Downing Street Memo

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: 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?

he had a plan...to get us out of just vietnam alone and into the more profitable poppy producing neighboring countries.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 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.

Actually it was Truman. He began giving the French aid against the Vietnihm in 1950. That started the entire ball rolling.

 

[Harvey]

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

No, I'm talking about Richard Nixon, possibly the worst criminal to hold the office until now who directed criminal actions against American citizens, even without the figleaf of any "Patriot" act. I'm talking about Richard Nixon, the meglomanic speed freak who conspired to cover up Watergate, defied Congressional subpoenas and the Supreme Court's orders to turn over the tapes of him doing it.

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.

You mean things that were done (right or wrong on a level of specifics) when we were in a legitimate war with Hitler, who declared war on us and showed by his lunacy across Europe that he meant it?

While you're at it, why don't you bitch about dropping the bomb on Japan. It wasn't nice to them, and in retrospect, if we knew what we do, now, about it, they may have decided otherwise, but it was a real, legitimate act of self defense in a real, legitimate war.

I'd call you historically challenged, but you're nowhere near that good. :roll:

 

[phillyTIM]

the Downing Street Memo may be the achilles heel that the World has been waiting for to take this Bush turkey down...hopefully will take Tony Blair with him for being his whore.

public furor is only beginning and the resources for a major showdown are being amassed. start with any of these on-line gatherings of information & call to action:

http://www.bigbrassblog.com/bba/

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/6/3/131436/1179

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/11872791.htm

http://lastleftb4hooterville.blogspot.c...6/downing-street-its-not-just-for.html


let the paper be the sword that cuts the throat of this Regime of lies

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: Harvey

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

No, I'm talking about Richard Nixon, possibly the worst criminal to hold the office until now who directed criminal actions against American citizens, even without the figleaf of any "Patriot" act. I'm talking about Richard Nixon, the meglomanic speed freak who conspired to cover up Watergate, defied Congressional subpoenas and the Supreme Court's orders to turn over the tapes of him doing it.

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.

You mean things that were done (right or wrong on a level of specifics) when we were in a legitimate war with Hitler, who declared war on us and showed by his lunacy across Europe that he meant it?

While you're at it, why don't you bitch about dropping the bomb on Japan. It wasn't nice to them, and in retrospect, if we knew what we do, now, about it, they may have decided otherwise, but it was a real, legitimate act of self defense in a real, legitimate war.

I'd call you historically challenged, but you're nowhere near that good. :roll:

I forgot that FDR/JFK/LBJ were democrats and we can't apply the same standards to their actions. Silly me. My bad.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: AnyMal
I forgot that FDR/JFK/LBJ were democrats and we can't apply the same standards to their actions.

No, you forgot to note the realities of different circumstances each of them faced and the catastrophy the current Criminal In Chief created with his ELECTIVE war.

Silly me. My bad.

Now that's the first honest thing you've said in far too long.

I should have remembered, you're the same historically and legally challenged ranting maniac who proved how little he knew in this thread. :|

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: AnyMal
I forgot that FDR/JFK/LBJ were democrats and we can't apply the same standards to their actions.

No, you forgot to note the realities of different circumstances each of them faced and the catastrophy the current Criminal In Chief created with his ELECTIVE war.

Silly me. My bad.

Now that's the first honest thing you've said in far too long.

I should have remembered, you're the same historically and legally challenged ranting maniac who proved how little he knew in this thread. :|

By elective you mean......... what?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: AnyMal
By elective you mean......... what?

Please... Please... PLEASE show us you're not so totally devoid of any historical knowledge as all of your previous posts in almost every thread show us. :roll:

Elective -- Saddam did not attack the U.S. Attacking Iraq was NOT an act of defense; it was a preplanned (and piss poorly planned), offensive aggression. Every lame excuse Bushwhacko put out was a LIE!

And before you once again go into your Bushwhacko fanboi act and rant about how great getting rid of Saddam was, you've already proven how ignorant you are in dozens of other threads. Let's not derail this discussion about the Downing Street Memo and everything that's following in its trail.

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: 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?

1968 campaign brochure

GOP nomination acceptance speech

Inaugural address

You still think he got elected because of Vietnam?

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: AnyMal
By elective you mean......... what?

Please... Please... PLEASE show us you're not so totally devoid of any historical knowledge as all of your previous posts in almost every thread show us. :roll:

Elective -- Saddam did not attack the U.S. Attacking Iraq was NOT an act of defense; it was a preplanned (and piss poorly planned), offensive aggression. Every lame excuse Bushwhacko put out was a LIE!

And before you once again go into your Bushwhacko fanboi act and rant about how great getting rid of Saddam was, you've already proven how ignorant you are in dozens of other threads. Let's not derail this discussion about the Downing Street Memo and everything that's following in its trail.

Umm it was actually your comments that prompted my remarks. Let me remind you:

Zebo - 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.

You - 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.

The point (which you, not surprisingly, did not get) is that calling Bush "the best example" is at least somewhat inaccurate, to put it mildly.

And yes, the war in Iraq was an offensive action, no secret there. Just like Vietnam, just like Korea. But then again, as I said, we shouldn't apply the same standards when comparing the actions of presidents from different parties, right?

 

[Taggart]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
the Downing Street Memo may be the achilles heel that the World has been waiting for to take this Bush turkey down...hopefully will take Tony Blair with him for being his whore.

public furor is only beginning and the resources for a major showdown are being amassed. start with any of these on-line gatherings of information & call to action:

http://www.bigbrassblog.com/bba/

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/6/3/131436/1179

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/11872791.htm

http://lastleftb4hooterville.blogspot.c...6/downing-street-its-not-just-for.html


let the paper be the sword that cuts the throat of this Regime of lies

IF the GOP retains control of Congress in 2006, I'll bet you $100 Bush is not impeached.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: AnyMal
The point (which you, not surprisingly, did not get) is that calling Bush "the best example" is at least somewhat inaccurate, to put it mildly.

< enn-n-n-n-ngh > (game show buzzer sound) You're right that I posted that, but wrong because Bushwhacko IS the worst criminal to hold the office. Again, we've covered why in many other threads. If you include someone in his administration disclosing the identity of top CIA covert agent, Valerie Plame, his crimes would include TREASON! I don't think we've had that from any other President.

And yes, the war in Iraq was an offensive action, no secret there. Just like Vietnam, just like Korea.

And once again, history has shown that our own government lied to us about Vietnam. Korea's another discussion, but Bush is too fscking stupid to learn from history. Guess he was too busy drinking and snorting coke in college to learn there and too busy ducking out of his Air Force Reserve obligations to learn anything about military issues.

But then again, as I said, we shouldn't apply the same standards when comparing the actions of presidents from different parties, right?

Hey! Nixon was a Republican. Of course most Republicans would rather forget that, but I'm not the one who made that choice for any of the others you've named. I'm also not the one who made their mistakes.

Unless you're really intent on trying to prove you're at least as stupid as Bush, you should go back and check your history. So far, your reality check is bouncing.

I'm through even replying to you. You're ridiculous beyond belief.

We now return this thread back to the previously scheduled discussion of the Downing Street Memo.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 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.

Actually it was Truman. He began giving the French aid against the Vietnihm in 1950. That started the entire ball rolling.

Did Truman send military advisors? I heard it was Ike who sent the first military personel to Vietnam.

Edit:

Most American wars have obvious starting points or precipitating causes: the Battles of Lexington and Concord in 1775, the capture of Fort Sumter in 1861, the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, and the North Korean invasion of South Korea in June 1950, for example. But there was no fixed beginning for the U.S. war in Vietnam. The United States entered that war incrementally, in a series of steps between 1950 and 1965. In May 1950, President Harry S. Truman authorized a modest program of economic and military aid to the French, who were fighting to retain control of their Indochina colony, including Laos and Cambodia as well as Vietnam. When the Vietnamese Nationalist (and Communist-led) Vietminh army defeated French forces at Dienbienphu in 1954, the French were compelled to accede to the creation of a Communist Vietnam north of the 17th parallel while leaving a non-Communist entity south of that line. The United States refused to accept the arrangement. The administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower undertook instead to build a nation from the spurious political entity that was South Vietnam by fabricating a government there, taking over control from the French, dispatching military advisers to train a South Vietnamese army, and unleashing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to conduct psychological warfare against the North.

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/causes.htm

As I thought, Truman tried to assist the French in retaining control, but Eisenhower was the one who committed us to establishing a S. Vietnamese goverment.

Nice misinformation TLC. 😀

Edit due to post below me: Now it's Kennedy's fault?? LOL. Eisenhower set the goverment up, Kennedy inherited the mess.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 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.

Actually it was Truman. He began giving the French aid against the Vietnihm in 1950. That started the entire ball rolling.

Did Truman send military advisors? I heard it was Ike who sent the first military personel to Vietnam.

Ike sent the first military advisors. Kennedy sent the first special ops forces...secretly.

 

[dmcowen674]

6-15-2005 'Failed' by Fourth Estate

'Failed' by Fourth Estate

The White House called on Newsweek to do more to repair damage from its recent article about abuse of the Quran at Guantánamo.

The content of the Newsweek article was revealed as far back as three years ago! Yes, Newsweek was had by a Pentagon spokesman, but the Quran abuse had been mentioned before by news organizations in Britain.

It seems that here in America we cannot get hard-hitting questions asked of this administration.

The media don't dare question the President lest they not be allowed into the hallowed White House press corps. . . . This President is beyond being a Teflon president. He's become untouchable, and our Fourth Estate has failed us miserably.

Where's the coverage of the Downing Street memo, which is about as close to a smoking gun as we're going to get?

That memo describes the minutes of a meeting in which it was revealed that our President had already decided to invade Iraq in 2002 and was working to fix the intelligence to justify an invasion.

Stop sitting on your duffs and start digging. Your country demands it of you.


Conjur

Louisville, Kentucky

 

[dmcowen674]

British versions of Deep Throat emerging?

Newsweek is now reporting that two senior British officials do not question the authenticity of the Downing Street Minutes and related documents. These two paragraphs spill all of the beans:

The memos were first obtained by Michael Smith, a London-based reporter who previously wrote for The Daily Telegraph and now works for the Sunday Times of London.

Smith told NEWSWEEK he obtained a first batch of six documents last summer when he still worked for the Telegraph from a source inside the British government who he could not otherwise identify. On the advice of the Telegraphs lawyers, the paper had a secretary retype the documents verbatim on separate paperthen returned the originals to his source. Smith received another three documents when he went to work for the Sunday Times. Some of the retyped documents have recently begun to appear on Web sites such as Raw Story, a liberal site that is critical of the Bush administration. Smith told NEWSWEEK that nobody in the British government has disputed their authenticity, and he was even threatened last year with criminal investigation for violating Britains Official Secrets Act. Im struggling to understand why they would threaten to investigate the leak of official secrets if these were not official secrets, he said.

A spokesman for No. 10 Downing Street, the office of the British prime minister, said today, We would never comment on internal documents. But two senior British officials, who asked not to be further identified because of the sensitivity of the material, told NEWSWEEK in separate interviews that they had no reason to question the authenticity of either the documents published by the Sunday Times or the related documentsincluding the March 2002 options paper.

Go ahead and spin this Limbaugh, Hannity and OReilly. Give us your best rhetoric, Scotty Boy. Guess what fellas? No one is buying your Bull anymore!

 

[phillyTIM]

Yessss...Goooood.....let the pendulum swing back in retribution & fitting justice to Bush/Blair for orchestrating this sham of an invasion.

May this memo, arisen out of Bush/Blair's own actions, be their undoing and what 49% of this Country could not do back in October 2004.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 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.

Actually it was Truman. He began giving the French aid against the Vietnihm in 1950. That started the entire ball rolling.

Did Truman send military advisors? I heard it was Ike who sent the first military personel to Vietnam.

Ike sent the first military advisors. Kennedy sent the first special ops forces...secretly.

Ike started the ball rollling.

When the Vietnamese Nationalist (and Communist-led) Vietminh army defeated French forces at Dienbienphu in 1954, the French were compelled to accede to the creation of a Communist Vietnam north of the 17th parallel while leaving a non-Communist entity south of that line. The United States refused to accept the arrangement. The administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower undertook instead to build a nation from the spurious political entity that was South Vietnam by fabricating a government there, taking over control from the French, dispatching military advisers to train a South Vietnamese army, and unleashing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to conduct psychological warfare against the North.

President John F. Kennedy rounded another turning point in early 1961, when he secretly sent 400 Special Operations Forces-trained (Green Beret) soldiers to teach the South Vietnamese how to fight what was called counterinsurgency war against Communist guerrillas in South Vietnam. When Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, there were more than 16,000 U.S. military advisers in South Vietnam, and more than 100 Americans had been killed. Kennedy's successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, committed the United States most fully to the war. In August 1964, he secured from Congress a functional (not actual) declaration of war: the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. Then, in February and March 1965, Johnson authorized the sustained bombing, by U.S. aircraft, of targets north of the 17th parallel, and on 8 March dispatched 3,500 Marines to South Vietnam. Legal declaration or no, the United States was now at war.

The Causes of the Vietnam War

 

[BBond]

The LA Times has picked up the story. 🙂

New Memos Detail Early Plans for Invading Iraq

 

[phillyTIM]

Thanks for the link, BBond - Philly's Inquirer just had a writeup yesterday...as seen above in one of my links.

The good word is getting out...Bush is in trouble...there's an avalanche about to fall on him.

The World is about to make such a mockery of Bush/Blair that they will be leaving office themselves, with their tails betwen their sorry legs.

Let the retribution begin!

 

[BBond]

Greg Palast weighs in on Memogate.

Palast for Conyers: The OTHER ' Memos' from Downing Street and Pennsylvania Avenue

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Greg Palast, unable to attend hearings in Washington Thursday, has submitted the following testimony:

Chairman Conyers,

It's official: The Downing Street memos, a snooty New York Times "News Analysis" informs us, "are not the Dead Sea Scrolls." You are warned, Congressman, to ignore the clear evidence of official mendacity and bald-faced fibbing by our two nations' leaders because the cry for investigation came from the dark and dangerous world of "blogs" and "opponents" of Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush.

On May 5, "blog" site Buzzflash.com carried my story, IMPEACHMENT TIME: "FACTS WERE FIXED," bringing the London Times report of the Downing Street memo to the US media which seemed to be suffering at the time from an attack of NADD -- "news attention deficit disorder."

The memo, which contains the ill-making admission that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed" to match the Iraq-crazed fantasies of our President, is sufficient basis for a hearing toward impeachment of the Chief Executive. But to that we must add the other evidence and secret memos and documents still hidden from the American public.

Other foreign-based journalists could doubtless add more, including the disclosure that the key inspector of Iraq's biological weapons, the late Dr. David Kelly, found the Bush-Blair analysis of his intelligence was indeed "fixed," as the Downing Street memo puts it, around the war-hawk policy.

Here is a small timeline of confidential skullduggery dug up and broadcast by my own team for BBC Television and Harper's on the secret plans to seize Iraq's assets and oil.

February 2001 - Only one month after the first Bush-Cheney inauguration, the State Department's Pam Quanrud organizes a secret confab in California to make plans for the invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam. US oil industry advisor Falah Aljibury and others are asked to interview would-be replacements for a new US-installed dictator.

On BBC Television's Newsnight, Aljibury himself explained,

"It is an invasion, but it will act like a coup. The original plan was to liberate Iraq from the Saddamists and from the regime."

March 2001 - Vice-President Dick Cheney meets with oil company executives and reviews oil field maps of Iraq. Cheney refuses to release the names of those attending or their purpose. Harper's has since learned their plan and purpose -- see below.

October/November 2001 - An easy military victory in Afghanistan emboldens then-Dep. Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to convince the Administration to junk the State Department "coup" plan in favor of an invasion and occupation that could remake the economy of Iraq. An elaborate plan, ultimately summarized in a 101-page document, scopes out the "sale of all state enterprises" -- that is, most of the nation's assets, "? especially in the oil and supporting industries."

2002 - Grover Norquist and other corporate lobbyists meet secretly with Defense, State and Treasury officials to ensure the invasion plans for Iraq include plans for protecting "property rights." The result was a pre-invasion scheme to sell off Iraq's oil fields, banks, electric systems, and even change the country's copyright laws to the benefit of the lobbyists' clients. Occupation chief Paul Bremer would later order these giveaways into Iraq law.

Fall 2002 - Philip Carroll, former CEO of Shell Oil USA, is brought in by the Pentagon to plan the management of Iraq's oil fields. He works directly with Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. "There were plans," says Carroll, "maybe even too many plans" -- but none disclosed to the public nor even the US Congress.

January 2003 - Robert Ebel, former CIA oil analyst, is sent, BBC learns, to London to meet with Fadhil Chalabi to plan terms for taking over Iraq's oil.

March 2003 - What White House spokesman Ari Fleisher calls "Operations Iraqi Liberation" (OIL) begins. (Invasion is re-christened "OIF" -- Operation Iraqi Freedom.)

March 2003 - Defense Department is told in confidence by US Energy Information Administrator Guy Caruso that Iraq's fields are incapable of a massive increase in output. Despite this intelligence, Dep. Secretary Wolfowitz testifies to Congress that invasion will be a free ride. He swears, "There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. ?We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon," a deliberate fabrication promoted by the Administration, an insider told BBC, as "part of the sales pitch" for war.

May 2003 - General Jay Garner, appointed by Bush as viceroy over Iraq, is fired by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The general revealed in an interview for BBC that he resisted White House plans to sell off Iraq's oil and national assets.

"That's just one fight you don't want to take on," Garner told me. But apparently, the White House wanted that fight.

The general also disclosed that these invade-and-grab plans were developed long before the US asserted that Saddam still held WDM:

"All I can tell you is the plans were pretty elaborate; they didn't start them in 2002, they were started in 2001."

November/December 2003 - Secrecy and misinformation continues even after the invasion. The oil industry objects to the State Department plans for Iraq's oil fields and drafts for the Administration a 323-page plan, "Options for [the] Iraqi Oil Industry." Per the industry plan, the US forces Iraq to create an OPEC-friendly state oil company that supports the OPEC cartel's extortionate price for petroleum.

The Stone Wall

Harper's and BBC obtained the plans despite official denial of their existence, then footdragging when confronted with the evidence of the reports' existence.

Still today, the State and Defense Departments and White House continue to stonewall our demands for the notes of the meetings between lobbyists, oil industry consultants and key Administration officials that would reveal the hidden economic motives for the war.

What are the secret interests behind this occupation? Who benefits? Who met with whom? Why won't this Administration release these documents of the economic blueprint for the war?

To date, the State and Defense Department responses to our reports are risible, and their answers to our requests for documents run from evasive to downright misleading. Maybe Congress, with it's power of subpoena, can do better.

Blogs, the Media and Democracy

Let me conclude with a comment about those pesky "blogs" that so bother the New York Times. We should stand and offer a moment of quiet gratitude to the electronic swarm of gadfly commentators who make it so much harder for the US media to ignore news not officially blessed. Yes, Judith Miller's breathless reports for The Times that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction may have maintained "access" for the mainstream press to its diet of White House propaganda, but the blogs insure that, whatever nonsense the US press is biting on, the public need not swallow.

 

[BBond]

Rep. John Conyers is on CSPAN1 right now.

There was a mention that CSPAN1 will replay the CSPAN3 broadcast of this afternoon's Conyers hearings tomorrow at 8PM.

 

[Czar]

nice article bbond, expecialy the timeline

 

[TRUMPHENT]

Originally posted by: 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.

You're the first I've seen that puts Ruby Ridge on Clinton's watch. He wasn't even president elect. Waco ended on Clinton's watch. It began with GHW Bush in office. Hopes for a dog and pony show arrest did not go as planned. By this time, Clinton was president elect. Before Clinton took office, the Davidians had shot and killed 4 federal law enforcement agents and wounded 16 others. Waco was one of the prime reasons Janet Reno was confirmed as USAG so quickly. Republicans were more than happy to hand off Waco to the new adminstration.

You could go all the way and claim that Clinton was responsible for the Tet Offensive, Pearl Harbor, the Korean War and the sinking of USS Maine.

The Downing Street Memo is just another telling of a well known story. The Pentagon had relieved the State Department of its misison in post invasion Iraq. Then when planning for post invasion is broached, the Pentagon slough's it off as a State Deptartment responsibility with no intention of allowing the Department of State to do anything meaningful in Iraq.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Shhhh.....they are Republicans. They need not be worried about pesky things like facts.