Downing Street Memo

[Taggart]

I'm not arguing whether this is proof that Bush lied or not. I think this is the closest evidence that is out there that he at least used spin when framing the case to attack. However, Republican Congress = no impeachment or censure. Now in 2006 if Dems take back control in Congress, I think one of the hot new issues will be trying to get rid of Bush. We'll see.

 

[Arcex]

While you're right about the Republican Congress never impeaching Bush I still think it should be pursued, he lied to the American people, which is the same thing most people said they were mad at Clinton for doing, so at the very least I would like a public apology from Bush. Not that I think thats going to happen.

And by the way, I'm not particularly mad at Bush for lying, its probably safe to assume every president has lied to the American people at some point, and probably on a regular basis. It comes with the job, some issues are not for the public to know about simply because most of the public isn't mature enough to handle it. What I am mad at Bush for is going out of his way to involve us in an unnecessary war and getting thousands of people killed for no good reason.

And as for Clinton, what happened was between him and Hillary, all I can fault him for is bad taste. The leader of the free world and thats the cutest intern he can find?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Considering there is another memo that was recently released, which directly contradicts some of the contents of the Downing Street memo, and which has also been virtually ignored by the MSM, one has to wonder about the veracity of the so-called Downing Street memo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/13/politics/13downing.html?

Not only that, but both memos speak of the problems of WMDs. If the intel about WMDs was just made up or "fixed" (which means to establish; it doesn't mean fake) then why are both memos so serious about the WMD problem?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Considering there is another memo that was recently released, which directly contradicts some of the contents of the Downing Street memo, and which has also been virtually ignored by the MSM, one has to wonder about the veracity of the so-called Downing Street memo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/13/politics/13downing.html?

Not only that, but both memos speak of the problems of WMDs. If the intel about WMDs was just made up or "fixed" (which means to establish; it doesn't mean fake) then why are both memos so serious about the WMD problem?

Did you read the whole article that you linked to? Notice the last paragraph:

"U.S. military planning unambiguously takes as its objective the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, followed by elimination of Iraqi W.M.D. It is however, by no means certain, in the view of U.K. officials, that one would necessarily follow from the other. Even if regime change is a necessary condition for controlling Iraqi W.M.D., it is certainly not a sufficient one."

Kinda sounds like Bush and company lied about their primary reason....doesn't it? THAT is the case that the left and those of us that detest the fact that we went to war with Iraq have been saying is what he lied about. Not that the evidence was fake, although there were plenty enough claims to that as well, but that it was being trumped up more than it should have.

Bushco wanted regime change. Congress would not have allowed him to commit troops if that was the primary reason. They knew that and along came "immenent threat" from the "stockpiles" of Saddam's WMDs.

 

[Taggart]

Originally posted by: Arcex
What I am mad at Bush for is going out of his way to involve us in an unnecessary war and getting thousands of people killed for no good reason.

In the months leading up to the war, he didn't 'get thousands of people killed for no good reason.' I firmly believe he thought the WMD threat was real. Was Clinton guilty of getting thousands of people killed when he bombed military targets (while killing innocent civilians indirectly I might add) in 1998? Just as much as GWB is.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Did you read the whole article that you linked to? Notice the last paragraph:

"U.S. military planning unambiguously takes as its objective the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, followed by elimination of Iraqi W.M.D. It is however, by no means certain, in the view of U.K. officials, that one would necessarily follow from the other. Even if regime change is a necessary condition for controlling Iraqi W.M.D., it is certainly not a sufficient one."

Kinda sounds like Bush and company lied about their primary reason....doesn't it? THAT is the case that the left and those of us that detest the fact that we went to war with Iraq have been saying is what he lied about. Not that the evidence was fake, although there were plenty enough claims to that as well, but that it was being trumped up more than it should have.

Bushco wanted regime change. Congress would not have allowed him to commit troops if that was the primary reason. They knew that and along came "immenent threat" from the "stockpiles" of Saddam's WMDs.

Where do you get that Bush lied from that statement? Maybe we're intepreting it differently but I see it as saying that - Regime change alone won't be sufficient for controlling Saddam's WMDs. iow, there is more to securing WMDs than just regime change.

What's your interpretation?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Taggart

Originally posted by: Arcex
What I am mad at Bush for is going out of his way to involve us in an unnecessary war and getting thousands of people killed for no good reason.

In the months leading up to the war, he didn't 'get thousands of people killed for no good reason.' I firmly believe he thought the WMD threat was real. Was Clinton guilty of getting thousands of people killed when he bombed military targets (while killing innocent civilians indirectly I might add) in 1998? Just as much as GWB is.

Clinton got THOUSANDS of people killed? I must have missed something. Can you link me to your source?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Where do you get that Bush lied from that statement? Maybe we're intepreting it differently but I see it as saying that - Regime change alone won't be sufficient for controlling Saddam's WMDs. iow, there is more to securing WMDs than just regime change.

What's your interpretation?

My interpretation is that the Bush administration wanted regime change. They knew that they would not be able to garner sufficient support for that. They knew that, after 9/11, they had an opportunity to play on the fear of attacks that the American population had and exploited it.

Link me to a news conference where Bush or someone high in his administration EVER claimed that regime change was one of the primary reasons for war. I'll bet that you can't. Because the only reason ever given was to disarm him for our safety and security.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Where do you get that Bush lied from that statement? Maybe we're intepreting it differently but I see it as saying that - Regime change alone won't be sufficient for controlling Saddam's WMDs. iow, there is more to securing WMDs than just regime change.

What's your interpretation?

My interpretation is that the Bush administration wanted regime change. They knew that they would not be able to garner sufficient support for that. They knew that, after 9/11, they had an opportunity to play on the fear of attacks that the American population had and exploited it.

Link me to a news conference where Bush or someone high in his administration EVER claimed that regime change was one of the primary reasons for war. I'll bet that you can't. Because the only reason ever given was to disarm him for our safety and security.

Powell on a couple of occassions mentioned humanitarian reasons for ousting the dictator.
If regime change was so on Bush's mind then why did he elect to go into Afghanistan to chase OBL around when Tenet was screaming for Iraq days after 9-11?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Where do you get that Bush lied from that statement? Maybe we're intepreting it differently but I see it as saying that - Regime change alone won't be sufficient for controlling Saddam's WMDs. iow, there is more to securing WMDs than just regime change.

What's your interpretation?

My interpretation is that the Bush administration wanted regime change. They knew that they would not be able to garner sufficient support for that. They knew that, after 9/11, they had an opportunity to play on the fear of attacks that the American population had and exploited it.

Link me to a news conference where Bush or someone high in his administration EVER claimed that regime change was one of the primary reasons for war. I'll bet that you can't. Because the only reason ever given was to disarm him for our safety and security.

Powell on a couple of occassions mentioned humanitarian reasons for ousting the dictator.
If regime change was so on Bush's mind then why did he elect to go into Afghanistan to chase OBL around when Tenet was screaming for Iraq days after 9-11?

Because he had no choice whatsoever. He would have been impeached (if he was lucky) and more than likely shot had he ignored Afghanistan, the Taliban and OBL who claimed responsibility for 9/11.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Where do you get that Bush lied from that statement? Maybe we're intepreting it differently but I see it as saying that - Regime change alone won't be sufficient for controlling Saddam's WMDs. iow, there is more to securing WMDs than just regime change.

What's your interpretation?

My interpretation is that the Bush administration wanted regime change. They knew that they would not be able to garner sufficient support for that. They knew that, after 9/11, they had an opportunity to play on the fear of attacks that the American population had and exploited it.

Link me to a news conference where Bush or someone high in his administration EVER claimed that regime change was one of the primary reasons for war. I'll bet that you can't. Because the only reason ever given was to disarm him for our safety and security.

Powell on a couple of occassions mentioned humanitarian reasons for ousting the dictator.
If regime change was so on Bush's mind then why did he elect to go into Afghanistan to chase OBL around when Tenet was screaming for Iraq days after 9-11?

Because he had no choice whatsoever. He would have been impeached (if he was lucky) and more than likely shot had he ignored Afghanistan, the Taliban and OBL who claimed responsibility for 9/11.

Oh please, impeached?

I didnt see FDR get impeached when we invaded N.Africa after the Japanese bombed us.
I could be wrong but I dont think there were many japanese troops at Kasserine Pass.

Read the 9-11 report it will help you immensely here.

Remember it wasnt until well after we invade Afghanistan that tapes surfaced with OBL admitting it worked out better than planned. Nobody knew for sure within the first few days who was behind it for sure.

 

[Zebo]

Seems to me we've had bunches of people inside admin blowing whistle on lies already like Clark, Ambassator who wife was outed for retribution, Neil... etc..

Then I just listen to the man talk and can tell he's lying, try it sometime you'll see.

So bascially the case is there that our leaders are totally corrupt murderous thugs.... is'nt it irresponsible to not call attention to it reguardless what people might think of you instead of "playing it safe" or "going with the flow"???

That's what got the war mongering dems in trouble in the first place. They did'nt ask questions, they kissed W's arse and gave him whatever he wanted so MSM went along too And now you're asking them to continue with the charade? Republican light?

This is why I like Dean so much. He does'nt capitulate and calls things like he sees them.

But it's not just dean either... there are several honest republicans in power that are in W's face on this new wilsononism he's practicing which may have gone along once questions arose. Like Prove it!!!

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Where do you get that Bush lied from that statement? Maybe we're intepreting it differently but I see it as saying that - Regime change alone won't be sufficient for controlling Saddam's WMDs. iow, there is more to securing WMDs than just regime change.

What's your interpretation?

My interpretation is that the Bush administration wanted regime change. They knew that they would not be able to garner sufficient support for that. They knew that, after 9/11, they had an opportunity to play on the fear of attacks that the American population had and exploited it.

Look at the context. The entire context for these memos are about military planning as an option for dealing with Iraq. The paragraph specifically states:

"U.S. military planning unambiguously takes as its objective the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, followed by elimination of Iraqi W.M.D.'

iow, if we invade, this is how we are basically going about it.

Link me to a news conference where Bush or someone high in his administration EVER claimed that regime change was one of the primary reasons for war. I'll bet that you can't. Because the only reason ever given was to disarm him for our safety and security.

Regime change was not a "reason" for war. It was an objective.

 

[Taggart]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Taggart

Originally posted by: Arcex
What I am mad at Bush for is going out of his way to involve us in an unnecessary war and getting thousands of people killed for no good reason.

In the months leading up to the war, he didn't 'get thousands of people killed for no good reason.' I firmly believe he thought the WMD threat was real. Was Clinton guilty of getting thousands of people killed when he bombed military targets (while killing innocent civilians indirectly I might add) in 1998? Just as much as GWB is.

Clinton got THOUSANDS of people killed? I must have missed something. Can you link me to your source?

Ok, I didn't mean to type that, it was not thousands, but Clinton led us to war to get WMD's out of Saddam's hands, just like GWB. I don't care how many insurgents or Iraqi soldiers died fighting us, they are the combatants. Are you saying that thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed DIRECTLY by US action? Most of the civilian casualties are from insurgent attacks.

 

[Zebo]

Clintons as bad or worse than W. He slaughters his own people such as Ruby Ridge..Waco. Then the whole balkans charade where scum bag Sec state said something to the effect "We have all this hardware, lets use it." preceeding the slaughter there.

Modern day governments are crimminals, who execute crimes for which ordinary citizens would be incarcerated, and perhaps even executed, are legalized and even considered admirable when carried out under the color of state authority. Sociopathic behavior, such as murder and robbery, are simply repackaged as "war" and "taxation" and touted as our collective moral duty, or, at worst, unfortunate necessities.

 

[BBond]

The Conyers hearings begin tomorrow.

The Downing Street Memo Comes To Washington; Conyers Blasts "Deafening Sound of Silence"

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Clintons as bad or worse than W. He slaughters his own people such as Ruby Ridge..Waco.

You don't have to get into the right or wrong of Ruby Ridge or Waco to call BULLSH8!!! on this. Start by taking 100 or even 1,000 Ruby Ridges AND Wacos, and you still won't come to the death toll or the trillions this war has cost, and it's all based on Bushwhacko's INTENTIONAL LIES.

Then the whole balkans charade where scum bag Sec state said something to the effect "We have all this hardware, lets use it." preceeding the slaughter there.

The Balkins was awash in ethnic cleansing at the command of Malosovic and his cronies, and we acted with NATO, not unilaterally with a token presence by a few lapdogs.

Modern day governments are crimminals, who execute crimes for which ordinary citizens would be incarcerated, and perhaps even executed, are legalized and even considered admirable when carried out under the color of state authority. Sociopathic behavior, such as murder and robbery, are simply repackaged as "war" and "taxation" and touted as our collective moral duty, or, at worst, unfortunate necessities.

Bushwhacko is probably the best example of this in American history, but no comparison, accurate or not, with any previous president, or any other government, justifies his crimes. It only adds to the death toll and body count.

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Zebo
Clintons as bad or worse than W. He slaughters his own people such as Ruby Ridge..Waco.

You don't have to get into the right or wrong of Ruby Ridge or Waco to call BULLSH8!!! on this. Start by taking 100 or even 1,000 Ruby Ridges AND Wacos, and you still won't come to the death toll or the trillions this war has cost, and it's all based on Bushwhacko's INTENTIONAL LIES.

Then the whole balkans charade where scum bag Sec state said something to the effect "We have all this hardware, lets use it." preceeding the slaughter there.

The Balkins was awash in ethnic cleansing at the command of Malosovic and his cronies, and we acted with NATO, not unilaterally with a token presence by a few lapdogs.

Modern day governments are crimminals, who execute crimes for which ordinary citizens would be incarcerated, and perhaps even executed, are legalized and even considered admirable when carried out under the color of state authority. Sociopathic behavior, such as murder and robbery, are simply repackaged as "war" and "taxation" and touted as our collective moral duty, or, at worst, unfortunate necessities.

Bushwhacko is probably the best example of this in American history, but no comparison, accurate or not, with any previous president, or any other government, justifies his crimes. It only adds to the death toll and body count.

Oh gimme a break :roll: JFK and LBJ liable for FAR WORSE casualties in Vietnam

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: AnyMal
Oh gimme a break :roll: JFK and LBJ liable for FAR WORSE casualties in Vietnam

You forgot a bigger criminal, Richard Nixon. Each of their situations was different and analyzing how wrong each of them was would be too long to get into details of all them in this thread, but that still doesn't make Bush right. It just makes him that much dumber for not learning from the past.

No break for you. Will you settle for a cookie?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Zebo
Clintons as bad or worse than W. He slaughters his own people such as Ruby Ridge..Waco.

You don't have to get into the right or wrong of Ruby Ridge or Waco to call BULLSH8!!! on this. Start by taking 100 or even 1,000 Ruby Ridges AND Wacos, and you still won't come to the death toll or the trillions this war has cost, and it's all based on Bushwhacko's INTENTIONAL LIES.

Then the whole balkans charade where scum bag Sec state said something to the effect "We have all this hardware, lets use it." preceeding the slaughter there.

The Balkins was awash in ethnic cleansing at the command of Malosovic and his cronies, and we acted with NATO, not unilaterally with a token presence by a few lapdogs.

Modern day governments are crimminals, who execute crimes for which ordinary citizens would be incarcerated, and perhaps even executed, are legalized and even considered admirable when carried out under the color of state authority. Sociopathic behavior, such as murder and robbery, are simply repackaged as "war" and "taxation" and touted as our collective moral duty, or, at worst, unfortunate necessities.

Bushwhacko is probably the best example of this in American history, but no comparison, accurate or not, with any previous president, or any other government, justifies his crimes. It only adds to the death toll and body count.

Oh gimme a break :roll: JFK and LBJ liable for FAR WORSE casualties in Vietnam

Most troops died after Nixon lied to get elected in 68 and said he was going to pull them.. He keeped them there 68-75 to continue the slaugher. So it's really nixons war and blood on his hands too.

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: AnyMal
Oh gimme a break :roll: JFK and LBJ liable for FAR WORSE casualties in Vietnam

You forgot a bigger criminal, Richard Nixon. Each of their situations was different and analyzing how wrong each of them was would be too long to get into details of all them in this thread, but that still doesn't make Bush right. It just makes him that much dumber for not learning from the past.

No break for you. Will you settle for a cookie?

Richard Nixon huh? You mean the man that got us out of the mess JFK and LBJ got is into, right?

So keep your Nice try, but no cigar.

And just to keep things rolling we can also mention FDR. The man who oversaw carpet bombings of Leipzig, Dresden, Frankfort. The cities with 90%+ civilian population where tens of thousands died needlessly.

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Zebo
Clintons as bad or worse than W. He slaughters his own people such as Ruby Ridge..Waco.

You don't have to get into the right or wrong of Ruby Ridge or Waco to call BULLSH8!!! on this. Start by taking 100 or even 1,000 Ruby Ridges AND Wacos, and you still won't come to the death toll or the trillions this war has cost, and it's all based on Bushwhacko's INTENTIONAL LIES.

Then the whole balkans charade where scum bag Sec state said something to the effect "We have all this hardware, lets use it." preceeding the slaughter there.

The Balkins was awash in ethnic cleansing at the command of Malosovic and his cronies, and we acted with NATO, not unilaterally with a token presence by a few lapdogs.

Modern day governments are crimminals, who execute crimes for which ordinary citizens would be incarcerated, and perhaps even executed, are legalized and even considered admirable when carried out under the color of state authority. Sociopathic behavior, such as murder and robbery, are simply repackaged as "war" and "taxation" and touted as our collective moral duty, or, at worst, unfortunate necessities.

Bushwhacko is probably the best example of this in American history, but no comparison, accurate or not, with any previous president, or any other government, justifies his crimes. It only adds to the death toll and body count.

Oh gimme a break :roll: JFK and LBJ liable for FAR WORSE casualties in Vietnam

Most troops died after Nixon lied to get elected in 68 and said he was going to pull them.. He keeped them there 68-75 to continue the slaugher. So it's really nixons war and blood on his hands too.

You're forgetting that Nixon brokered a cease-fire in '73 which North Vietnam broke as soon as we pulled back. Let's also not forget that Nixon DID NOT get elected because he promised we would pull out. You can't possibly blame a man for trying to undo the utter mess his predecessors left him.

 

[BBond]

THE MAN THAT GOT US OUT OF THE MESS!!!???

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This is the first time I've ever heard ANYONE try to get away with that one.

Must be a sign of the times.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: AnyMal


You're forgetting that Nixon brokered a cease-fire in '73 which North Vietnam broke as soon as we pulled back. Let's also not forget that Nixon DID NOT get elected because he promised we would pull out. You can't possibly blame a man for trying to undo the utter mess his predecessors left him.

Nixon got elected because he told American voters he had a secret plan to get out of Vietnam.

He was lying. Everyone knows he was lying. It was as plain as the nose on your face.

You do have a nose, don't you?

 

[1EZduzit]

The fact of the matter is that is was Eisenhower who got us into Vietnam. Every President after him escalated the war in an attempt to actually win it. Bush has sent us down the same road (without an exit strategy) and the dumb ass was the one who did the invading.
:roll:

The only shock and awe that came from that campaign was the shock that the insurgents didn't fold and the awe for the numgber of people willing to commit suicide in order to make a point.