defense department talking points in the main. there are arguments that iraq is sliding toward civil war. this would be a complete fiasco. but i am sure the right will "take the long view" on this.

but even if iraq were a rosy, lovely situation now (it obviously is not) would this in any way justify the extralegal activities of the bush administration? not in the slightest.
but maybe this is why the nebulous category "war" and the pseudo-argument attached to it above makes sense: it is nothing other than an empty slogan that enables a refusal to think about unpleasant information.

guy44 · 05-22-2005, 08:30 AM

I just love how there can be piles of evidence - the known lie about Niger yellowcake in the State of the Union, the repeated claims by Bushco that Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda despite the fact that they couldn't even conjure up fake evidence to indicate that, a memo nobody is disputing to be true that has the head of British intelligence commenting on how the Bushies made up their mind to go to war in early 2002 and were fixing the intelligence around that decision - I mean, all of this utterly undeniable evidence, and still people say shit like, "I don't think they were lying. They just had bad intel and maybe fudged the facts a little."

How long can people simply ignore the existence of unrefutable evidence?

Ustwo · 05-22-2005, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

How long can people simply ignore the existence of unrefutable evidence?

As soon as I see some I'll let you know.

Then I will *shrug* at you, and not care anyways.

I will then eat some high protein snacks, and play with my child.

If the White Sox are playing I might watch the game.

You see, while I don't see boogymen under ever rock, nor do I see your 'unrefutable evidence', the fact that you bring up the yellow cake argument is proof to me you use a different definition of 'unrefutable' than I do, I do see the mideast as being an area we need a strong foothold in, and I don't CARE why we did it, I am just glad we did do it.

USA 1 Evil 0.

guy44 · 05-22-2005, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

USA 1 Evil 0.

Wow. That's complex, man. Deep. Good to see we're operating on half a level of analysis when it comes to issues of war.

Ustwo · 05-22-2005, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

Wow. That's complex, man. Deep. Good to see we're operating on half a level of analysis when it comes to issues of war.

If you want a thesis on why removing a dictator and replacing it with a democracy in the mid east is a good thing, there are plenty of them out there. This has been discussed NUMEROUS AND MULTIPLE TIMES on the board here. I see no need why I should repeat it.

Now relax and have some snacks.

roachboy · 05-22-2005, 10:58 AM

interesting that you confuse your sentiments about family and baseball with an argument about the war in iraq, ustwo.
how does this logic work?
you say that you prefer hanging out at home and thinking about that to developing informed positions about this matter--so for you whatever the present administration says to justify itself and its actions are just hunky dory--all of which are your choices, of course, and as such are nothing to argue about-----but if all that is true, then why post as if your position--that you like your child and baseball--amounts to anything like a considered, informed argument on the topic of the war in iraq?

host · 05-22-2005, 03:18 PM

Recent comments posted here remind me of the lyrics of a '60s folksong:

Quote:

http://www.cs.pdx.edu/%7Etrent/ochs/
Outside Of A Small Circle Of Friends
By Phil Ochs

Look outside the window, there's a woman being grabbed
They've dragged her to the bushes and now she's being stabbed
Maybe we should call the cops and try to stop the pain
But Monopoly is so much fun, I'd hate to blow the game
And I'm sure it wouldn't interest anybody
Outside of a small circle of friends.

Riding down the highway, yes, my back is getting stiff
Thirteen cars are piled up, they're hanging on a cliff.
Maybe we should pull them back with our towing chain
But we gotta move and we might get sued and it looks like it's gonna rain
And I'm sure it wouldn't interest anybody
Outside of a small circle of friends.

Sweating in the ghetto with the colored and the poor
The rats have joined the babies who are sleeping on the floor
Now wouldn't it be a riot if they really blew their tops?
But they got too much already and besides we got the cops
And I'm sure it wouldn't interest anybody
Outside of a small circle of friends.

Oh there's a dirty paper using sex to make a sale
The Supreme Court was so upset, they sent him off to jail.
Maybe we should help the fiend and take away his fine.
But we're busy reading Playboy and the Sunday New York Times
And I'm sure it wouldn't interest anybody
Outside of a small circle of friends

Smoking marihuana is more fun than drinking beer,
But a friend of ours was captured and they gave him thirty years
Maybe we should raise our voices, ask somebody why
But demonstrations are a drag, besides we're much too high
And I'm sure it wouldn't interest anybody
Outside of a small circle of friends

Oh look outside the window, there's a woman being grabbed
They've dragged her to the bushes and now she's being stabbed
Maybe we should call the cops and try to stop the pain
But Monopoly is so much fun, I'd hate to blow the game
And I'm sure it wouldn't interest anybody
Outside of a small circle of friends

Phil Ochs also wrote this in the eraly days of US involvement in Vietnam:

Quote:

Oh I marched to the battle of New Orleans
G C D
At the end of the early British war
G C
The young land started growing
G
The young blood started flowing
C Am D
But I ain't marchin' anymore

For I've killed my share of Indians
In a thousand different fights
I was there at the Little Big Horn
I heard many men lying
I saw many more dying
But I ain't marchin' anymore

C G
It's always the old to lead us to the war
C Am D
It's always the young to fall
Now look at all we've won with the sabre and the gun
Tell me is it worth it all........

Hardknock · 05-22-2005, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

I see that the spate of bannings from this morning has gone unnoticed or unremarked by some.

Let me make it clear.

The tone of this thread needs to change immediately.

Two (maybe three) of you are on the edge of joining the time out.

Be polite or leave.

Your choice.

Doesn't it get boring having to babysit?

Just curious.

Lebell · 05-22-2005, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardknock

Doesn't it get boring having to babysit?

Just curious.

Tedious is the correct word.

People know the rules but some seem unwilling or incapable of following them.

host · 05-31-2005, 12:23 AM

A followup news report from the U.K. newspaper that broke the "Downing Street memo" story.

Quote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...632566,00.html
The Sunday Times - Britain

May 29, 2005

RAF bombing raids tried to goad Saddam into war
Michael Smith
THE RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war, new evidence has shown.

The attacks were intensified from May, six months before the United Nations resolution that Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, argued gave the coalition the legal basis for war. By the end of August the raids had become a full air offensive.

The details follow the leak to The Sunday Times of minutes of a key meeting in July 2002 at which Blair and his war cabinet discussed how to make “regime change” in Iraq legal.

Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, told the meeting that “the US had already begun ‘spikes of activity’ to put pressure on the regime”.

The new information, obtained by the Liberal Democrats, shows that the allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001, and that the RAF increased their attacks even more quickly than the Americans did.

During 2000, RAF aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone over Iraq dropped 20.5 tons of bombs from a total of 155 tons dropped by the coalition, a mere 13%. During 2001 that figure rose slightly to 25 tons out of 107, or 23%.

However, between May 2002 and the second week in November, when the UN Security Council passed resolution 1441, which Goldsmith said made the war legal, British aircraft dropped 46 tons of bombs a month out of a total of 126.1 tons, or 36%.

By October, with the UN vote still two weeks away, RAF aircraft were dropping 64% of bombs falling on the southern no-fly zone.

Tommy Franks, the allied commander, has since admitted this operation was designed to “degrade” Iraqi air defences in the same way as the air attacks that began the 1991 Gulf war.

It was not until November 8 that the UN security council passed resolution 1441, which threatened Iraq with “serious consequences” for failing to co-operate with the weapons inspectors.

The briefing paper prepared for the July meeting — the same document that revealed the prime minister’s agreement during a summit with President George W Bush in April 2002 to back military action to bring about regime change — laid out the American war plans.

They opted on August 5 for a “hybrid plan” in which a continuous air offensive and special forces operations would begin while the main ground force built up in Kuwait ready for a full-scale invasion.

The Ministry of Defence figures, provided in response to a question from Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, show that despite the lack of an Iraqi reaction, the air war began anyway in September with a 100-plane raid.

The systematic targeting of Iraqi air defences appears to contradict Foreign Office legal guidance appended to the leaked briefing paper which said that the allied aircraft were only “entitled to use force in self-defence where such a use of force is a necessary and proportionate response to actual or imminent attack from Iraqi ground systems”.

Quote:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...iraq_8-27.html
.....So far, Iraq's defenses have not shot down any manned aircraft since the zones were established in 1991. U.S. officials say the areas are meant to protect Kurdish and Shiite populations from possible attacks by the Iraqi army......

Quote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...questid=172455
Sabre-rattling in Sedgefield
(Filed: 04/09/2002) Sept. 4, 2002

There was never much question that Tony Blair would support the overthrow of Saddam Hussein if George Bush decided to move against Baghdad.

Yesterday's Sedgefield press conference removes any lingering doubt: the fact that Mr Blair felt confident enough to use the key phrase "regime change" suggests that Mr Bush has already made the decision to move against Saddam.

In particular, Mr Blair's readiness to publish his promised dossier on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction strongly implies that Washington has given the green light for war.

After the Prime Minister and the President conducted a lengthy telephone conversation last Thursday, they are evidently at one, both on strategy - to eliminate Saddam - and tactics - to use the United Nations as "a way of dealing with [Saddam's regime], not a way of avoiding dealing with it".

This is a shrewd diplomatic formula which makes it harder for Mr Blair's Labour opponents to criticise him, unless and until the UN route is exhausted

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030308-1.html
President's Radio Address March 8, 2003
.....We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force. ........

Highlighted version: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...&hl=en&start=1 non-highlighted link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0050524-3.html
President Participates in Social Security Conversation in New York May 24
.............. And all that's left behind in Social Security is a group of file cabinets with IOUs in it. That's the way the system works. It's called pay-as-you-go.....................
<h4>...................See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.</h4>

If the report in the U.K. Sunday Times is true, and, consider that the British government has not refuted the initial May 1, "Memo" report, even on the eve of a key election for PM Tony Blair, indications are that the Bush and Blair administrations deliberately violated the terms of the 1991 cease fire with Iraq in a mutual, premeditated effort to provoke Iraq into a war. This seems similar to a conspiracy to launch a war of aggression via unjustified, provactive air attacks, coupled with an intent to manufacture reasons to launch an invasion (fixing the facts around the
policy).

host · 05-31-2005, 01:36 AM

And... a draft of a new letter to Rumsfeld from John Conyers, ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee:

Quote:

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne...r_rumsfeld_529
May 31, 2005

Hon. Donald Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense
The Pentagon
Arlington, VA

Dear Secretary Rumsfeld:

I write with an urgent and important request that you respond to a report in the London Times on Sunday, May 29, indicating that British and U.S. aircraft increased their rates of bombing in 2002 in order to provoke an excuse for war in Iraq. Much of this information is provided by the British Ministry of Defense in response to questions posed by Liberal Democrat Sir Menzies Campbell.

As you may know, on May 6, I wrote to President Bush, along with 88 of my colleagues in the House of Representatives, asking him to respond to allegations first revealed in the London Times on May 1, that the U.S. and British government had a secret plan to invade Iraq by the summer of 2002, well before the Bush Administration requested authorization for military action, from the U.S. Congress. A response is still pending on that request..........

............... The allegations and factual assertions made in the May 29 London Times are in many respects just as serious as those made in the earlier article. If true, these assertions indicate that not only had our nation secretly and perhaps illegally agreed to go to war by the summer of 2002, but that we had gone on to take specific and tangible military actions before asking Congress or the United Nations for authority.

Thus, while there is considerable doubt as to whether the U.S. had authority to invade Iraq, given, among other things, the failure of the U.N. to issue a follow-up resolution to the November 8, 2002 Resolution 1441, it would seem that the act of engaging in military action via stepped up bombing raids that were not in response to an actual or imminent threat before our government asked for military authority would be even more problematic from a legal as well as a moral perspective.

As a result of these new disclosures, I would ask that you respond as promptly as possible to the following questions:

1) Did the RAF and the United States military increase the rate that they were dropping bombs in Iraq in 2002? If so, what was the extent and timing of the increase?

2) What was the justification for any such increase in the rate of bombing in Iraq at this time? Was this justification reviewed by legal authorities in the U.S.?

3) To the best of your knowledge, was there any agreement with any representative of the British government to engage in military action in Iraq before authority was sought from the Congress or the U.N.? If so, what was the nature of the agreement?

In connection with all of the above questions, please provide me with any memorandum, notes, minutes, documents, phone and other records, e-mails, computer files (including back-up records) or other material of any kind or nature concerning or relating thereto in the possession or accessible by the Department of Defense.

I would encourage you to provide responses to these questions as promptly as possible, as they raise extremely grave and serious questions involving the credibility of our Administration and its constitutional responsibilities. In the interest of time, please feel free to forward me partial responses as they become available.

Sincerely,

John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member

Elphaba · 05-31-2005, 10:37 AM

John Conyers has also requested signatures from the public to add pressure to the administration to respond to congress. You can find this at johnconyers.com.

zenmaster10665 · 06-23-2005, 07:10 AM

I wanted to bump this back to the forefront of discussion, mainly because I am amazed that it actually happened.

Here is a link to the actual memo:
http://downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html

I am not sure how this is still being swept under the rug of the media?

Politics, to me, is dead. When I was a child I loved the idea of the American government, now I am just a disillusioned adult who feels that there is no truth in any political system.

I personally was taken in by the lies before the war, and I am ashamed of it. Once it was proven that the justification for war that was sold to the UK and US public was a lie, I lost all respect for Bush. I retained some shred of respect for Blair, as I felt that his case for war was slightly different and he did not directly deceive the world...Today is a sad day for me, becuase I now have lost my respect for Blair as well.

What a bunch of lying, conniving bastards.

Why is the American public so apathetic? Do they feel that they cannot change anything or do they truly believe everything that the US government says??

zenmaster10665 · 06-23-2005, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

As soon as I see some I'll let you know.

Then I will *shrug* at you, and not care anyways.

I will then eat some high protein snacks, and play with my child.

If the White Sox are playing I might watch the game.

You see, while I don't see boogymen under ever rock, nor do I see your 'unrefutable evidence', the fact that you bring up the yellow cake argument is proof to me you use a different definition of 'unrefutable' than I do, I do see the mideast as being an area we need a strong foothold in, and I don't CARE why we did it, I am just glad we did do it.

USA 1 Evil 0.

Ustwo, do you still not feel that there is irrefutable evidence as to the deception involved with the Iraq war?

The US and UK governments do not deny that the things outlind in this memo transpired, nor will they discuss it.

http://downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html#validity

Quote:

Text of the Downing Street Memo

PDF PRINTABLE VERSION | PLAIN TEXT PRINTABLE VERSION
MAJOR PLAYERS–who are the people present at this meeting?
REGARDING THE DOCUMENT'S CREDIBILITY
• As originally reported in the The Times of London, May 1, 2005

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents. [1]

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based. [2]

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. 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. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action. [3]

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

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. [4]

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. [5]

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. [6]

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work. [7]

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers. [8]

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT

(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)

[emphasis added]

Annotations to the original "Downing Street Memo"
aka the Minutes for July 23, 2002 Prime Minister's Meeting.

1. The cc list shows this meeting included all the key Cabinet members involved in forming the UK’s Iraq policy. This copy of the memo was sent to Foreign Policy Advisor David manning (akin to the US National Security Advisor) from Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy aide. For a full list of meeting attendees and their US counterparts, see the Related page on the site.

2. This section states the obvious, that Saddam’s regime was a brutal dictatorship. Scarlett notes too that the only way to topple Saddam would be through “massive military action.”

3. This is the most damning section of the memo, from a US perspective. ‘C’ is Sir Richard Dearlove, head of Britain’s foreign intelligence service known as MI6 who has just returned from meetings in Washington. He informs Blair that Bush has decided on military action to remove Saddam, and that the US administration has also determined a way to justify that action—the ‘conjunction’ of terrorism and WMD. That is, Bush will sell the idea of invasion by joining fears about Saddam’s weapons capabilities with fears about terrorism. This was an especially potent combination only ten months after 9/11, and sure to resonate with an American public still grieving for its loss.

However, Dearlove also indicates that the intelligence to back up the terrorism-WMD link was being arranged (“fixed around”) to support the already-determined policy of invasion. He goes on to note that the NSC—Condoleeza Rice’s department—had “no patience” with going to the UN, and finally that there was “little discussion” in Washington about what would happen after Baghdad fell.

4. This section deals with purely military matters. ‘CDS’ is Sir Michael Boyce, the UK’s top uniformed military officer, akin to the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Boyce describes the two invasion options the US and UK militaries are considering, and notes the possible levels of UK involvement. Important to note here is that, at a minimum, UK bases in Cypress and Diego Garcia would be used, thus making the UK a party to the war. This makes finding a legal justification for the invasion imperative for Blair because—unlike the US—the UK is a member of the International Criminal Court and under international law war for the purpose of regime change is illegal.

The last paragraph is also important because it indicates that Boyce believed the Bush administration was going to set the timetable for the war around the 2002 Congressional elections. The timing is highly suspect because it would mean that the buildup to invasion would begin just as members of Congress were entering the final 30 days of their re-election campaigns and the media would be preoccupied with election coverage.

5. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw agrees with the intelligence chief’s earlier assessment that “Bush had made up his mind to take military action.” He expresses doubts about such action, however, noting that the case for war was thin. He suggests going to the UN in order to allow weapons inspectors back into Iraq, but Straw does not present this as a diplomatic solution. Rather, it is an “ultimatum to Saddam” that we know from the other leaked UK documents was expected to provide a pretext for war when Saddam refused to comply. Straw refers here also to how such an ultimatum—and Saddam’s certain violation of it—would “help with the legal justification for the use of force.” Of course, this did not turn out the way it was envisioned. Saddam complied with the ultimatum of UN resolution 1441, and after months of searching, the inspectors found no WMDs. They did find conventional missiles that exceeded preset limitations on range, and destroyed them.

6. Attorney-General Goldsmith at this point weighs in with the legal issues. He makes it very clear that regime change is not a legal basis for war, nor would self-defense or humanitarian intervention be applicable to Iraq. The only way for Britain to satisfy its legal requirements for invasion would be to go back to the UN, since the three-year old resolution 1205 was not likely to be adequate. Resolution 1441 was the result of this process.

7. Now we hear from the Prime Minster himself, who acknowledges the political and legal advantage of having Saddam violate a new UN resolution on inspections. He also offers a way to connect the illegal motive of regime change with the legal one of self-defense, by way of WMD—“it was the regime that was producing the WMD.”

The next few paragraphs describe concerns about not knowing the details of the US battle plan, concerns about Saddam using WMD at the outset of the invasion, and most important for American readers, concerns about differences between US and UK political strategy. Jack Straw says the UK should pursue a UN resolution “despite US resistance,” which is in line with Britain’s need for one. But Blair will have to convince Bush to go along with a UN initiative. He succeeded in this, with the support of Colin Powell.

8. The conclusions are basically the “action items” that come out of any business meeting. The key item to note here is the last, (f), which says almost as a warning, “we must not ignore the legal issues,” and sends Attorney-General Goldsmith away to devise a legal justification. His eventual arrival at one, days before the invasion, has been the subject of much controversy in the UK. It was also the catalyst for the resignation of Elizabeth Wilmshurst, Deputy Legal Adviser to the Foreign Office, who left her post because she could not support what she maintained was an illegal war.

Major Players:
the officials present at the secret meeting

Below is a breakdown of the various individuals mentioned in the memo - all of whom were present during the meeting with the Prime Minister and subsequently received copies of these minutes.

• Foreign Policy Advisor - David Manning
• Matthew Rycroft - aide to Manning, wrote up the minutes of the meeting.
• Defence Secretary - Geoff Hoon
• Foreign Secretary - Jack Straw
• Attorney-General - Lord Goldsmith
• Cabinet Secretary - Sir Richard Wilson
• Chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee - John Scarlett
• Director of GCHQ - Francis Richards, head of the UK's "signals
intelligence establishment", an intelligence agency which reports
to the Foreign Secretary
• Director of SIS (aka MI6) - Sir Richard Dearlove, identified as "C" in the
meeting minutes, heads the UK's foreign intelligence service
• Chief of the Defence Staff - Admiral Sir Michael Boyce
• Chief of Staff - Jonathan Powell
• Head of Strategy - Alastair Campbell
• Director of Political & Govt Relations - Sally Morgan

Go here for table of US equivalents for reference, photos and links

Though it is sometimes difficult to equate a given official to his or her US counterpart, it's clear that this was a meeting at the highest level within the UK government.

Attendees included three members of the Cabinet (Prime Minister Blair, the Defence Secretary and the Foreign Secretary), the nation's most senior bureaucrat (the Cabinet Secretary), three out of the four top people from the UK intelligence community (the JIC Chair and the heads of MI6 and GCHQ), the head of the armed forces and four of the innermost circle of the PM's political advisors.

Note: The relatively junior level of Rycroft bears no relevance to the contents of the minutes, which summarize what the principals said at the meeting to each other.

Marvelous Marv · 06-30-2005, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zenmaster10665

Ustwo, do you still not feel that there is irrefutable evidence as to the deception involved with the Iraq war?

The US and UK governments do not deny that the things outlind in this memo transpired, nor will they discuss it.

That's not what this says.

Link

Quote:

Blair: No Predetermination for Iraq War
Wednesday, June 29, 2005 10:54 PM EDT
The Associated Press
By PAISLEY DODDS and DAN PERRY

Listen to Audio

LONDON (AP) — Prime Minister Tony Blair firmly denied Wednesday that the Bush administration signaled just months after Sept. 11 that a decision was made to invade Iraq, saying he was "astonished" by claims that leaked secret memos suggested the U.S. was rushing to war.

In an interview with The Associated Press a day after President Bush delivered a televised defense of the war in Iraq, Blair said defeating the insurgency was crucial to protecting security worldwide, and joined Bush in linking the war with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"What happened for me after Sept. 11 is that the balance of risk changed," said Blair, interviewed on the stone terrace overlooking the garden of his No. 10 Downing Street offices, where policy meetings on Iraq were held before the invasion.

After Sept. 11, it was necessary to "draw a line in the sand here, and the country to do it with was Iraq because they were in breach of U.N. resolutions going back over many years," he said. "I took the view that if these people ever got hold of nuclear, chemical or biological capability, they would probably use it."

Blair was asked about the leaked memos, which suggest strong concerns in the British government that the Bush administration was determined in 2002 to invade Iraq — months before the United States and Britain unsuccessfully sought U.N. Security Council approval for military action.

"People say the decision was already taken. The decision was not already taken." Blair said he was "a bit astonished" at the intensive U.S. media coverage about the memos, which included minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting between Blair and top officials at his Downing Street office.

According to the minutes of the meeting, Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of Britain's intelligence service, said the White House viewed military action against Saddam Hussein as inevitable following the Sept. 11 attacks. Bush "wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD" (weapons of mass destruction), read the memo, seen by the AP. "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

In the interview, Blair said raising such concerns was a natural part of any examination of the cause for war.

"The trouble with having a political discussion on the basis of things that are leaked is that they are always taken right out of context. Everything else is omitted from the discussion and you end up focusing on a specific document," he said. "It would be absolutely weird if, when the Iraq issue was on the agenda, you were not constantly raising issues, trying to work them out, get them in the right place," he said.

Blair suggested that ensuring victory in Iraq was now more important than debating the case for invasion.

"The most important thing we can do in Iraq is concentrate on the fact ... that what is happening there is a monumental battle that affects our own security," he said. "You've got every bad element in the whole of the Middle East in Iraq trying to stop that country (from getting) on its feet and (becoming) a democracy."

Blair echoed Bush's pledge a day earlier to keep U.S. forces in Iraq until the fight is won. "There is only one side to be on now and it is time we got on it and stuck in there and get the job done, and not leave until the job is done," he said.

Blair won a historic third term in office last month. But his Labour Party saw its parliament majority slashed, largely because of discontent over Iraq. While Blair's close ties to Bush have cost him with voters at home, he said it's that relationship which allows the countries to talk about tough issues.

"My support for America is not based on you give us support for this and you get that in return," Blair said. "I should only do what is right for Britain. The president should only do what is right for America, and we should both try to do what is right for the world."

That alluded to Blair's ambitious twin goals for next week's summit in Scotland of the world's eight most industrialized nations — reaching consensus on fighting climate change, and greatly boosting aid to Africa. On climate change in particular, Blair said the going may be rough.

"On climate change there obviously has been a disagreement over Kyoto," Blair said referring to the Kyoto Protocol, which the Bush administration has rejected. He said he hoped to reach agreement on moving toward a low-carbon economy that curbs greenhouse gas emissions.

"On Africa, I don't think there is a disagreement about the basic principles of what we are trying to achieve and obviously I hope that by the time we get to the summit next week we have got agreement on the substance of the package."

Blair is calling for fair trade in Africa and an extra $25 billion a year in international aid for the continent by 2010, and a further $25 billion annually up to 2015.

Blair, looking tanned and relaxed, has said he won't run for another term, and on Wednesday he brushed aside a question about what he might do after leaving office.

"I don't spend a lot of time thinking about it because the job is pretty all-engrossing. If you believe in what you are doing, it is exciting to take on the challenge and try to do it."

Next to the terrace was the Cabinet room, where the walls are lined with tomes on the lives of Benjamin Disraeli and other predecessors. Does he remain as full of energy as in 1997, that heady time of promise when he first joined their ranks?

"Yes, I do," he replied. "In fact, I feel vigorous and enthusiastic."

zenmaster10665 · 07-01-2005, 12:37 AM

Quote:

"People say the decision was already taken. The decision was not already taken." Blair said he was "a bit astonished" at the intensive U.S. media coverage about the memos, which included minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting between Blair and top officials at his Downing Street office.

According to the minutes of the meeting, Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of Britain's intelligence service, said the White House viewed military action against Saddam Hussein as inevitable following the Sept. 11 attacks. Bush "wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD" (weapons of mass destruction), read the memo, seen by the AP. "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

In the interview, Blair said raising such concerns was a natural part of any examination of the cause for war.

"The trouble with having a political discussion on the basis of things that are leaked is that they are always taken right out of context. Everything else is omitted from the discussion and you end up focusing on a specific document," he said. "It would be absolutely weird if, when the Iraq issue was on the agenda, you were not constantly raising issues, trying to work them out, get them in the right place," he said.

Blair suggested that ensuring victory in Iraq was now more important than debating the case for invasion.

"The most important thing we can do in Iraq is concentrate on the fact ... that what is happening there is a monumental battle that affects our own security," he said. "You've got every bad element in the whole of the Middle East in Iraq trying to stop that country (from getting) on its feet and (becoming) a democracy."

Forgive me for saying it, but just because Blair counters a condemning piece of evidence does not mean it did not happen.

This is the same person who stood in front of us and stated "Iraq has WMD" and "Britain could be attacked within 45 minutes."

I don't see anywhere where he refutes the fact that the memo is correct, he simply says it was "taken out of context."

05-20-2005, 06:18 AM	#47 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Soooo, In one post you're are pissed that we were trying to stop him with diplomacy (using gas on his own people) and then when we decided to act...you are pissed. Ok... __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

05-20-2005, 07:07 AM	#48 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Oy. I can't believe I'm saying this yet again: the importance of this memo has nothing to do with whether you believe we should have invaded Iraq or not. Instead, its importance is entirely based on the issue of Bush and Blair concocting fake reasons to convince their populaces to support a war that the two of them wanted. It's about bamboozling, and lying to the public to gain support for a war rather than lay out an honest case. For this, amongst other things, I'm quite certain that there's a special level of hell reserved for Bush. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

05-20-2005, 08:06 AM	#49 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	As a neo-con I have a response for you. shrug __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

05-20-2005, 08:49 AM	#51 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Hey, Ustwo, I have an idea. 4 years from now, lets all elect a Democratic president. Then, he or she will decide, quite rightly, that neocons are by and large machiavellian chickenhawsk whose megalomaniacal designs for world power trump any known sense of decency. So the new president, in a rare and brilliant moment of irony appreciation, decides its best to send all the neocons to Abu Ghraib - as prisoners. Now, this new president shouldn't have to try and convince the American public or Congress that this should happen on its merits, should he/she? No. See, the new president knows best, and whatever the preznit wants, the preznit gets. So the preznit will lie, claim that neocons helped undertake 9/11, that they gave WMD to Saddam Hussein (oh wait, that one's true, thanks Rummy), and then trick the American people into doing something they wouldn't otherwise do. But that's OK, right? Cause preznit knows best. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

05-20-2005, 12:08 PM	#55 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I was talking about your posts, not the previous ones. In one, you seem upset over the fact that Saddam was attacking his own people while we were engaging him. In another you seem upset that we engaged him. As to the charge made ad naseum, we've been over this ground at least a dozen times. I too could provide dozens upon dozens of cut and pasted articles where people from both sides of the aisle state Saddam had WMDs. I could paste all the violations of the UN resolutions. I could paste articles on the first gulf wars. Yada yada. But you've made up it very clear that you've made up your mind. So why bother? __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

05-12-2005, 07:45 AM	#41 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	For the record Manx, Bush only manipulated America, he told the UN and the world to piss off.

05-12-2005, 05:07 PM	#45 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Another meta-media experience? Perhaps the mainstream press has awakened. www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051205A.shtml Indignation Grows in US over British Prewar Documents By John Daniszewski The Los Angeles Times Thursday 12 May 2005 Critics of Bush call them proof that he and Blair never saw diplomacy as an option with Hussein. London - Reports in the British press this month based on documents indicating that President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair had conditionally agreed by July 2002 to invade Iraq appear to have blown over quickly in Britain. But in the United States, where the reports at first received scant attention, there has been growing indignation among critics of the Bush White House, who say the documents help prove that the leaders made a secret decision to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein nearly a year before launching their attack, shaped intelligence to that aim and never seriously intended to avert the war through diplomacy. The documents, obtained by Michael Smith, a defense specialist writing for the Sunday Times of London, include a memo of the minutes of a meeting July 23, 2002, between Blair and his intelligence and military chiefs; a briefing paper for that meeting and a Foreign Office legal opinion prepared before an April 2002 summit between Blair and Bush in Texas. The picture that emerges from the documents is of a British government convinced of the US desire to go to war and Blair's agreement to it, subject to several specific conditions. Since Smith's report was published May 1, Blair's Downing Street office has not disputed the documents' authenticity. Asked about them Wednesday, a Blair spokesman said the report added nothing significant to the much-investigated record of the lead-up to the war. "At the end of the day, nobody pushed the diplomatic route harder than the British government.... So the circumstances of this July discussion very quickly became out of date," said the spokesman, who asked not to be identified. The leaked minutes sum up the July 23 meeting, at which Blair, top security advisors and his attorney general discussed Britain's role in Washington's plan to oust Hussein. The minutes, written by Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy aide, indicate general thoughts among the participants about how to create a political and legal basis for war. The case for military action at the time was "thin," Foreign Minister Jack Straw was characterized as saying, and Hussein's government posed little threat. Labeled "secret and strictly personal - UK eyes only," the minutes begin with the head of the British intelligence service, MI6, who is identified as "C," saying he had returned from Washington, where there had been a "perceptible shift in attitude. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy." Straw agreed that Bush seemed determined to act militarily, although the timing was not certain. "But the case was thin," the minutes say. "Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capacity was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran." Straw then proposed to "work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam" to permit United Nations weapons inspectors back into Iraq. "This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force," he said, according to the minutes. Blair said, according to the memo, "that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors." "If the political context were right, people would support regime change," Blair said. "The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work." In addition to the minutes, the Sunday Times report referred to a Cabinet briefing paper that was given to participants before the July 23 meeting. It stated that Blair had already promised Bush cooperation earlier, at the April summit in Texas. "The UK would support military action to bring about regime change," the Sunday Times quoted the briefing as saying. Excerpts from the paper, which Smith provided to the Los Angeles Times, said Blair had listed conditions for war, including that "efforts had been made to construct a coalition/shape public opinion, the Israel-Palestine crisis was quiescent," and options to "eliminate Iraq's WMD through the UN weapons inspectors" had been exhausted. The briefing paper said the British government should get the US to put its military plans in a "political framework." "This is particularly important for the UK because it is necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action," it says. In a letter to Bush last week, 89 House Democrats expressed shock over the documents. They asked if the papers were authentic and, if so, whether they proved that the White House had agreed to invade Iraq months before seeking Congress' OK. "If the disclosure is accurate, it raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of our own administration," the letter says. "While the president of the United States was telling the citizens and the Congress that they had no intention to start a war with Iraq, they were working very close with Tony Blair and the British leadership at making this a foregone conclusion," the letter's chief author, Rep. John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, said Wednesday. If the documents are real, he said, it is "a huge problem" in terms of an abuse of power. He said the White House had not yet responded to the letter. Both Blair and Bush have denied that a decision on war was made in early 2002. The White House and Downing Street maintain that they were preparing for military operations as an option, but that the option to not attack also remained open until the war began March 20, 2003. In January 2002, Bush described Iraq as a member of an "axis of evil," but the sustained White House push for Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions did not come until September of that year. That month, Bush addressed the UN General Assembly to outline a case against Hussein's government, and he sought a bipartisan congressional resolution authorizing the possible use of force. In November 2002, the UN Security Council approved a resolution demanding that Iraq readmit weapons inspectors. An effort to pass a second resolution expressly authorizing the use of force against Iraq did not succeed.

05-20-2005, 08:38 AM	#50 (permalink)
Manx Loser	By any means necessary. Of course, if one lie is acceptable - why not a dozen lies? Or nothing but lies? They're all acceptable if that's what it takes to "convince" the American public of what it doesn't know best. While we're subverting the American public, lets just get rid of this whole election thing anyway. I mean, since the American public clearly can't be trusted to do the "right thing", as defined by Ustwo and George Bush, why even give them the modicum of an option every 4 years? But lo, if the lie is something totally innocuous, like an extra-marital affair - Ustwo will be leading the charge!

05-20-2005, 08:58 AM	#52 (permalink)
RangerDick Loser Location: manhattan	...someone forgot to take their meds this morning.

05-20-2005, 12:12 PM	#56 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I see we need another warning. I don't see any reason to pile on to a poster because you don't like his position. And one of you knows better. One seven day time out issued to Manx. Anyone care to join him in the box? __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

05-20-2005, 05:58 PM	#58 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	happy to be back ustwo? I've hardly felt the urge to post until this week in a long time. welcome back __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

05-21-2005, 05:12 PM	#62 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	In war the ends always justify the means. To think or act otherwise is inviting disaster. I do not think the American people were majorly manipulated by lies and whatnot. You will note who won the election in 2004. All of these 'facts' have been out there and quite frankly most of us dont' care or don't believe them. For me the obvious conclusion is the straight forward one. The WMD reports were overstated, and Bush acted on the information he had. Had it been nothing but a lie, we wouldn't be having this debate because someone willing to mislead a nation into war would also have planted plenty of 'WMD' evidence. The iroinc thing is its the honesty of the Bush administration which allows people to claim they are dishonest. If the Bush admin was truely as bad and evil as they claim there wouldn't be debate since they would have covered their bases. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

05-22-2005, 08:30 AM	#66 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	I just love how there can be piles of evidence - the known lie about Niger yellowcake in the State of the Union, the repeated claims by Bushco that Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda despite the fact that they couldn't even conjure up fake evidence to indicate that, a memo nobody is disputing to be true that has the head of British intelligence commenting on how the Bushies made up their mind to go to war in early 2002 and were fixing the intelligence around that decision - I mean, all of this utterly undeniable evidence, and still people say shit like, "I don't think they were lying. They just had bad intel and maybe fudged the facts a little." How long can people simply ignore the existence of unrefutable evidence? __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

05-22-2005, 10:58 AM	#70 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	interesting that you confuse your sentiments about family and baseball with an argument about the war in iraq, ustwo. how does this logic work? you say that you prefer hanging out at home and thinking about that to developing informed positions about this matter--so for you whatever the present administration says to justify itself and its actions are just hunky dory--all of which are your choices, of course, and as such are nothing to argue about-----but if all that is true, then why post as if your position--that you like your child and baseball--amounts to anything like a considered, informed argument on the topic of the war in iraq? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-31-2005, 10:37 AM	#76 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	John Conyers has also requested signatures from the public to add pressure to the administration to respond to congress. You can find this at johnconyers.com.

06-23-2005, 07:10 AM	#77 (permalink)
zenmaster10665 Bokonist Location: Location, Location, Location...	I wanted to bump this back to the forefront of discussion, mainly because I am amazed that it actually happened. Here is a link to the actual memo: http://downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html I am not sure how this is still being swept under the rug of the media? Politics, to me, is dead. When I was a child I loved the idea of the American government, now I am just a disillusioned adult who feels that there is no truth in any political system. I personally was taken in by the lies before the war, and I am ashamed of it. Once it was proven that the justification for war that was sold to the UK and US public was a lie, I lost all respect for Bush. I retained some shred of respect for Blair, as I felt that his case for war was slightly different and he did not directly deceive the world...Today is a sad day for me, becuase I now have lost my respect for Blair as well. What a bunch of lying, conniving bastards. Why is the American public so apathetic? Do they feel that they cannot change anything or do they truly believe everything that the US government says?? __________________ "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way." -Kurt Vonnegut