0
   

Bush asked to explain UK war memo

 
 
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 11:46 pm
WASHINGTON -- Eighty-nine Democratic members of the U.S. Congress last week sent President George W. Bush a letter asking for explanation of a secret British memo that said "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the Iraq war in mid-2002.

The timing of the memo was well before the president brought the issue to Congress for approval.

The Times of London newspaper published the memo -- actually minutes of a high-level meeting on Iraq held July 23, 2002 -- on May 1.

British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity, and Michael Boyce, then Britain's Chief of Defense Staff, told the paper that Britain had not then made a decision to follow the United States to war, but it would have been "irresponsible" not to prepare for the possibility.

The White House has not yet responded to queries about the congressional letter, which was released on May 6.

The letter, initiated by Rep. John Conyers, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the memo "raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own administration..."

"While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your administration," the letter said.

But, the letter said, when the document was leaked Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman called it "nothing new."

In addition to Blair, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon, Attorney General Peter Goldsmith, MI6 chief Richard Dearlove and others attended the meeting.

A British official identified as "C" said that he had returned from a meeting in Washington and that "military action was now seen as inevitable" by U.S. officials.

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

"The NSC had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

The memo further discussed the military options under consideration by the United States, along with Britain's possible role.

It quoted Hoon as saying the United States had not finalized a timeline, but that it would likely begin "30 days before the U.S. congressional elections," culminating with the actual attack in January 2003.

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided," the memo said.

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

The British officials determined to push for an ultimatum for Saddam to allow U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq to "help with the legal justification for the use of force ... despite U.S. resistance."

Britain's attorney general, Peter Goldsmith, advised the group that "the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action" and two of three possible legal bases -- self-defense and humanitarian intervention -- could not be used.

The third was a U.N. Security Council resolution, which Goldsmith said "would be difficult."

Blair thought that "it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the U.N. inspectors."

"If the political context were right, people would support regime change," the memo said.

Later, the memo said, Blair would work to convince Bush that they should pursue the ultimatum with Saddam even though "many in the U.S. did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route."


What I cant understand is why this isnt all over the news.. This is just plaine criminal:no:
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,598 • Replies: 15
No top replies

 
Brent cv
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Apr, 2006 12:46 am
@4therush,
I thought the news was after Bush? What is it? If the news wants to see Bush fail they would be all over this. Obviously if this is as big as they make it sound like the Democrats would be all over the place with it Wink
4therush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Apr, 2006 01:24 am
@Brent cv,
Brent wrote:
I thought the news was after Bush? What is it? If the news wants to see Bush fail they would be all over this. Obviously if this is as big as they make it sound like the Democrats would be all over the place with it Wink


The dems are after this but they are not all over it like they should be. This is wrong in every way. And they need to be in the news yelling and screaming over it. Makes me sick that this can go on and nobodyseems to care anymore.Even republicans should be pissed. This isnt about party lines its about miss leading the American people, and abuse of what should be the most honorable position any body can achieve. That is a crime in my book. He is supposed to be doing things to better America as a whole. Not lying to us. Makes me sick.:rant2:

The news is ran by big bussines and they love bush.This is just to big for them to handle. Untill there is an uproar of true Americans this will be swept under the carpet like all bush''s wrong doings.
0 Replies
 
ndjs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Apr, 2006 11:08 am
@4therush,
Lies, all lies.
NaterG
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Apr, 2006 11:11 am
@4therush,
So, where did you find this article? Without a credable source, all of that, to me, is just propaganda.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Apr, 2006 12:37 pm
@4therush,
This is the infamous Downy Street memo's. The Libby's have been trying to get this to fly for some time now. If you want to read more then you care to, go to the DU. This has all been comical. Conyers got a bunch of people to sign a petition. Then they had a fake hearing in the basement of the congress building. They tried very hard to make it look official and all but no one bit. They Conyers tried to delivery the petition and the letter to the white house but didn't get past the front gate. You need to make an apointment for such things, LOL.
In any case i do not see how any of this is "Illegal"?
4therush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Apr, 2006 01:44 pm
@Drnaline,
Wow!! Well its not the Downy Street memo,If you look at the dates you would see that. Nor is it lies All lies (great reply by the way Lots of fact there) This story is from cnn.com But you wont find it on the fox network so I dont expect any of you koolaid drinkers to hear the truth much. Its also on the new york times web site too. I was looking for political debate. Instead I get a bunch of right wing :beat:
Brent cv
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Apr, 2006 03:11 pm
@4therush,
4therush wrote:
Wow!! Well its not the Downy Street memo,If you look at the dates you would see that. Nor is it lies All lies (great reply by the way Lots of fact there) This story is from cnn.com But you wont find it on the fox network so I dont expect any of you koolaid drinkers to hear the truth much. Its also on the new york times web site too. I was looking for political debate. Instead I get a bunch of right wing :beat:

Would you be more interested in a bunch of left wings to agree with you?

I am not right wing. You have not cited the source.
ndjs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Apr, 2006 03:34 pm
@4therush,
4therush wrote:
Wow!! Well its not the Downy Street memo,If you look at the dates you would see that. Nor is it lies All lies (great reply by the way Lots of fact there) This story is from cnn.com But you wont find it on the fox network so I dont expect any of you koolaid drinkers to hear the truth much. Its also on the new york times web site too. I was looking for political debate. Instead I get a bunch of right wing :beat:

haha, you're the one beatin yourself off over there. My reply was a joke, and you might have been able to detect that if you knew enough about me to know that I actually hate Kool-Aid. "(great reply by the way Lots of fact there)"
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Apr, 2006 09:48 pm
@4therush,
4therush wrote:
Wow!! Well its not the Downy Street memo,If you look at the dates you would see that. Nor is it lies All lies (great reply by the way Lots of fact there) This story is from cnn.com But you wont find it on the fox network so I dont expect any of you koolaid drinkers to hear the truth much. Its also on the new york times web site too. I was looking for political debate. Instead I get a bunch of right wing :beat:
Quote:
Well its not the Downy Street memo,If you look at the dates you would see that.

Care to place a wager on that? Dates don't mean squat unless you can provide a link? I'll decide for myself.
Quote:
Nor is it lies All lies (great reply by the way Lots of fact there) This story is from cnn.com

Again a link would be nice. Date's of an article has nothing to do with origin of story date. Hence the pre war story of proproganda?
Quote:
But you wont find it on the fox network so I dont expect any of you koolaid drinkers to hear the truth much.

Sorry bub, we could see your koolaid smile way off in the distance, coming in at a not so particular direction. Other the down any way.
Quote:
Its also on the new york times web site too.

Again a link would be nice. Any one making such a story so appointed should at least forvide a link, don't you think?
Quote:
I was looking for political debate. Instead I get a bunch of right wing

You haven't stuck around long enough for any kind of debate. And what i've seen of it, you have not much to offer? And by right wing can we take you for a little left of middle?
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Apr, 2006 09:51 pm
@Brent cv,
Brent wrote:
Would you be more interested in a bunch of left wings to agree with you?

I am not right wing. You have not cited the source.
I guess that is what he was hoping to find. I do fall under the right wing by most definitions of the word. And i conquer on the lake of source.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Apr, 2006 09:53 pm
@ndjs,
ndjs wrote:
haha, you're the one beatin yourself off over there. My reply was a joke, and you might have been able to detect that if you knew enough about me to know that I actually hate Kool-Aid. "(great reply by the way Lots of fact there)"

This is a rare instance where all three of us agree, LOL.
4therush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Apr, 2006 11:25 pm
@Drnaline,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/britain.war.memo/

Here is your link.. I didnt catch the sarcasim in the all lies part sorry. But this is not the downing memo. this is what i found on cnn and the new york times web sites. I first heard about it on jon stewart's show. Thats what made me check for it. So anything else? Any response about the memo it self? Any ways i believe it to be true and if it is bush needs to be called out on it. Thats all. Feel free to attack me.


P.S. Sorry I had to work so I sometimes will take time to respond.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Apr, 2006 06:21 am
@4therush,
4therush wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/britain.war.memo/

Here is your link.. I didnt catch the sarcasim in the all lies part sorry. But this is not the downing memo. this is what i found on cnn and the new york times web sites. I first heard about it on jon stewart's show. Thats what made me check for it. So anything else? Any response about the memo it self? Any ways i believe it to be true and if it is bush needs to be called out on it. Thats all. Feel free to attack me.


P.S. Sorry I had to work so I sometimes will take time to respond.
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-conyers/did-the-mainstream-media-_b_2259.html

For the past few weeks, I and others on this blog (including its propreitor) have lamented the lack of mainstream media coverage of the Downing Street Minutes (for more info on what this is all about, go here and here). Looking in from the outside of the networks and newspapers, we have been left to surmise just what the problem really is.

On a story with constitutional implications, with life and death consequences, there was first silence. Then, there was a story here and there, but no meaningful, dogged and sustained coverage. What gives?
______________________

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/840 the documents themselves.


Quote:
But this is not the downing memo.

Really, how could i mistake that?

Quote:
So anything else?

Tag, your it.
Quote:
Any response about the memo it self?

Sure, got plenty. But first i'd like to hear how there not Downy Memo's again, i like that story.
Quote:
Any ways i believe it to be true and if it is bush needs to be called out on it.

I'm sure you believe it. Or there version of it. But being as how sloppy your research is how are we to take you serious now. In any case i proved you wrong once and "I believe" i can do it again.
Quote:
Thats all. Feel free to attack me.

Attack, there is no need for that. But we do expect you to prove what you say and so far you have not lead a good example? I also think by the time this is said and done, you will think you have been attacked and may do a little attacking yourself. As it is a usually situation debating liberals to think such a thing has occured. I'll hold you to your writen word and expect the same from you.
Quote:
P.S. Sorry I had to work so I sometimes will take time to respond.

No problemo, all we got is time. If the debate is good, it's worth the wait.
0 Replies
 
RESS
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Nov, 2009 08:15 pm
@ndjs,
[SIZE="5"]WHITE BROTHERHOOD[/SIZE]


Quote:
[SIZE="3"]Iraq inquiry to focus on Bush-Blair relationship [/SIZE]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46805000/jpg/_46805752_000235927-1.jpg

Iraq inquiry to focus on Bush-Blair relationship

Many UK politicians criticised Tony Blair's closeness to George Bush
UK-US relations in the run-up to the Iraq war are to come under scrutiny as ex-US Ambassador Sir Christopher Meyer gives evidence to the war inquiry.



http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46805000/jpg/_46805743_000800738-1.jpg

BBC News - Iraq inquiry focusing on Bush-Blair relationship





[SIZE="3"]" . . . . . . . .Don't fvck about with the White Brotherhood or we'll fvck you up. . . . . . . . . . We run the courts" Stated the White Supremacist Racists.[/SIZE]




[SIZE="5"]"SHUT THE FVCK UP"[/SIZE]


Quote:


"There was a failure to establish legitimacy although I think we successfully established legality in the UN....to the degree, at least, that we were never challenged in the UN or International Court of Justice for those actions."

BBC News - Iraq war legitimacy 'questionable' says ex diplomat






[SIZE="3"]" . . . . . . . Shut the Fvck Up! . . . . . . We'll tell you what is legitimate. If you have problems with the White Brotherhood your cities might have a few climate change weather problems (HAARP).. . . . " :rollinglaugh: Chuckled the White Supremacist Racists.[/SIZE]
0 Replies
 
Mr Shaman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 12:43 am
@ndjs,
ndjs;2682 wrote:
[CENTER]Lies, all lies.[/CENTER]

[CENTER]No DOUBT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/B]

****

http://www.bartcop.com/bush-medal-liar.gif[/CENTER]
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bush asked to explain UK war memo
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/23/2021 at 03:07:46