New Intelligence Memo Proves Bush Lied About Iraq!

[maynoth]

Funny the rest of the world is buzzing about it, it was in the London Times May 1st but we haven't heard a peep about it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html


http://downingstreetmemo.com/


The memo is a transcript of a meeting between Tony Blair and Friends and the Bush Administration, in early 2002. Here are some juicy highlights


..........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. ..........................

....................The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

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....................

[maynoth]

Democratic hearing on
Downing Street Memo/Minutes
and Pre-war intelligence

On Thursday June 16, 2005, Rep. John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member of House Judiciary Committee, and other Democratic Members will hold a hearing to hear testimony concerning the Downing Street Minutes and the efforts to cook the books on pre-war intelligence. Others interested in seeing this investigated, regardless of party affiliation are welcome to attend, demanding the truth is not a partisan activity!

The June 16th hearing will attempt to answer the serious constitutional questions raised by these revelations and will further investigate the Administration's actions in the lead up to war with new documents that further corroborate the Downing Street memo.

Directly following the hearing, Rep. Conyers, Members of Congress, and concerned citizens plan to hand deliver to the White House the petition and signatures of over a half million Americans that have joined Rep. Conyers in demanding that President Bush answer questions about his secret plan for the Iraq war.

Witnesses scheduled to testify include: Joe Wilson, Former Ambassador and WMD Expert; Ray McGovern, 27-year CIA analyst who prepared regular Presidential briefings during the Reagan administration; Cindy Sheehan, mother of fallen American soldier; John Bonifaz, renowned constitutional lawyer and co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org.

[maynoth]

Congressman John Conyers is calling on American citizens to sign on to a letter to the President that demands a response to questions originally posed by Conyers and 88 other members of Congress in a similar letter dated May 5, 2005. Conyers has committed to personally delivering the letter to the White House when it garners 100,000 250,000 500,000 citizen signatures. We are over the target...


http://www.johnconyers.com/index.asp?Type=NONE&SEC={456ECCD5-4EAC-4C6D-8A17-89728B250AE2}

[notbob]

evidence is only important if people actually care

anyone with half a brain could tell bush wanted saddam's head on a platter for personal reasons

[maynoth]

so notbob... in your opinion.... are we going to be enslaved or is there going to be a revolution?

[notbob]

we are already enslaved

where have you been?

[method]

Downing street MINUTES (not memo) and 6 corroborating documents. Nice, it's only taken the MSM about a month to report some actual NEWS!!!

Truth is... There ARE a load of people who are bothered... the media just does a good job of making it LOOK like nobody is bothered. Many are pissed off, they just don't realise there are so many others who agree with them because all the networks are shitting themselves about doing anything that could be seen as dissent... you either lick GWB's ass or you don't get invited to press conferences and your paper/TV-station/etc will get blamed for the US-policy-driven backlashes that the adminsitration/regime is responsible for. (Just like the blame-Newsweek bullshit!! - Where violence was escalating in Afghanistan already.)

---

GWB for life!!! (cuz he's such a great president... we don't need the 22nd ammendment any more!!)
(it wasn't like we needed to elect him for him to be in power either.. but it happened.)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/140605presidentforlife.htm

Former Bush Admin Economist says 9/11 collapse story bogus.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/150605wtccollapse.htm

---

CNN: 'Memo' "suggests that the Bush administration saw the Iraq war as inevitable …"

Yeah, I'm sure I could find a 'Memo' that "suggests that the Hitler 'administration' saw the invasion of Poland as inevitable." too.

Would that justify pre-determination to go to war when your reasons for doing so are not just insufficient... but also fake?

CNN obviously skipped this part: "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."

What part of that do you think CNN has difficulty understanding... or are they just completely lacking in any decency and integrity and instead... chose to ignore it?

---

Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11, Saddam even allowed weapons inspectors in without restriction, yet they become the target of a war and invasion.

Saudi Arabia has a lot more to do with 9/11 and has just DENIED weapons inspectors in and hasn't had so much as a bitchslap??

Bush is looking after his terrorist buddies whilst blaming everyone else in the middle east.

[maynoth]

*Bump*



*Bump*

[Burd]

Interesting. Yesterday, I tuned in some Liberal talk shows on my satillite radio. All were discussing this issue. Then, to get the other side, I tuned in several Conservative talk shows. What were they talking about? The Michael Jackson verdict! It's all in your priorities, folks!

[Ezza6745]

All were discussing this issue. Then, to get the other side, I tuned in several Conservative talk shows. What were they talking about? The Michael Jackson verdict! It's all in your priorities, folks!

unfortunatley that statement is so true!

[mfgbypooter]

Yeah! :icon_chee

Let's kick Bush and Cheney out of office over this so Dennis Hastert can be our President.

[maynoth]

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=8084


More Damning Than Downing Street
by Paul Rogat Loeb

June 15, 2005


It's bad enough that the Bush administration had so little international support for the Iraqi war that their "coalition of the willing" meant the U.S., Britain, and the equivalent of a child's imaginary friends. It's even worse that, as the Downing Street memo confirms, they had so little evidence of real threats that they knew from the start that they were going to have manufacture excuses to go to war. What's more damning still is that they effectively began this war even before the congressional vote.

With Congressman John Conyers about to hold hearings, coverage of the Downing Street memo is finally beginning to leak into the media. In contrast, we've heard almost nothing about the degree to which this administration began actively fighting the Iraq war well in advance of the March 2003 official attack--before both the October 2002 US Congressional authorization and the November United Nations resolution requiring that Saddam Hussein open the country up to inspectors.

I follow Iraq pretty closely, but was taken aback when Charlie Clements, now head of the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, described driving in a Baghdad neighborhood six months before the war "and a building would just explode, hit by a missile from 30,000 feet -'What is that building?'"

Clements would ask. "'Oh, that's a telephone exchange.'" Later, at a conference at Nevada's Nellis Air Force Base, Clements heard a U.S. General boast "that he began taking out assets that could help in resisting an invasion at least six months before war was declared."

Earlier this month, Jeremy Scahill wrote a powerful piece on The Nation's website, describing a huge air assault in September 2002,

"Approximately 100 US and British planes flew from Kuwait into Iraqi airspace," Scahill writes. "At least seven types of aircraft were part of this massive operation, including US F-15 Strike Eagles and Royal Air Force Tornado ground-attack planes. They dropped precision-guided munitions on Saddam Hussein's major western air-defense facility, clearing the path for Special Forces helicopters that lay in wait in Jordan. Earlier attacks had been carried out against Iraqi command and control centers, radar detection systems, Revolutionary Guard units, communication centers and mobile air-defense systems. The Pentagon's goal was clear: Destroy Iraq's ability to resist."

Why aren't we talking about this? As Scahill points out, this was a month before the Congressional vote, and two before the UN resolution. Supposedly part of enforcing "no fly zones," the bombings were actually systematic assaults on Iraq's capacity to defend itself. The US had never declared war. Bush had no authorization, not even a fig leaf. He was simply attacking another nation because he'd decided to do so. This preemptive war preempted our own Congress, as well as international law.

I don't think most Americans know these prewar attacks ever happened, aside from those who've read Scahill's recent piece, or heard him on Democracy Now. I recall no mainline media coverage at the time, and little in the alternative press. The bombings that destroyed Iraq's air defenses were under the radar for both the American media and public.

If coverage of the Downing St memo continues to increase, I suspect the administration will try to dismiss it as mere diplomatic talk, just inside baseball. But they weren't just manipulating intelligence so they could attack no matter how Saddam Hussein responded. They weren't only bribing would-be allies into participation. They were fighting a war they'd planned long before. They just didn't bother to tell the American public.

Paul Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear (Basic Books), named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and American Book Association.

See www.theimpossible.org

[Zecretagent]

Doesn't really matter now, the stupid white trash that voted for him won't believe thier "Furer" actually lied. All they bring up is Clinton lying about getting a BJ, I don't know about you but Clinton's lie didn't kill anyone. The U.S. gov't is now really a facist state.

[method]

Yup.. runaway brides, jacko, tsunami, clinton BJ of yesteryear... conservative talk shows love any distraction. - Anything but what is actually happening on the ground in politics.

I doubt much will come of it.... but I hope Conyer's hearings on the DSMinutes at least wakes a few people up to the lies today. (It's on CSPAN 3) - In some ways, especially when 'listening' to notbob.. I feel like being defeatist... but I'm sure there's a point of critical mass when enough people will be prepared to descend on the WhiteHouse. - It just depends on how the GOP behave and whether the MSM can be broken down a little bit to actually start reporting news rather than bullshit.

This can't carry on forever, there is a snapping point there somewhere. - I think... if Bush had a 3rd term... that might just make enough people flip for revolution to become a real possibility. Until then, I think America, thanks to it's corporate (and military-industrial-complex (see "GE" who own MSN for an example)) owned media... will keep the majority of it's citizens in a state of perpetual apathy. :(

[maynoth]

The problem with the Bush Administration is they Bush the Envelope to the max, but not an inch further. The give people time to forget and accept what they have done. Hell I know 5 people in my family who have forgotten we went to war with Afghanistan, they are positive that Saddam was the one harboring Bin Laden. From what I can see that is a very popular belief. I wish the liberals who actually knew what is going on had some friggin balls. I wish the bush administration would just hurry up and cross the line, like just firing all the democrats in the government (period), declaring himself official ruler of North and South Amerika. And removing all taxes whatsoever for the rich while raising them for the poor. When these stupid drunk Nascar Fan rednecks have no money for power to watch TV, and no money for beer, There is going to be a revolution.

[maynoth]

here is an MSNBC Story.... looks like more British Senior Officials have stepped forward to attest to the downing street memo/minutes credibility. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8234762/site/newsweek/

[Col. Decker]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...S nore...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...Snore...Snore...zzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[notbob]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...S nore...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...Snore...Snore...zzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


you realize the stupid a team clone thing ended last year, right? didn't you get the memo, mike?

ok-so lets say bush is a liar (or at least an ignorant puppet of a larger cause, both we have known forever), so what are the options?

impeachment? it would fail in the republican majorities of congress

not reelect him? he' can't be reelected anyway

get mad and make a bunch of internet posts? sure, but that won't accomplish anything

like the old saying goes "never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups"

america is a society designed to make stupid people

[Ezza6745]

you realize the stupid a team clone thing ended last year, right? didn't you get the memo, mike?

ok-so lets say bush is a liar (or at least an ignorant puppet of a larger cause, both we have known forever), so what are the options?

impeachment? it would fail in the republican majorities of congress

not reelect him? he' can't be reelected anyway

get mad and make a bunch of internet posts? sure, but that won't accomplish anything

like the old saying goes "never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups"

america is a society designed to make stupid people

Notbob rocks is all I have to say after reading your post over the months :icon_king

[mfgbypooter]

New?


*