Downey Street Memo

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: irwincur
Great, a weakly verified piece of third party writing is threatening to bring down the Western world. I suspect that this one probably would not hold water in court.

By the way, good luck impeaching Bush when both the House and Senate are Republican - even is McCain is all for it.

Nah for Bush to get impeached he would have to do something real detrimental to the country like lie to a Grand Jury about getting a Blow Job.

 

[irwincur]

Sign Congressman Conyer's letter.

I wonder if Lick My Balls will show up on the final draft - or will they black it out - or will they change it without my permission to a normal name.

I suspect #3.



Pretty sweet that Conyers (a crook himself and a turkey thief) is having such as easy time getting signatures from all of the pissed off people in the mainstream left. Oh wait, he is having one hell of a time getting them... Wonder why. Oh, because only the moron children on the Internet are capable of buying this crap.

 

[irwincur]

Nah for Bush to get impeached he would have to do something real detrimental to the country like lie to a Grand Jury about getting a Blow Job.

Perjury is a felony. I can't seem to think of any felonies that Bush has committed while in the White House. I also seem to recall Clinton telling plenty of lies, like where he got his money from, what he sold North Korea, why he allowed Boeing to sell ICBM parts to China, what happened in Waco, etc...

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: irwincur

Nah for Bush to get impeached he would have to do something real detrimental to the country like lie to a Grand Jury about getting a Blow Job.

Perjury is a felony. I can't seem to think of any felonies that Bush has committed while in the White House. I also seem to recall Clinton telling plenty of lies, like where he got his money from, what he sold North Korea, why he allowed Boeing to sell ICBM parts to China, what happened in Waco, etc...

Hey that's what I said, lying to a Grand Jury about a Blow Job is much more harmful to our country than launching a war against another soveirgn nation based on faulty Intel that probably was manipulated to fool the American Public into supporting it.

Of course knowing Clinton we should have expected him to fool around just like in knowing how the Dub was before hand we should have expected him to be incompetent at best when it came to fopriegn policy. WHen they act true to their nature we shouldn't be surprised.

 

[irwincur]

Hey that's what I said, lying to a Grand Jury about a Blow Job is much more harmful to our country than launching a war against another soveirgn nation based on faulty Intel that probably was manipulated to fool the American Public into supporting it.

Huh, Clinton launched six wars in all. He also blew up a Chinese Embassy because of faulty intel - remember the old maps... He also presided over the nation through four major terror attacks all coming from the same man, and never bothered to do anything about it. He also launched numerous attacks against Saddam to cover his own a$$ - that is pretty righteous. I don't even want to get into the rest.

The point is, he did committ a felony which is illegal NO MATTER WHAT IT IS ABOUT. A president is not king, and impeachment does occur when felonies are committed in office. Hell, you can't even vote if you have a felony, how can you be president.


The day Bush commits a real world felony in office while representing the people (not a fantasy bunny world liberal felony) I will support impeachment.

 

[laFiera]

Originally posted by: irwincur

Nah for Bush to get impeached he would have to do something real detrimental to the country like lie to a Grand Jury about getting a Blow Job.

Perjury is a felony. I can't seem to think of any felonies that Bush has committed while in the White House. I also seem to recall Clinton telling plenty of lies, like where he got his money from, what he sold North Korea, why he allowed Boeing to sell ICBM parts to China, what happened in Waco, etc...

Can't think of any lies?
hehehehe..he even has a credo:
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. George W Bush, 5/24/05

Colin Powell, February 2001: "[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq."

George W. Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush
NBC Interview
April 24, 2003
We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 6, 2003
I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.

George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

and of course
George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 3, 2003
We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

yea....we got eternity to find them!!

 

[laFiera]

oops double post!

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: her209
If this is the only evidence they have to start an impeachment process, it would be a pretty weak one.

Yeah, it's only conspiracy to start an unnecessary and highly costly war. It's not like they stained a dress, right? :roll:

What I'm saying is that if this is the only evidence they have, its not going to get an impeachment as the evidence is weak.

Maybe so, but it certainly warrants a full-blown independent investigation.

Without a doubt. Maybe if the Dem's can gain some seats in the next election they can get one. I wouldn't put it beyond the realm of possibilities.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: irwincur

Hey that's what I said, lying to a Grand Jury about a Blow Job is much more harmful to our country than launching a war against another soveirgn nation based on faulty Intel that probably was manipulated to fool the American Public into supporting it.

Huh, Clinton launched six wars in all.

6?? Let's see. Somalia, the Balkans..Somalia..the Balkans..

He also blew up a Chinese Embassy because of faulty intel - remember the old maps...

I think that was more the case non faulty faulty Intel or more to the point, a nice shot!

He also presided over the nation through four major terror attacks all coming from the same man, and never bothered to do anything about it.

What are you talking about, those who attacked the World Trade Towers the first time are in prison and we bombed the sh!t out of an Aspirin Factory in Sudan and blew up a few dozen abandoned terrorist camps in Afghanistan killing a good number of Camels. If you had any idea how prized camels are in that part of the world you'd realize how effective those retalitory attacks were!!!!!

He also launched numerous attacks against Saddam to cover his own a$$ - that is pretty righteous.

Which caused Hussien or at least his underlings to get rid of all those WMDs that the Dub and his minions convinced the American Public where there so he could get their approval to launch his ill advised excellent adventure in Iraq

The point is, he did committ a felony which is illegal NO MATTER WHAT IT IS ABOUT. A president is not king, and impeachment does occur when felonies are committed in office. Hell, you can't even vote if you have a felony, how can you be president.


The day Bush commits a real world felony in office while representing the people (not a fantasy bunny world liberal felony) I will support impeachment.

That's why I say until the Dub does something so bad like lying about a Blow Job to a Grand Jury he's not in danger of being impeached.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
That's why I say until the Dub does something so bad like lying about a Blow Job to a Grand Jury he's not in danger of being impeached.

Of course he'd never testify to Congress (at least under oath anyways).

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
That's why I say until the Dub does something so bad like lying about a Blow Job to a Grand Jury he's not in danger of being impeached.

Of course he'd never testify to Congress (at least under oath anyways).

Ollie North will take the fall for him.

 

[BBond]

Check out this further corroboration of the Downing Street Memo -- from Oct. 8, 2002.

People were even saying it back then. But no one seems to remember that now. All anyone seems to remember are the ever changing re-writes from the Bushies.

Some administration officials expressing misgivings on Iraq

By WARREN P. STROBEL and JONATHAN S. LANDAY
Knight-Ridder Tribune News

WASHINGTON -- While President Bush marshals congressional and international support for invading Iraq, a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war.

These officials charge that administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses -- including distorting his links to the al-Qaida terrorist network -- have overstated the amount of international support for attacking Iraq and have downplayed the potential repercussions of a new war in the Middle East.

They charge that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary.

"Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books," said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

A dozen other officials echoed his views in interviews.

No one who was interviewed disagreed.

They cited recent suggestions by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice that Saddam and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network are working together.

Rumsfeld said on Sept. 26 that the U.S. government has "bulletproof" confirmation of links between Iraq and al-Qaida members, including "solid evidence" that members of the terrorist network maintain a presence in Iraq.

The facts are much less conclusive. Officials said Rumsfeld's statement was based in part on intercepted telephone calls, in which an al-Qaida member who apparently was passing through Baghdad was overheard calling friends or relatives, intelligence officials said. The intercepts provide no evidence that the suspected terrorist was working with the Iraqi regime or that he was working on a terrorist operation while he was in Iraq, they said.

Rumsfeld also suggested that the Iraqi regime has offered safe haven to bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar.

While technically true, that also is misleading. Intelligence reports said the Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, a longtime Iraqi intelligence officer, made the offer during a visit to Afghanistan in late 1998, after the United States attacked al-Qaida training camps with cruise missiles to retaliate for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. But officials said the same intelligence reports said bin Laden rejected the offer because he didn't want Saddam to control his group.

In fact, the officials said, there's no ironclad evidence that the Iraqi regime and the terrorist network are working together or that Saddam has ever contemplated giving chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaida, with whom he has deep ideological differences.

None of the dissenting officials, who work in a number of different agencies, would agree to speak publicly, out of fear of retribution. But many of them have long experience in the Middle East and South Asia, and all spoke in similar terms about their unease with the way U.S. political leaders are dealing with Iraq.

All agreed that Saddam is a threat who eventually must be dealt with, and none flatly opposes military action. But, they say, the U.S. government has no dramatic new knowledge about the Iraqi leader that justifies Bush's urgent call to arms.

"I've seen nothing that's compelling," said one military officer who has access to intelligence reports.

Some lawmakers have voiced similar concerns after receiving CIA briefings.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: irwincur

Sign Congressman Conyer's letter.

I wonder if Lick My Balls will show up on the final draft - or will they black it out - or will they change it without my permission to a normal name.

I suspect #3.



Pretty sweet that Conyers (a crook himself and a turkey thief) is having such as easy time getting signatures from all of the pissed off people in the mainstream left. Oh wait, he is having one hell of a time getting them... Wonder why. Oh, because only the moron children on the Internet are capable of buying this crap.

That's really mature. :roll: No wonder you're a Bush fanboy.

 

[Jadow]

there aren't any direct quotes in that memo, it's all second hand, and it's all just one guy's opinion. total BS

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Jadow
there aren't any direct quotes in that memo, it's all second hand, and it's all just one guy's opinion. total BS

Uh huh, right. Here's some more "total BS" for you -- from December 2, 2001.

Secret US plan for Iraq war

Bush orders backing for rebels to topple Saddam

War on Terrorism: Observer special

Peter Beaumont, Ed Vulliamy and Paul Beaver
Sunday December 2, 2001
The Observer

America intends to depose Saddam Hussein by giving armed support to Iraqi opposition forces across the country, The Observer has learnt.

President George W. Bush has ordered the CIA and his senior military commanders to draw up detailed plans for a military operation that could begin within months.

The plan, opposed by Tony Blair and other European Union leaders, threatens to blow apart the increasingly shaky international consensus behind the US-led 'war on terrorism'.

It envisages a combined operation with US bombers targeting key military installations while US forces assist opposition groups in the North and South of the country in a stage-managed uprising. One version of the plan would have US forces fighting on the ground.

Despite US suspicions of Iraqi involvement in the 11 September attacks, the trigger for any attack, sources say, would be the anticipated refusal of Iraq to resubmit to inspections for weapons of mass destruction under the United Nations sanctions imposed after the Gulf war.

According to the sources, the planning is being undertaken under the auspices of a the US Central Command at McDill air force base in Tampa, Florida, commanded by General Tommy Franks, who is leading the war against Afghanistan.

Another key player is understood to be former CIA director James Woolsey. Sources say Woolsey was sent to London by the hawkish Deputy Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, soon after 11 September to ask Iraqi opposition groups if they would participate in an uprising if there was US military support.

The New York Times yesterday quoted a senior administration official who admitted that Bush's aides were looking at options that involved strengthening groups that opposed Saddam. Richard Armitage, the Deputy Secretary of State, said that action against Iraq was not imminent, but would come at a 'place and time of our choosing'.

Washington has been told by its allies that evidence it has presented of an Iraqi link to 11 September is at best circumstantial. However, US proponents of extending the war believe they can make the case for hitting Saddam's regime over its plan to produce weapons of mass destruction.

A European diplomat said last week: 'In the past week the Americans have shut up about Iraqi links to 11 September and have been talking a lot more about their weapons programme.'

The US is believed to be planning to exploit existing UN resolutions on Iraqi weapons programmes to set the action off.

Under the pre-existing 'red lines' for military action against Iraq - set down by Washington and London after the Gulf War - evidence of any credible threat from weapons of mass destruction would be regarded as sufficient to launch military strikes along the lines of Operation Desert Fox in 1998, when allied planes made large-scale strikes against suspected Iraqi weapons complexes.

Opposition by Blair and French President Jacques Chirac may not be enough to dissuade the Americans. One European military source who recently returned from General Franks's headquarters in Florida said: 'The Americans are walking on water. They think they can do anything at the moment and there is bloody nothing Tony [Blair] can do about it.'

Bush is said to have issued instructions about the proposals, which are now at a detailed stage, to his Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, three weeks ago. But Pentagon sources say that a plan for attacking Iraq was developed by the time Bush's order was sent to the Pentagon, drawn up by Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, chairman of the joint chiefs General Richard Myers, and Franks.

The plan is to work with a combination of three political forces: Kurdish rebels in the north of Iraq, radical Sunni Muslim groups in and around Baghdad, and, most controversially, the Shia opposition in the south.

The most adventurous ingredient in the anti-Iraqi proposal is the use of US ground troops, Pentagon sources say. 'Significant numbers' of ground troops could also be called on in the early stages of any rebellion to guard oil fields around the Shia port of Basra in southern Iraq.

 

[BBond]

John Conyers is one of only a few true Americans left.

Conyers to Hold Hearings on Downing Street Memo

Congressmember John Conyers of Michigan has announced that as the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, he has scheduled hearings on the so-called Downing Street Memo and what Conyers calls the administration's "efforts to cook the books on pre-war intelligence." The hearing is scheduled for June 16.

Conyers also says that he plans to introduce new documents that back up the accuracy of the Downing Streets memo, which is actually the classified minutes of a July 2002 meeting of Tony Blair and his senior advisers. The minutes paint a picture of an administration that had already committed to attacking Iraq, was manipulating intelligence and had already begun bombing Iraq to prepare for the ground invasion. This was almost a year before the actual invasion officially began.

In a statement released yesterday, Conyers said next Thursday's hearing will attempt to answer what he calls "serious constitutional questions raised by these revelations." Among those scheduled to testify are former US ambassador to Iraq Joe Wilson, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son in Iraq and attorney John Bonifaz, who has been calling for Bush's impeachment. Conyers says that immediately following the hearings, he will deliver a petition to the White House signed by over half a million people. The petition demands that President Bush answer questions about his secret plan for the Iraq invasion.

 

[wiin]

This is old news.

Downing Strret Memo

Of course, the memo simply contains the impressions of an aide of the impressions of British-cabinet officials of the impressions of unnamed people they spoke to in the United States about what they thought the president was thinking.


No smoking gun.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: wiin
This is old news.

Like I believe any opinion from the National Review. That's sort of like Fox News splashed with more perfume than three old women at a formal ball.

 

[1EZduzit]

Why is GWB telling them to "Bring it on!"?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Why is GWB telling them to "Bring it on!"?

That's old news. No smoking gun.

:roll:

Meanwhile we approach another milestone.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Jadow
there aren't any direct quotes in that memo, it's all second hand, and it's all just one guy's opinion. total BS

Uh huh, right. Here's some more "total BS" for you -- from December 2, 2001.

Secret US plan for Iraq war

Bush orders backing for rebels to topple Saddam

War on Terrorism: Observer special

Peter Beaumont, Ed Vulliamy and Paul Beaver
Sunday December 2, 2001
The Observer

America intends to depose Saddam Hussein by giving armed support to Iraqi opposition forces across the country, The Observer has learnt.

President George W. Bush has ordered the CIA and his senior military commanders to draw up detailed plans for a military operation that could begin within months.

The plan, opposed by Tony Blair and other European Union leaders, threatens to blow apart the increasingly shaky international consensus behind the US-led 'war on terrorism'.

It envisages a combined operation with US bombers targeting key military installations while US forces assist opposition groups in the North and South of the country in a stage-managed uprising. One version of the plan would have US forces fighting on the ground.

Despite US suspicions of Iraqi involvement in the 11 September attacks, the trigger for any attack, sources say, would be the anticipated refusal of Iraq to resubmit to inspections for weapons of mass destruction under the United Nations sanctions imposed after the Gulf war.

According to the sources, the planning is being undertaken under the auspices of a the US Central Command at McDill air force base in Tampa, Florida, commanded by General Tommy Franks, who is leading the war against Afghanistan.

Another key player is understood to be former CIA director James Woolsey. Sources say Woolsey was sent to London by the hawkish Deputy Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, soon after 11 September to ask Iraqi opposition groups if they would participate in an uprising if there was US military support.

The New York Times yesterday quoted a senior administration official who admitted that Bush's aides were looking at options that involved strengthening groups that opposed Saddam. Richard Armitage, the Deputy Secretary of State, said that action against Iraq was not imminent, but would come at a 'place and time of our choosing'.

Washington has been told by its allies that evidence it has presented of an Iraqi link to 11 September is at best circumstantial. However, US proponents of extending the war believe they can make the case for hitting Saddam's regime over its plan to produce weapons of mass destruction.

A European diplomat said last week: 'In the past week the Americans have shut up about Iraqi links to 11 September and have been talking a lot more about their weapons programme.'

The US is believed to be planning to exploit existing UN resolutions on Iraqi weapons programmes to set the action off.

Under the pre-existing 'red lines' for military action against Iraq - set down by Washington and London after the Gulf War - evidence of any credible threat from weapons of mass destruction would be regarded as sufficient to launch military strikes along the lines of Operation Desert Fox in 1998, when allied planes made large-scale strikes against suspected Iraqi weapons complexes.

Opposition by Blair and French President Jacques Chirac may not be enough to dissuade the Americans. One European military source who recently returned from General Franks's headquarters in Florida said: 'The Americans are walking on water. They think they can do anything at the moment and there is bloody nothing Tony [Blair] can do about it.'

Bush is said to have issued instructions about the proposals, which are now at a detailed stage, to his Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, three weeks ago. But Pentagon sources say that a plan for attacking Iraq was developed by the time Bush's order was sent to the Pentagon, drawn up by Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, chairman of the joint chiefs General Richard Myers, and Franks.

The plan is to work with a combination of three political forces: Kurdish rebels in the north of Iraq, radical Sunni Muslim groups in and around Baghdad, and, most controversially, the Shia opposition in the south.

The most adventurous ingredient in the anti-Iraqi proposal is the use of US ground troops, Pentagon sources say. 'Significant numbers' of ground troops could also be called on in the early stages of any rebellion to guard oil fields around the Shia port of Basra in southern Iraq.

BushCo planned to attack Iraq almost a year before he went to Congress (claiming he would only use force as a last resort, of course)? Say it ain't so.

(Great link, BBond.)

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Jadow
there aren't any direct quotes in that memo, it's all second hand, and it's all just one guy's opinion. total BS

Uh huh, right. Here's some more "total BS" for you -- from December 2, 2001.

Secret US plan for Iraq war

Bush orders backing for rebels to topple Saddam

War on Terrorism: Observer special

Peter Beaumont, Ed Vulliamy and Paul Beaver
Sunday December 2, 2001
The Observer

America intends to depose Saddam Hussein by giving armed support to Iraqi opposition forces across the country, The Observer has learnt.

President George W. Bush has ordered the CIA and his senior military commanders to draw up detailed plans for a military operation that could begin within months.

The plan, opposed by Tony Blair and other European Union leaders, threatens to blow apart the increasingly shaky international consensus behind the US-led 'war on terrorism'.

It envisages a combined operation with US bombers targeting key military installations while US forces assist opposition groups in the North and South of the country in a stage-managed uprising. One version of the plan would have US forces fighting on the ground.

Despite US suspicions of Iraqi involvement in the 11 September attacks, the trigger for any attack, sources say, would be the anticipated refusal of Iraq to resubmit to inspections for weapons of mass destruction under the United Nations sanctions imposed after the Gulf war.

According to the sources, the planning is being undertaken under the auspices of a the US Central Command at McDill air force base in Tampa, Florida, commanded by General Tommy Franks, who is leading the war against Afghanistan.

Another key player is understood to be former CIA director James Woolsey. Sources say Woolsey was sent to London by the hawkish Deputy Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, soon after 11 September to ask Iraqi opposition groups if they would participate in an uprising if there was US military support.

The New York Times yesterday quoted a senior administration official who admitted that Bush's aides were looking at options that involved strengthening groups that opposed Saddam. Richard Armitage, the Deputy Secretary of State, said that action against Iraq was not imminent, but would come at a 'place and time of our choosing'.

Washington has been told by its allies that evidence it has presented of an Iraqi link to 11 September is at best circumstantial. However, US proponents of extending the war believe they can make the case for hitting Saddam's regime over its plan to produce weapons of mass destruction.

A European diplomat said last week: 'In the past week the Americans have shut up about Iraqi links to 11 September and have been talking a lot more about their weapons programme.'

The US is believed to be planning to exploit existing UN resolutions on Iraqi weapons programmes to set the action off.

Under the pre-existing 'red lines' for military action against Iraq - set down by Washington and London after the Gulf War - evidence of any credible threat from weapons of mass destruction would be regarded as sufficient to launch military strikes along the lines of Operation Desert Fox in 1998, when allied planes made large-scale strikes against suspected Iraqi weapons complexes.

Opposition by Blair and French President Jacques Chirac may not be enough to dissuade the Americans. One European military source who recently returned from General Franks's headquarters in Florida said: 'The Americans are walking on water. They think they can do anything at the moment and there is bloody nothing Tony [Blair] can do about it.'

Bush is said to have issued instructions about the proposals, which are now at a detailed stage, to his Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, three weeks ago. But Pentagon sources say that a plan for attacking Iraq was developed by the time Bush's order was sent to the Pentagon, drawn up by Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, chairman of the joint chiefs General Richard Myers, and Franks.

The plan is to work with a combination of three political forces: Kurdish rebels in the north of Iraq, radical Sunni Muslim groups in and around Baghdad, and, most controversially, the Shia opposition in the south.

The most adventurous ingredient in the anti-Iraqi proposal is the use of US ground troops, Pentagon sources say. 'Significant numbers' of ground troops could also be called on in the early stages of any rebellion to guard oil fields around the Shia port of Basra in southern Iraq.

BushCo planned to attack Iraq almost a year before he went to Congress (claiming he would only use force as a last resort, of course)? Say it ain't so.

(Great link, BBond.)

:thumbsup:

Check this out from the London Times. This is no longer a smoking gun. This is a goddam forest fire.

Ministers were told of need for Gulf war ?excuse?

MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.

The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.

The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair?s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was ?necessary to create the conditions? which would make it legal.

This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action.

?US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia,? the briefing paper warned. This meant that issues of legality ?would arise virtually whatever option ministers choose with regard to UK participation?.

The paper was circulated to those present at the meeting, among whom were Blair, Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, and Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of MI6. The full minutes of the meeting were published last month in The Sunday Times.

Cabinet Office paper: Conditions for military action

The paper, produced by the Cabinet Office on July 21, 2002, is incomplete because the last page is missing. The following is a transcript rather than the original document in order to protect the source.

PERSONAL SECRET UK EYES ONLY

IRAQ: CONDITIONS FOR MILITARY ACTION (A Note by Officials)

Summary

Ministers are invited to:

(1) Note the latest position on US military planning and timescales for possible action.

(2) Agree that the objective of any military action should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD.

(3) Agree to engage the US on the need to set military plans within a realistic political strategy, which includes identifying the succession to Saddam Hussein and creating the conditions necessary to justify government military action, which might include an ultimatum for the return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq. This should include a call from the Prime Minister to President Bush ahead of the briefing of US military plans to the President on 4 August.

(4) Note the potentially long lead times involved in equipping UK Armed Forces to undertake operations in the Iraqi theatre and agree that the MOD should bring forward proposals for the procurement of Urgent Operational Requirements under cover of the lessons learned from Afghanistan and the outcome of SR2002.

(5) Agree to the establishment of an ad hoc group of officials under Cabinet Office Chairmanship to consider the development of an information campaign to be agreed with the US.

IMPEACH THE ENTIRE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. TRY THEM FOR THEIR LIES, ILLEGAL AGGRESSION AGAINST IRAQ, AND WAR CRIMES.

 

[Darkhawk28]

:| :| :|

 

[Czar]

wow, this is getting worse and worse

 

[BBond]

I pray that this is the beginning of a new awakening in America and a the beginning of the end for the fascist oligarchs whose crime syndicate expanded operations from Texas to Washington DC.

The leak that changed minds on the Iraq war

Six weeks ago The Sunday Times published the leaked minutes of a July 2002 Downing Street meeting in which Tony Blair committed Britain to war in Iraq months before parliament was consulted.

They detailed a secret pledge to President George W Bush to help oust Saddam, showed that Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, had warned such action could be illegal and that Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, had thought the case for war was ?thin?.

By any standards these were fascinating revelations. Nothing, however, could have prepared us for what a worldwide impact the story would have. More than a month later it still features in the daily top 10 most popular stories on our website, with 330,000 people estimated to have logged on to read it.

Though it remains unclear to what extent the leaked documents had on the general election (held four days after the story broke), anger about the war is widely seen as the key reason for the government?s severely reduced majority.

What is clearer is that they are having a strong effect on public perception in America, where there has been a wave of interest in the leak. At least two websites, afterdowningstreet.org and downingstreetmemo.com, have been set up to draw public attention to the leaked minutes. The former received more than 1.6m hits on a single day last week (it averages above 1m a day) while the latter has been selling out of T-shirts bearing the legend: ?Did you get the Downing Street Memo?? Last week the leaked documents stormed the mainstream US media when they were raised at a White House news conference, forcing Tony Blair and George Bush to address the issue.

The minutes showed that Sir Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, warned Blair?s war cabinet that ?the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy?. The prime minister, who had chaired that July meeting, told the White House briefing room that ?the facts were not being fixed in any shape at all?.

The American public is not so sure. Last week a Washington Post-ABC News poll found for the first time that a majority of Americans ? 52% ? felt the war in Iraq had not made the United States safer.

Today we publish further revelations in the news section in the form of a July 2002 Cabinet Office briefing paper.

It makes clear that both Blair and Bush have a lot to apologise for: ?When the prime minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change,? it states, adding that ?regime change per se is illegal?.

As a prime minister had agreed to do something that was illegal under British interpretation of international law, it was ?necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support regime change?, the briefing paper says.

For Blair, ?creating the conditions? meant going to the United Nations to get a unanimous resolution warning Iraq to co- operate with the inspectors or else. Bush needed the backing of Congress and he didn?t get that until October 11, 2002.

But as Geoff Hoon, then British defence secretary, said in that Downing Street meeting in July 2002, the ?US had already begun ?spikes of activity? to put pressure on the regime?.

No bombs were dropped on southern Iraq in March 2002 but by July, with the ?spikes of activity? in full flow, about 10 tons of bombs were being dropped a month. The problem was that the Iraqis didn?t retaliate. They didn?t provide the excuse Bush and Blair needed.

So at the end of August the allies started the air war anyway. The number of bombs dropped on southern Iraq shot up to 54.6 tons in September alone.

The authenticity of these figures is not in doubt. They were obtained from the government by parliamentary questions put by the Liberal Democrats so they are up on the Hansard website for all the internet bloggers to see.

They show that Bush and Blair began their war, not in March 2003 as most believed, but at the end of August 2002, six weeks before Bush received his congressional backing, and more than two months before the UN vote.

That is why the wave of public awareness sweeping America is so dangerous to Bush and why he has refused to answer a letter from 89 Democratic congressmen asking if the intelligence was ?fixed? and precisely when he and Blair actually agreed to go to war.

John Conyers, the Demo-cratic congressman who drafted the letter, promised when downingstreetmemo.com was set up last week that once 250,000 people had signed the website?s petition demanding the same answers he would deliver it to Bush.

By Friday more than 500,000 people had signed and it seems likely that by next Thursday when Conyers carries the petition up to the White House gates the names on it will number well over a million.