The Downing Street memo of July 23, 2002, has already been debated here. We'll come back to that memo, but, as of today, another couple of documents have emerged which are, if anything, even more damning.

To look at them chronologically, we first have a report from British Ambassador Christopher Meyer to Tony Blair, describing a meeting he had with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz on March 17, 2002:
Clearly, "regime change" (illegal of itself) was being discussed by the US and Britain four and a half months before the Downing Street meeting. A second document has come to light, though, through The Sunday Times that contains the brief that was issued immediately before the July 23 meeting. First, it states that British 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 report goes on to say that Tony Blair had 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 - April, 2002. The briefing paper admitted that since regime change was illegal it was "necessary to create the conditions" which would make it legal. In other words, as of July, 2002, "the conditions" did not exist that would justify an invasion of Iraq.

The article goes on:
In short, the brief stated that Hussein was being set up. The minutes of the meeting arising from that brief are what have since become known as "the Downing Street memo". Those minutes detailed the secret pledge to President Bush to help oust Hussein, showed that Britain's Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, had warned such action could be illegal, and that Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, had thought the case for war was "thin".

Most damningly, Sir Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, revealed in the memo that, during recent talks in Washington, Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD - and that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy". There has been much debate here about what the meaning of the word "fixed" is - but that misses the point. What is being clearly stated is that the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy, not that the policy was being fixed around the intelligence and facts. In short, the policy came first - the "intelligence" and "facts" came second. And the hard sell to the UN, Congress, and the American people by any means necessary came last of all.

Of course, the Bush administration didn't wait for the UN - or Congress. Another article in today's Times reminds us that British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon said in the same July 23 meeting that the "US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime":
These figures show that Bush and Blair began their war, not in March 2003, but at the end of August 2002 - six weeks before Bush received congressional backing to use force against Iraq should it pose an immediate threat - and more than two months before the UN vote.

Ever since the Downing Street Memo emerged six weeks ago, there has been a virtual blackout on it in the American press. Democrats.com went so far as to offer a $1,000 reward to any journalist who asked President Bush about the memo's contents. Last Tuesday, an intrepid reporter from Reuters finally raised the question at Bush and Blair's joint press conference - and it has been getting a bit of coverage since. But allegations of media self-censorship have been backed up by the ombudsmen of The Washington Post, The New York Times and NPR, who have all questioned the lack of coverage their organs have given the story.

Rep. John Conyers drafted a letter to Bush, signed by eighty-nine members of Congress, asking if it the "intelligence and facts" had indeed been "fixed around the policy" by the White House. As the president has refused to answer the letter, Congressional Democrats are mounting their own inquiry starting this Thursday. In the meantime, Conyers has begun collecting signatures on a petition demanding a response to the letter. It has already gathered more than half a million signatures (including my own).


For this discussion, I would like to look at the response to these documents by the US media, Congress, and the White House. If possible, I would like to avoid discussion of impeachment possibilities and general Bush-bashing. I would also like to avoid the whole "But the world's a better place without Saddam Hussein!" argument. The rationale for ousting Hussein is irrelevant to this discussion, as are the possible implications of waging aggressive warfare and the "fixing" of intelligence. If you would like to discuss the contents or the implications of these documents, feel free to start another thread.

I would like to focus on your opinion regarding the responses by the American media - why have they not been covering this and will they now start doing so? - and the federal government - will/should Congress investigate and will/should the White House address these documents? Questions to debate, then:


Why has "the liberal media" not been covering the Downing Street memo and its implications or the Conyers letter? Will the publication of these new documents prompt them to start reporting the news?

Should there be a full investigation of these documents by Congress? Should President Bush answer the questions put by eighty-nine members of Congess and half a million citizens?

Why has "the liberal media" not been covering the Downing Street memo and its implications or the Conyers letter? Will the publication of these new documents prompt them to start reporting the news?

Wertz, I don't have to say anything to you. This is just for those who might be newer to the AD spot.

This is simply the Pentagon Papers all over again, same dang tune, slightly different lyrics. Our government lies to us. Now a whole new set of generations are getting what we knew all along: Iraq was presented to us with baldfaced lying, and enough of us sucked it up that the military action was okay.

Report the news? Oh God, it's way too late for that. I am sincerely sorry that this has happened, but not surprised. We get the government we deserve, and each generation has to relearn what previous generations knew. Wish I could change this, but that's beyond my means and my magic.

Will the press become what it is supposed to be? I doubt it. News outlets are just corporations (for public broadcasting ). Ergo, you can't trust them either. It comes down to trusting yourself, getting your head clear, listening to the wind and figuring things out in your heart.

In other words, don't trust anyone over thirty. Don't trust anyone under thirty. Trust yourself, the essence knows the truth.

Should there be a full investigation of these documents by Congress? Should President Bush answer the questions put by eighty-nine members of Congess and half a million citizens?

Oh sure, shoulda woulda coulda. It's too dang late. So what? We did what we had to do, won't forget, can't regret, what we did for love (thank you Edward Kleban and Marvin Hamlisch).

Kiss today goodbye, and point me to tomorrow. We're simply in a chorus line.

It's all old news. Putrid and rotting, we can turn it over and over, push it past the cliff and down into the dump. So what?

The next gig is what matters.

I better stop cuz Evita music is starting up in the noggin now.

Why has "the liberal media" not been covering the Downing Street memo and its implications or the Conyers letter? Will the publication of these new documents prompt them to start reporting the news?

Could it be that with conservative moguls in control, the liberal media isn't all that liberal? As long as Rupert Murdoch and those of his ilk are the controlling interest, news of these documents will be assigned to the back pages, if at all.

What is contributing to the problem is an attitude held by many Americans that the news media of other countries are not as legitimate as our own and that somehow this is a British situation, not a disclosure of what our people in power were up to.

Should there be a full investigation of these documents by Congress? Should President Bush answer the questions put by eighty-nine members of Congess and half a million citizens?

Absolutely yes to both questions--but don't hold your breath. The man who occupies the White House feels no sense of responsibility when it comes to keeping the public informed, and I challenge anyone who thinks otherwise. Bush has hedged and obfuscated throughout this Iraq ordeal, playing fast and loose with the "facts" about Saddam Hussein and his capabilities.

Why has "the liberal media" not been covering the Downing Street memo and its implications or the Conyers letter? Will the publication of these new documents prompt them to start reporting the news?

I want to start by saying that I was vehemently against the Iraq war from the beginning. I have no doubt that what was driving the invasion had to do with a neocon world view. If we can establish democracy in Iraq, there will be a domino effect; better to attract and fight the terrorists to Iraq instead of fighting on american soil etc.

So-- to the question at hand. The media is liberal but it is not extreme. Those who are focusing on this downing street memo as proof positive of political wrongdoing are extreme on the political spectrum. Everyone knows now (and should have known then) that the administration was citing numerous reasons in the hopes of gaining support for the war. They threw out so many reasons, with the hope that there would be a reason that appealed to everyone in the bag. The problem with this memo is that it can be interpreted in different ways. If you believe that justification for the war was fabricated or that Sadaam was set up-- then this memo seems to support such a belief. However, if you believe in any of the reasons for going into Iraq, or conversely, believe that ultimately it was a good thing, the memo is arguably ambiguous at best, simply politicians being politicians.

Thus, the reason that the memo is not taking root in the media is that it is simply not clear cut news. The memo only seems clear cut to those who see it in the extreme already. They are on the fringe. And mind you, I count myself as part of that extreme element-- as I believe justification for the Iraq war was all carefully crafted politically.






It will never happen. The political will to conduct an investigation is not there. When it all shakes out, the majority of the people in the U.S. still support the war in Iraq. Just as the majority of americans re-elected Bush for a second term.

Politicians are adept at reading the will of their constituents, hence the overwhelming vote in November 2002 that authorized the President to take us to war. These same politicians see that the political will is not present to open up a huge investigation. People tend to view the Iraq war as necessary now. They also see some positive outcomes, such as the spreading of democracy after the Iraq elections and actions from Syria and Lebanon. Ultimately, no one wants to undermine the war and any potential successful outcome by focusing on this can of worms. Politicians in washington know this and will act accordingly.

We said the same thing after Vietnam. But right now, another Iraq is a certainty where 100's of thousands more will die and many more thousands of Americans will die - all for idealogy.

In Vietnam, we became part of that war because failure to do so would enable the spread of communism throughout the world. We lost and it never happened.

In Iraq, we became part of this war because failure to do so would enable the spread of terrorism throughout the world.

In <insert your most hated country here>, we will become part of a war because failure to do would able the spread of <insert your favorite reason here> throughout the world.

Where is defending our country in any of this? Nowhere. And that's what these memos containing MINUTES OF MEETINGS show.


With this logic, if we start building dirty hospitals, we can fight germs on our terms. I'm sure Iraqis are grateful we chose thier country over our own for our main front in the war against terrorism.

The problem with this premise, is the assumption there is a finite number of extremists willing to kill us. Also, it assumes everyone fighting us is a terrorist. None of these assumptions are correct. We are breeding terrorism because the rest of the world knows there was no WMD in Iraq, there was no connection to 911, and Al Qaida had nothing to do with Iraq. So, we've become an occupying empirical force. The Palestinians are probably jealous of our ability to incite hatred.

There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world and only a small fraction of those could overwhelm our entire country and there's nothing we could do about it.

What these documents show is what my good buddy Wertz understated - this war is illegal. Regime change is a crime. So, our government had to create conditions to make it legal. Why does half the country not see a problem with that?

In listening to my daily dose of Rush and the insanity of Hannity (makes me long for a Prozac/Thorazine cocktail most days), Clinton is still being held to the litmus test of Iraq's threat. Hannity took Conyers apart this week on this issue by accurately stating that Clinton bombed Iraq, took measured military actions against Saddam, etc. But true to his inability to use straight facts, he left out that Clinton was attempting to get Saddam to comply with UN resolutions.

During the time of these memos, UN inspectors had unfettered access to Iraq to try to find what we now know never existed (not since the 90's anyhow). Iraq provided a 15,000 page dossier doing their level best to account for all the WMD technology.

We called Saddam a liar when we had no clue what we were talking about. Saddam Hussein was FAR more forthcoming with the world than our own government. Our failure to do anything about it only gives license to the next nightmare.

The media will downplay this for several reasons. First, there are no fingerprints. Documentation corroborating what cabinet members such as O'neill and Clark have told us appears not to be enough. A Grand Jury would indict anybody with this type of evidence, but not our "leaders". We need DNA where common sense fails us.

Secondly, any indictments would be far reaching. Meaning, this wouldn't bring just Bush down. It would bring down half the governments of the US and Britain. This is a hornet's nest the media will avoid at all costs.

All this will be dismissed as heresay. Conyers will get his 500K signatures and given a courtesy hearing moderated by people who could be exposed to legal issues if the hearing went the wrong way.

Until 500,000 Americans march on the White House lawn and demand accountability, this will be simply a healthy appetite of spin fodder for the talking heads on TV.

While more Americans die for idealogy.

Because dead Arabs don't matter.

Apparently they can't sell their 'product' by telling the American people the truth any more. It seems people in the USA have developed a taste for political comment that far out weighs their appetite for the truth and this hunger for the gentle soothing tones of moral rectitude offered by the US media cannot be satisfied with any news that reveals (shock horror) the President of the USA and his henchmen are not the good guys after all...

I should point out that due to the ultra conservative nature of the USA, to much of the rest of the world, the 'extreme' of which you speak is actually the political middle ground.

I don't see anything 'extreme' or ambiguous about this memo. Its very clear in its meaning and implications. The war was known to be illegal, the politicians understood this was the case. GW Bush and Tony Blair made a deal to go to war well before they had grounds for it. They lied to their own people about the justifications for going to war and thousands of human beings have been killed as a result.

Whats ambiguous about that?

The only thing that remains to be noted is how easy it is to use war as a valid foreign policy tool in this 'era of peace'.


No, because there is no profit in it.


President Bush should be thrown in prison for starting a war. If that isn't a crime against humanity, then I don't know what is.

I wonder, just what would a president of the USA have to do before his people would get off their backsides and arrest him?

Its odd, and appalling at the same time, that so much fuss was made over the sexual antics of the last president whilst this one gets away with mass murder.

Why has "the liberal media" not been covering the Downing Street memo and its implications or the Conyers letter? Will the publication of these new documents prompt them to start reporting the news?

Because the "liberal media" are not concerned with getting at the truth of the matter of anything. the bias in the media, i.e., any media, not just the "liberal media," is polite sensationalism, which sells. a story that covers these things is going to become the target of the right, and the network or publication that creates the story would be "against us," and it will be CBS/Dan Rather all over again. why cover this story when there is a Jackson Trial? a runaway bride? etc?


Should there be a full investigation of these documents by Congress? Should President Bush answer the questions put by eighty-nine members of Congess and half a million citizens?

absolutely. but it will never happen. Congress is mostly Republican right now. the Congress has just as much egg on its face, for supporting the phony Neocons.

no offense hayleyanne, but I found your post to be utterly nonsensical. can you back up some of your assertions?



the media are plural. if you recognized this you would recognize that the media are not entirely liberal. I'm not convinced that the media are at all liberal. can you please explain this assertion?

what is "extreme" and how does reconciling facts in our world make anyone extreme? by "extreme" do you mean the opposite of "most?" this statement sounds exactly like Bill O'Reilly when he talks about the "far left." it's an irrational argument. the idea of "extreme" is relative to mainstream. if the "extreme" idea is true and the "mainstream" idea is not true, then the "extreme" idea ought to be paid attention to.



there is the "extreme" again. to discredit those people you need to point out why they are wrong. or why they have no point.



true, but only one of those reasons turned out to be true: that Saddam was a horrible oppressive dictator. and Saddam isn't the only one. therefore, the reasoning for the war makes no sense. the point of this whole thing is that it seems that the administration had other reasons for going to war, reasons which were never mentioned. it would have been honest if the administration had levelled with the American public and with the world. that is all the memo people want.



???

why interpret the memo in different ways at all? we should be using everything available to us to insure that our government is levelling with us and that such deception cannot happen again. inconvenient information to any argument is often dismissed. if this continues to happen, we will relive the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and the search for WMD, over and over again. we should take the memo for exactly what it is. it tells us that the administration had already made up its mind. the administration should explain this.



this is nonsense. you are interpreting this whole thing in black-and-white. anything that isn't "clear-cut" is dismissed. the memo exists. other information exists. and there we go with that "fringe extreme" element again, that is merely concerned with the truth. I, like you, am hesitant to jump on any bandwagon which comes along in hopes of embarrassing the President. I want to check it out to see if it makes sense. I also tend to check out what the President says. I supported him until what he said didn't check out. We need to pay attention to everything which is confirmed to be factual. We need to get our leadership to answer tough questions. If they did tell the truth, there would be no problem now. If they didn't, the administration should face the consequences. the whole point is that the administration should have to explain its actions.



You are not correct about this. what do the polls say about American support for the war in Iraq?

Bringing up the fact that a majority of Americans preferred Bush to Kerry has nothing to do with this issue!



c'mon. that "overwhelming vote" had everything to do with misconceptions about Iraq. it had everything to do with the wave of fear gripping the country following 9/11.



why should "political will" be a part of this equation? how many times has that "will" been dead wrong? McCarthy, anyone? let's find out what the truth is. not put fingers upon the pulse of some "political will."



maybe. but only in the sense that they think we shouldn't just take off and leave. most claim the war was not worth it. most claim we should have stayed out. most think we should reduce our troop level in Iraq. most feel the war will not come to a successful conclusion. most feel the war has not been a victory or a defeat. most people feel Iraq will not have a stable government a year from now.

again, link

I don't post these polls because I believe in polls, I'm posting them because they seem to discredit all of your statements about public opinion. do you have polls that state otherwise?



I'd like to see evidence of this. is there a poll for that? I'm curious why you are citing the will of the people. We should be paying attention to the people that know things about the region. They are against this occupation. I seriously doubt that Democracy will stick. I'm not against Democracy in the Middle East. I just wish that it were being fostered/promoted in a responsible realistic way.



Wrong again. Pointing out the fact that the nation was misled, IS in the nation's best interest. If you are for ignorance, it will be anything but blissful.

As of April 2005, half of the country thought that Bush misled about WMD. The truth is catching on.

President Bush should answer the questions.

Why has "the liberal media" not been covering the Downing Street memo and its implications or the Conyers letter? Will the publication of these new documents prompt them to start reporting the news?
I think the media people are feeling rather chastened after the various problems in the past, and they want to avoid controversy unless what they print is absolutely ironclad. The problem here is that these leaked memos are pretty reliable; the problem lies in their interpretation, not their factuality. I think this will be a "first penguin" problem: who will be first to jump into the water to see if there's a killer whale there? Once somebody starts printing the news and doesn't get eaten alive, the other penguins will start jumping in.

Should there be a full investigation of these documents by Congress? Should President Bush answer the questions put by eighty-nine members of Congess and half a million citizens?
There isn't much to investigate in the documents themselves. I do think it would be appropriate for the Bush administration to make a statement regarding their overall factuality. Indeed, I think it politically foolish of them to refrain from responding. They have an easy way to wriggle out of this: "We were merely engaging in prudent planning, exploring all the possible scenarios, including military scenarios, while retaining maximum flexibility. Remember, we did go to the UN and we did go to Congress. We made no final decision to use the military option until a few days before we began hostilities." It's probably a lie, but it's a lie they can get away with. Who can say what was really going on in Mr. Bush's mind?

From the Times article linked to by Wertz:
This is actually almost funny. Iraqis didn’t retaliate? My husband was flying over Iraq during the very months mentioned in the Times’ article. I can assure you they did “retaliate”. We dropped ten whole tons of bombs? Gee..each bomb weighs about a ton or more. We dropped 8-10 whole bombs a month...I assure you they shot at us about 3 times more than that.

Here you go.

As of June 25, 2001 There had been more than 900 separate incidents of Iraqi surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft artillery fire directed at coalition aircraft since December 1998, including more than 275 in the first five months of 2001. In 2002, there had been 46 strikes by U.S.and British aircraft by October. Indeed, there were no bombs dropped in March of 2002. Perhaps this list could offer a bit of perspective. Or this one for 2001 Or this one for 2000. 1999 was even busier. I wonder if the writer is truly ignorant of the facts, or being purposely deceptive by taking yesterday’s news (which few payed attention to at the time) and spinning it this way.

My opinion? The media isn't covering this (or maybe it is, I don't watch television) because there isn't much to see. It's regurgitated history with added spin. There was no "starting the air war anyway", because the air war started way, way before Bush. Everything here we already knew, or should have known. And regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since the 1998 Iraq Liberation act.

Mrs. P, I am loathe to take on some of your comments because I don't want to appear to question the bravery or patriotism of your husband, but there are a couple fundamental issues that you've left out.

First, we flew somewhere around 30,000 sorties over the no-fly zones and as you accurately stated, the Iraqis periodically retaliated. But please tell everyone how many planes the Iraqis shot down when they "retaliated". You know this answer as well as I do.

Secondly, the no-fly zones were a product of the US and Britain - the UN had nothing to do with it. To be fair and hold everyone to the same standard, if Russians unilaterally stared buzzing our cities to let's say, keep us from invading and occupying other countries, we might retaliate as well.

Thirdly, Saddam Hussien DID comply with UN resolutions and had disarmed. UN inspectors were pulled by Bush when they could find no WMD and we were ready to invade. Saddam provided 15,000 pages of documentation to support his claim that we now know to be accurate. So, if he had complied with UN resolutions, isn't protecting his country his job?

I'm not justifying the Iraqi's behavior and I've been consistent in stating that no matter how much this whole debacle stinks to high heaven, I want our troops to blow anyone into Kingdom come that even appears to be a threat. And the same for your husband. I would rather him shoot first and ask questions later so that not one hair on his head is injured.

However, to dismiss these latest memos, one would have to conclude that:
1. 100% of our intelligence was wrong. Not just a percentage, but all of it.
2. O'niell and Clarke are disgruntled ex-cabinet members lying for political purposes that coincidentally, said the same thing the memos did.
3. Minutes of government meetings are useless and serve no value as they are only "hearsay".

Yes, indeed, because our planes have the capability to fire when they know they have been targetted, and Iraq SAMs in the mid to late 90s weren't accurate enough to get our jets. Towards the end, they were coming very close, since they imported guidance technology from Russia. This is a fact, and everything else is irrelevant. I'm not arguing the legality of the fly zones, or the prudence of the Iraq war. I am discrediting an article that is blatantly, absolutely wrong. I am giving my opinion of why the media isn't, ostensibly, covering our undeclared air war over Iraq that supposedly happened in July of 2002. Because it didn't. It was business as usual.

Side note....The Iraqis fired first, or targeted our aircraft, which were the rules of engagement through most of 1999. The ROE became more aggressive in 1999 to include anti-air defense systems due to the increased technological advantage they had purchased, and more intensive fire on our forces.

And you would have a valid point if our undeclared - and illegal - air war had been getting media coverage all along or if it were the only thing arising from these documents that still isn't being covered. To my mind, the purported increase in air attacks over the summer of 2002 is just a footnote to the main points that these memos raise.

It is now very clear that Bush and Blair fully intended to invade Iraq - even though they knew that such an invasion was, to use their own word, "illegal"; that the Bush administration wanted to use terrorism and WMD as an excuse (with or without evidence) and that such evidence would be "fixed" to match their policy; that Blair wanted to go the UN route and, in that regard, there would be an attempt to "wrongfoot" Hussein; and that neither strategy had anything to do with Iraq posing any sort of threat whatsoever. Such a threat was prerequisite for the "use of force" authorized by Congress - and no such threat existed. A breach of UN resolutions in relation to weapons inspectors was prerequisite for an invasion on the basis of the Blair tactic - and no such breach existed. We launched a war of aggression anyway - with no justification. Our invasion of Iraq had no more foundation than Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. To me, this seem newsworthy.

I have a suspicion that the US media will pick up on the story - but that their coverage will be cursory. The White House and Downing Street will deny that they were contriving a war of aggression, despite all of the evidence, and the American press will go "Oh - okay. Never mind."

Why? Because the American media has been far too complicit in this war from the outset. It has always been in the interests of the corporations that own the news to support an administration that panders to their every need. You don't bite the hand that feeds you - especially if they're feeding you seven-course meals five times a day. Having been part of the war machine from the outset, it's a bit late for them to start getting objective now. But this story is getting so much attention in the foreign press - and among the opposition in Congress - that they can hardly ignore it entirely.

As to Congress, Conyers and Co. will press ahead with their inquiry, though without bipartisan support it will be virtually meanigless - and will be dismissed as a partisan attack, which, in part, is what it is. I'm not confident that Congressional Democrats are any more interested in the truth than their colleagues on the other side of the aisle - though they would dearly love to use that truth to bring down the administration. Sadly, I doubt they'll get very far.

The White House will, of course, be totally uncooperative. If these memos are accurate - and, as they were authored by our partners in crime, there's no reason to suspect that they're not - then the Bush administration would have to admit wrongdoing on a grand scale. And we already know that those who believe in their own infallibility cannot countenance such admissions.

The more we want to know about our own country, the more dependent we become on the foreign press. I find it interestng, though, that these stories were broken by The Times - a Murdoch paper. Perhaps someone is not as enamored of the Bush administration as they once were...

1. Because the "liberal media" is much more lapdog than watchdog in it's current corporate owned and operated state. Maybe if George W. Bush hac a Chapelle Show moment and said EXACTLY WHAT HE THINKS might stir the media to action: ]"Yeah, I knew when I got in I was going to whack Saddam the first chance I got. What about it? You punks got a problem with that? I took out the Butcher of Baghdad! You think I'm afraid of some blow-dried sissy boys with a bunch of dumb questions? I represent TEXAS, fool! Bring it on!"

Just because Britain is America's ally in the War on Terror doesn't mean we have to actually pay them any attention.

Barring that the media is going to make an issue of it because hey, the American people chose Bush. They've decided they're down with his program. Who cares what the British say about anything anyway? As many times as we've pulled their fish and chips out of the fire?

Plus the American public doesn't care. The death toll for American soldiers in Iraq passed 1,700 today. So what? Is Desparate Housewives on tonight? Look at the 100 most current threads on America's Debate and the only one dealing with Iraq is based on past history, not current events. And we SURE don't care about a bunch of dead Iraqis. Hey, you wanna make an omlette you gotta break some eggs.

http://www.ucomics.com/tomthedancingbug/

2. Oh sure. I'm sure Denny Hastert and Bill Frist will get started on a joint Congressional investigations first thing tomorrow morning (or am I smoking a joint?). There's only foxes to guard the henhouse, Wertz. The liberal media is over in a corner somewhere sucking it's thumb and wondering why nobody likes them and the Democrats are still in group therapy trying to figure out why most Americans don't like their brand of dog food anymore.

That just leaves a few dozen or so Republican moderates who are willing to put the interests of their country ahead of their party, but they should be hunted down and skinned anyday now.

Which leaves President Bush. This is the guy whose top political advisor's mantra is "never apologize and never explain." This is the guy who couldn't think of any mistakes he'd like to admit to---never mind correct. I think you're asking Bush to do the "self-analysis/critical thinking" thang, Wertz, and Bush doesn't DO nuance.

It ain't the fly fresh chill def thing to do, ya feel me? It isn't tough.

Niftydrifty . . . . Trust me, I agree with everything you are saying. First off, I think my post wasn't all that well written-- so my meaning didn't come through. Second, I was speaking in terms of my "impressions" with no polls to back them up. Let me try to address a few of your comments.




I do believe the media is/are left leaning. But that is another topic, another thread. We should get one going on that issue.



I think this is where my post was not clear. When I said extreme, I meant outside the mainstream as you describe. And I agree-- if an extreme idea is true it ought to be paid attention to. But the press doesn't look much further than what is mainstream accepted positions.



Again, substitute "out of the mainstream" for "extreme" here. My point was based on my impression that the country has come to accept the Iraq war with all its dubious justifications and is not inclined to look into it further. That does not make it right. IMO, we should have been looking into the "justifications" long before the memo came to light.




I KNOW. I AGREE. I guess I am just skeptical that this memo will do anything in light of the fact that the mainstream view seems to be acceptance of the situation. I hold such a dismal view of how the mainstream has dealt with this whole iraq war-- that I would not be surprised if a videotape of George Bush saying he planned to invade Iraq the moment he took office in 2001 would not sway anyone. Do you see what I am saying. I am not questioning the validity of the memo. I am saying that it is ambiguous enough that people will find a way to explain it away.





I would love to see that happen. I just hold no hope that the administration will ever be called to task over the Iraq mess.

I am going to stop responding point by point nifty. I hope I was able to clarify my statements and you understand my position better. You and I are in complete agreement.

The president's personal approval rating has sunk to only 43 percent and only 41 percent support his handling of the war in Iraq according to most recent Associated Press polling. The majority of the people are NOT on board behind this president and his war.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050611/ap_on_...XIzBHNlYwNwbA--

Just wanted to mention that Bush wanted a war and he got it, but many of us weren't on board and never will be. It's just too bad so many people have to keep dying before more Americans realize those who opposed the war were right all along.

Yes, Bush wanted a war and he got it. Where were all the democrats in November 2002? I called so many senators -- I can't even remember how many -- voicing my views against the war. It was like the whole Iraq war was a huge machine that had been put into motion and could not be stopped.

I agree with nifty drifty, that much of what was driving the democrats had to do with the post-9/11 fears and the country's "patriotism". I understand that. No one was as fearful as me after those attacks (trust me, I am pretty paranoid ) but I still knew in my heart that this was the wrong thing to do and more importantly, logically, it made no sense. But the senators were in a position to stop Bush and the machine-- and they did not.

Now, when we are pretty much stuck with all this and we have no choice but to make the best of it-- the most they can muster is to look back and try to point up the true motivations of the Bush crowd. Fine. Good. But the only good that can come of that -- is as nifty points out-- perhaps we can learn from our mistakes.

When the time for action was there, when we could have really made a difference and avoided the mess in the first place, they pretty much chickened out. I can't get over that anger.

In any case, my impression (and I have no polls to back it up) of the american public is that now they feel that we must make the best of it. Look to the positive, democracy in the middle east. That is what must come out of this now.

Nighttimer-- you mention how supporters of the war will acknowledge they were wrong. Won't happen. You know how people don't like to admit mistakes? No one does. I see most americans in this mind set. They don't want to look back to point the finger of blame and they don't want anything said or done that casts dispersions (is that the right word?) on the soldiers.

Personally, I just want good to come of this some how. If regime change and democracy in Iraq can do this, all the better.

Why has "the liberal media" not been covering the Downing Street memo and its implications or the Conyers letter? Will the publication of these new documents prompt them to start reporting the news?

The first thing to say here is that the leanings of some parts of the media are irrelevant here - none of the US media are giving this story the coverage it merits.

That's not particularly a dig at the US media - the UK media are not going very big on this one, though I think that is not perhaps for the same reasons that the US media is almost totally silent.

More than anything else, I think the British media are giving this short shrift is not their political bias - the Murdoch press here is grumpily Blair-friendly, so it's a surprise that they broke the story, and there are other newspapers here that are openly hostile (the Mail and Telegraph, in the main) who one might expect to make a meal of this story, except....

....over here, it is not really news that Blair and his government lied to get us into Iraq. Opposition was always more vocal and closer to being a majority view here anyway - we didn't have the same post-9-11 bloodlust that was apparent in America. The main case for war made to the British public was the threat of WMD, the tenuosity and ultimate emptiness of which has been done to death in our media ever since we got into Iraq.

So a new story now that Blair and Bush colluded in their lying to get America into the war as well isn't going to make the British feel any different about TB. Unfortunately, the British public's cynicism about Blair and politics generally is such that news that he tells lies to get his own way is about as much of a revelation as news that reveals that the Pope is Catholic, or the toilet habits of bears.

In fact, given this cynicism, there is some kind of grim satisfaction that Blair wasn't the "poodle" or the "puppet" of America in this, as he was most often characterised by our media in this context since the build-up to war. Quite the reverse, it seems that he is the master puppeteer, not the puppet, which sits quite well with the underlying intellectual snobbery that lets Brits enjoy looking down their noses at Americans. (And always has - want to buy a bridge?).

Americans can and should worry that Blair can get Dubya to do whatever he thinks is "the right thing to do" (his main justification for war to the British since his WMD case fell apart), but us Brits may take some crumbs of comfort from that.

Especially as he is currently using that same influence for his agenda to turn around the position in Africa, which is something very few Brits do not fully support. (Albeit to secure the Blair "legacy" now he's announced he will be stepping down before the next General Election here.) Frankly, I think if he can pull of a revolution in the way a whole continent is treated to put things on a fairer basis, that will more than trump any downsides from Iraq, and he will deserve to secure his legacy, but that's not the subject of this thread.

Should there be a full investigation of these documents by Congress? Should President Bush answer the questions put by eighty-nine members of Congess and half a million citizens?

Yes. If I were American, I would tend to share nighttimer's surprise that Bush sets more store by the opinions of the Prime Minister of a has-been international minnow (even if, as a Brit, I feel a bit insulted by the characterisation of this fine nation ) than the people he is elected to defend and represent. And I would also be surprised and disappointed, to say the least, that the "checks and balances" that the American Constitution is supposed to guarantee in government can be subverted with such apparent ease.

But I doubt they will since, in modern-day America, ends trump means every time. It doesn't matter how you do something, as long as you do it - and can sell the story you want to sell afterwards.

In this case, that story appears to be "Saddam was a bad man and Iraq is better off. So it's all gravy - go back to sleep and let us get on with government. It the easiest way to secure taxpayers' money on a grand scale for ourselves and our friends. Nobody would ever authorise such pork in peacetime, so we had to cook up a war to get away with it, but get away with it we did! You suckers!"

Why has "the liberal media" not been covering the Downing Street memo and its implications or the Conyers letter? Will the publication of these new documents prompt them to start reporting the news?

Because the liberal media is a complete myth- no such thing- a complete propaganda coup by the right wing OWNED media in this country.

Should there be a full investigation of these documents by Congress? Should President Bush answer the questions put by eighty-nine members of Congess and half a million citizens?

Of course he should answer to them- but those poeple that are "all about morality and character" are strangely silent when THIER leader is accused of far worse stuff than that "other" guy- so much for the superiority of "judeao-christian morality"- it only applies to non-republicans apparently

Apparently, gay marriage is FAR more of a threat to our society than a lying scumbag president that has to answer to nobody but "Gawd".

1. There would be profit in it. Everyone knows that a scandal such as this would be the biggest thing since sliced bread if there was any substance. The memo doesn't directly implicate anyone. If this memo (as ambiguous as it really is...) showed GW as a player and had Congress not voted for this war, it would be on every news channel across the globe. However, unfortunately moif, this isn't the case. Hence... no coverage.

2. President Bush thrown in Prison? You obviously don't understand the American political machine and how we came to the conclusion of war. Let me tell you... CONGRESS VOTED FOR IT!!. The bottom line is that your hatred of GW and America are perpetually spewed on this board. If you're discussing Clinton and his sexual scandals, you will never understand republican contempt for him. You obviously haven't graped the fact that the President in the US cannot wage war alone. Thrown in Prison? Should we throw all of the congressmen/women who voted for it in the slammer as well??? hahahaha... come on.

(if you're talking about criminal action by presidents, let's discuss Whitewater....!)

In summation, this memo is about as worthless as the paper it's written on. It even mentions that there should've been an ultimatum given to Saddam.

If GW skipping an Air National Guard drill was news worthy for months on end, this would surely be on ABC, NBC, BBC, and CBS 24/7 if it was worthwhile.

Your missing the point. It's not that Bush started this war. It's that he started a war. All war is a crime against humanity. It's doesn't matter that there were a dozen reasons why this war was justified, all conveniently listed in the Iraq War Resolution passed by Congress with bipartisan support. War is wrong.

So, if war isn't a legitimate means to oust a dictator, while at the same time the sanctions to cripple him were inhumane, I wonder what would be an acceptable form of regime change. How should we get rid of Mugabe or the killers in Khartoum? Security Council resolutions won't ever get through China or Russia. Is offensive war never justified?

I suppose I should note that I don't see the smoking gun here either, although the memo is a very cool insight into how these meetings and negotiations run. When this memo was written (March 2002), most of the WMD intel had been public for years. Regime change in Iraq had been US policy officially since 1998. What the author meant by "fix the facts" is open for debate, but clearly the administration couldn't "fix facts" that were already public at the time. If anything, it shows that BushCo were predisposed to regime change and trying to position everything to fit their agenda, but again, regime change was the official policy of the US government since 1998. Call me an apologist, but Bush effectively implemented our policy.

alright, I will call you an apologist. but not just plain old apologist. an irrational partisan apologist. because you left out the most important part. we now know, without a doubt, that Bush effectively implemented our "policy", with reasoning based on fixed facts.

you don't seem to mind being lied to. but I do.

Why the scare quotes around "policy"? Are you saying that regime change in Iraq wasn't our policy?

Aren't all facts "fixed" ?

I apologize for coming on so strong in my earlier post and accepting your invitation to call you names. the reason I did that is because I feel very strongly that the notion of a "policy" the way you are referring to it, is not at all responsible. (Irresponsibility is my major concern with the Bush Administration). OK, let's say the Clinton Administration said 8 years ago that Saddam ought to be taken out. does it make sense to do so now? maybe. but if no one can say why, then so be it. it appears that the Bush Administration knew that no one would buy their real argument for an invasion of Iraq. so they cooked one.



No, I'm not. I'm saying to follow every policy despite evidence is irresponsible.



No they're not. I wear a size 12 shoe.

...and the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was passed in the House 360 - 38 (Conyers, in a show of consistency, voted "nay"); the Act was passed unanimously by voice vote in the Senate. To be picky, a little more than "the Clinton administration" but our entire representative national government speaking in unison.


Here are some of the cooked reasons as stated in The War Resolution passed by Congress in 2002:



Bush and the Congress listed lots of reasons for regime change in Iraq, by force if necessary. And Bush was plenty forthright about one of the goals being democracy in the region.
Like the 2003 state of the union
and this address to the UN
and this PBS interview.
I love how, before the war, when Bush said democracy could spread, he was ridiculed. Now with events in Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt, even Saudi, they are saying that it has nothing to do with Bush - the guy who predicted it would happen and forced regime change to implement it. Yup, just a coincidence that we have a carrier group nearby and are demanding change.




As for the media's coverage (er, the topic of the thread), I don't understand why they aren't covering it, other than there aren't sexy pictures. It fits their preconceived notions of BushCo as an evil cabal, but it's just too complex, nuanced, and unclear to be a sensational story. Not like Abu Graib or Korans in the urinal.

aevans176

Have you ever heard the saying don't bite the hand that feeds you?

I don't know if you are aware of it, but Greg Dyke and Andrew Gilligan at the BBC already found out what happens when you bite that hand.

Fat lot of profit there is in getting yourself fired because you told the truth.


War?

What war? Has there been a declaration of war? I wasn't aware of it.

And frankly, I don't care if the Congress voted to support Bush or not. That doesn't make it any more the right course of action. It just means your whole political system is so fundamentally flawed that your elected officials are as easily persuaded to justify murder for profit as any one else who supports the GW Bush government.


Why? How many civilians died at Whitewater?


This memo shows clearly what most of the rest of the world has known since about mid '03.

Bush and Blair lied.

They lied and thousands of innocent people are dead as a result and I don't care one jot whether saying that makes me 'anti American', or gets on your nerves or makes me persona non grata here or any where else. Those people in Iraq didn't have to die, but they did and it had nothing to do with protecting the world from Saddam Hussein, or any phony 'war' on terrorism.

It was business as usual in Iraq just as its always been since the European and American powers discovered oil in that country.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

carlitoswhey

Yes. War is wrong and should only be undertaken as the last possible resort.

What the coalition did in Iraq was the same as if I shot a known gangster in the street and robbed his corpse. That he was gangster doesn't change the fact that I murdered him.

The USA and its allies had no right what so ever to invade another nation unless that nation attacked first, regardless of what the UN security council might say.

There was no basis for this war. Saddam Hussein was in compliance and he threatened no one. He was practically a spent force who was looking at the opportunity of regaining his base of power once the UN sanctions were lifted. Bush and Blair were not prepared to see him do that, so they caused this war to happen.

Any argument that tries to shift the blame on the war on to Saddam Hussein is scuppered by the fact that Tony Blair was caught lying in the House of Commons when he said he knew Iraq was capable of launching WMD's in 45 minutes and this memo only serves to further under line that lie.

This is a fine point, carlitoswhey, but the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (here's a link to it) was pretty clear as to its intent. It says:

Note that key word: "support". The Act does not say that the United States should itself remove Saddam, but that it should support efforts by others to remove Saddam. And in fact, if you read through the Act, it lists various forms of assistance that the President is authorized to use: broadcasting, humanitarian, and military assistance in the form of providing weapons. It describes how additional Iraqi democratic organizations are to be qualified for assistance. It is very clear that the intent of Congress is for the President to assist others in bringing down Saddam's regime. It does not authorize the President to use military force -- that authorization came in the act of late 2002. Indeed, this Act clearly states:

Thus, any contemplation of direct military action by the USA towards removing Saddam from power was most definitely NOT the policy of the United States prior to the Congressional authorization of late 2002. Such contemplations as went on prior to late 2002 were outside the purview of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Therefore, Mr. Bush was not acting within the intent of that law when he began planning for an invasion of Iraq.

A sort of footnote: Much is being made here of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 and its characterization as a policy of "regime change". It is worth pointing out that that Act referred to regime change from within. As President Clinton put it, "This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers." And, as the Act itself puts it, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." In relation to military action, the Act specifically states that any military assistance should only be in the form of "military education and training" and that any requisite stocks and services needed for that training shold not exceed $97,000,000. [emphasis mine]

There is not one word in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 about waging a war of aggression. Not one. When the Bush administration and Blair started looking for and/or contriving reasons to launch such aggressive warfare, this was a clear, distinct, and deadly change of policy.

Even the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq which is also being hurled around this discussion like a frisbee specifically states that such a use of force should only be used if "necessary" in order to "defend the national security of the United States" or "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq". Iraq posed no threat to the security of the United States and no use of force was necessary to enforce any of the UNSC Resolutions. Granted, the US and the UK tried to pass resolutions that would have made war imperative, but the rest of the world maintained its sanity for once.

There was no justification in law for the invasion of Iraq. The Joint Resolution Authorizing the Use of Force Against Iraq in no way abrogated our adherence to the Protocols of the Genva Conventions which specifically forbid aggressive warfare - and, indeed, consider it the worst kind of war crime.

Now, some of you seem to be arguing that these Acts somehow explain the plans outlined in the Downing Street memos in which it is made clear that, while their plans were admittedly illegal, the Bush administration and Tony Blair were determined to go ahead with them anyway. If the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 and the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq do somehow explain away these memos, my question remains: Why is the Bush administratin saying nothing in relation to these memos? Why are they not addressing the questions raised by Conyers and Co.? And should they, even if it means resorting to flaky justifications imposed on Acts which contain no such justifications?


Oh - and another footnote: While "Billy did it, too" isn't much of a defense for wrongdoing, aevans, I should point out that there was no malfeasance of any kind on the part of Bill or Hillary Clinton in relation to the Whitewater Development Corp., despite taxpayers having spent a few billion dollars on a Special Prosecutor's investigation between 1994 and 1999 and Congressional Committee hearings in 1995 and 1996. That is why Kenneth Starr had to expand his "investigation" to include blue dresses and cigars. Mounting a war of aggression, on the other hand, and invading a sovereign state without provocation is clearly illegal - even without an investigation.


EDITED TO ADD: Erasmussimo and I were posting at roughly the same time - apologies for any duplication of information.

First off, if the president had a bloody knife in his hand with the tip broke off in a senators back there wouldn't be a republican except for possibly McCain that would say that it is wrong- the Republicans are even less ethical than thier predeccesors, if you can imagine sinking lower!

I would absolutely be willing to say the President is innocent of impeachable offenses if he hires a special prosecutor, gives them an 88 million dollar budget with unlimited scope in the investigation, stuff that doesn't even have anything to do with the Downing memo, allows the special prosecutor to threaten and ruin everyone close to him- then, he had the same chance as Clinton as far as I am concerned.

And a consensual sexual act between adults hasn't led to the deaths of any serviceman.

The hypocrisy of the right wing once again fills the air!

I think your interpretation is a bit loose, considering Operation Desert Fox happened two months after this 'Act which did not authorize the use of force'. Clinton's statements on that one:

Bombs away. I don't see how it can be argued we didn't use military force in Iraq until Bush came in. You might argue against scale and tactic...."Hey! It doesn't count unless you're standing on it!" It's a pretty weak argument if it's your basis for legality comparison. We already established a set of precedents for military action when NATO went to war against the Serbs in order to enforce UNSC resolution 1199, without explicit prior approval from the UNSC (but considered ipso facto illegitimate by the council). Euromutt, as you probably recall, offered a very thorough explanation on this here.

I, for one, would like to see the transcripts of the actual (new) memo. I'm always wary of quotes taken out of context, and there is no way to establish that without viewing the full ("new, more damaging" documents). The spliced sentences sound condemning, but I'll await the full read. The Downing Street memo itself didn't impress me as being worth much media time.

*Edited to change quote (I was quoting the wrong source. Statement on Operation Desert Fox here)

I think you're minimizing the scale and intent (tactic) argument here Mrs. P. It is very much a basis for legal comparison when a military action is taken. Desert Fox no doubt was a significant campaign, but it had a very specific purpose, and it wasn't regime change. No troops were on the ground for that endeavor that I'm aware of (unless used for targeting). If Clinton had ordered that we move on Baghdad as part of that campaign, can you imagine the reaction? There is no question he would have been outside of the scope of the 1998 act, esp since there were no war powers provisions even mentioned. This area of discussion only serves to prove that we were as a point of fact militarily engaged with Iraq prior to March 2003. I won't contest that. But in my book there is a big difference between military actions surrounding containment and outright invasion.

You make a very valid point (as originally brought up by Euromutt) about current UN policy being effectively "ask for forgiveness, not permission". Bush & Blair knew going to the UNSC to authorize force would be an exercise in futility. They also knew the perceived impact if the UNSC vetoed an authorization of force and we acted anyways. The fact that they are effectively admitting this was a forced dance is still frustrating, however (both because the UN is so worthless of late and the intent of the administration).

Doc

Although an understanding of Desert Fox is critical to understanding what happened in Iraq there is more to the story.

The Iraq Liberation Act was a call for a US-backed coup, I hardly think that's something to sneeze at. The step from orchestrated coup to invention is a rather small one.

The fact is that pretending the Bush administration policy on Iraq was drastically differen form previous policy is pointless.

Same motivations, same goals, different means of the same (violent) nature.

The Bush administration did not invent a pretext for the Iraq war because they never had to. They had long-standing, if incorrect reasons for their actions.


GW provided the finale to a very old song...

The hits keep coming, and the squirming continues.

Here's what we knew before the Downing Street Minutes:
1. There were no WMD
2. There were no links between Iraq and Al Qaida
3. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
4. Members of Bush's cabinet (who were extremely qualified when hired, but labeled as disgruntled losers later) came out to say that the White House cherry-picked information to justify the war in Iraq.
5. Saddam complied with UN resolutions and provided 15,000 pages of documentation to substantiate it.

Here's what we found out with the Downing Street Minutes:
1. The case for war against Iraq was weak.
2. The legality of the war was in serious question.
3. There appeared to be a "grudge" between Bush and Saddam.
4. The intelligence on every claim made by the Bush Administration was poor.

So, if someone were to provide this testimony and documentation to a Grand Jury, an indictment would certainly follow. This is more than enough to indict anyone.

What's been the response?

From the Bush apologists: No names we named, no actual quotes used. This reminds me of Condi Rice saying "we could have never fathomed someone would use airplanes as missiles" and when called on that blatant lie, revised her meaning to something along the lines of "we didn't know the flight and seat numbers".

From the media: Duh. Who didn't know that?

These implications are horrific. How could we ever and I mean, EVER launch a pre-emptive attack against another country that is actually a direct and immediate threat? How could we ever believe what the government tells us when lies are the rule - not the exception. To be clear, I'm not convinced Bush actually lied to us getting into the war (although, half-truths and stretched truths were very common), but the lies keep coming. And nobody does a thing - not even the media.

When the government can get away with "well, the soldier peed outside, the wind caught it, it went through an air vent, turned 90 degrees, went into a cell, and landed on someone's Koran", they can get away with anything.

Indeed, the Downing Street Minutes tells us what we have always thought. Between eyewitness testimony (Clark and O'neill) and the minutes of high level government meetings, war was not a last resort. How anyone could dismiss this FACT is beyond my comprehension.

Failing to hold anyone accountable for this debacle will only allow this crap to happen all over again. The lies keep coming and the media and country accept it as simple "politics". But a Billy Jeff in the oval office can bring a president down. Does not one Iraq war supporter see the hypocrisy here?

False. UN inspectors maintained to the end that Saddam never complied fully. The number of pages was irrevlevant as it did not contain the information he was order to supply over a decade ago.


To paint this as a Bush "grudge" is silly. The war in iraq was the result of long stand US concerns over Iraq WMD.

Unfortunately, you'll only get a questionable account of what is supposedly contained within this memo. I'm rather surprised that no one has pointed out the rather dubious actions conducted by Michael Smith in regards to this so-called memo:



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050618/ap_on_...azRvBHNlYwN3bA—

If Michael Smith were to become the focus of this thing, that would be too bad. It would be like Dan Rather/CBS all over again.

I mean, that nonsense left Bush's guard service very much still in question, and put an inept person in the media, rather than an inept person in our government, at the center of attention. but, also, who cares about Bush's guard service?

this is a lot different. if the downing street memo is real, it would prove that the Bush administration didn't level with the world in its quest for war. the funny thing about this, one could prove this in any number of ways, regardless of whether or not the "so-called memo" is real. let's by all means confirm the memo, but first and foremost, find out the truth of what is happening in our world, and not make the sneaky media the focus of everything, meanwhile forgetting the issue at hand.

That's absurd. Iraq claimed they had no WMD, provided all the documentation they could to prove a negative (how do you prove nothing exists?), and claimed they complied with UN resolutions. Finally, inspectors had complete unfettered access to anyplace in Iraq.

Excuse me, but who was wrong? It certainly wasn't Saddam Hussien.

Finally, calling it a grudge is not silly. Bush even brought up the "guy who tried to kill my dad" crap in his run-up to the war.

As long as we're nitpicking, there were some connections there. from AKI



As to the memos, there is a very good summary on raw story dot com - one paragraph caught my eye:
I suppose it makes sense to re-create the memos to protect your source, but retyping on "an old fashioned typewriter" seems pretty dodgy. It's almost as if Smith is trying to make them look more authentic or something.

I return your claim of absurdity to the nonsense talk of "proving a negative".

Iraq was never asked to prove a negative. First they were asked to declare their WMD (which they lied about frequently). Then they were directed to document the destruction of the declared and discovered stockpiles, which they never did.



In a referral to the character (or lack thereof) of Hussein, not as a reason for war.

As to WMD, here is a paragraph from the memo itself. Sounds like Jack Straw thought there were some WMD somewhere!

That's the whole problem, with the originals destroyed it has become rather difficult to prove they're real or not. Unless Smith produces the man/woman who provided these documents to him or another set of originals, their legitimacy will continue to be called into question. As it is, with no one confirming nor denying the events that these memos tell of, we've no choice but to choose whether to trust Smith on his word or not. Given the... 'mis-steps' made by the MSM over the last few years (from Rather's memo, to the whole 'sexed up' episodes, inflated casualty numbers, etc) the MSM needs to endeavour to prove what they report is accurate, destroying the originals and providing typed copies doesn't bolster credibility and indeed detracts from it.

jleavy, this is where we part company. because I agree with you about the MSM, but I also hold our government to the same standard. I also believe that there are greater consequences when the government deceives.

That's a very astute observation and almost unarguable until you find that statement to be false.

Geoff Hoon was the Defence secretary and made that statement. Jack Straw was the Foreign secretary.

Thanks for that. (hand slapping forehead)

It's hard to read these memos and deny that the US / UK thought that Iraq had WMDs. Here is a quote from Straw discussing the case the Coalition was making in one of the memos. It's in a paragraph about how difficult it was going to be to "de-link" Iraq from Iran and North Korea, the other axis of evil members. pdf link


The March 8 memo says "despite sanctions, Iraq continues to develop WMD." and the March 22 memo says that Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs "are extremely worrying."

If that were so, then why has no one challenged the authenticity of the memo's?

None of those implicated have denied their participation in the memo's so the fact that they were rewritten with an old type writer is a non issue.


Yes, but so what? In the build up to the war, Denmark's Military Intelligence unit was asked to advise the Danish folketing (parliament) and they echoed the British and American position, because it was the British and American position.

Later they would add that the information they had access to was granted to them by the US and they had no particular reason (beyond a natural prudence in how they translated the information for domestic consumption) to suspect its validity.

The point being, every one took their lead from the US because every one accepted that it didn't matter whether or not the information was correct or not. What mattered is that it was the USA that was mobilising and we (every one else) was either with you (the USA) or against you.