the Downing St. memos
 

the Downing St. memo just confirms what most of us already knew, even though some of us will never admit it:

.

so any way you look at it the case for invading Iiraq was rigged.

if the facts and intelligence were being fixed around policy, then the Prez took the country to war with false and/or misleading info - and he knew it. isn't that an impeachable offense?

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...tics-headlines

:W:

Y A W N....




Saddam refused to comply with UN mandates or his surrender terms from 1991.:zzz:

this is what the President was selling:

~ Aluminum artillery tubes misdiagnosed as nuclear related;
~ Forgeries alleging Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa;
~ Tall tales from a drunken defector about mobile biological weapons laboratories;
~ Bogus warnings that Iraqi forces could fire WMD-tipped missiles within 45 minutes of an order to do so;
~ Dodgy dossiers fabricated in London; and
~ A U.S. National Intelligence Estimate thrown in for good measure.

all of it bogus and he knew it. not as juicy as a blow job in the oval office but twice as illegal and 10 times more immoral.

run along now -- the flock is calling you.

Presidents get impeached for breaking the law. If he had perjured himself before a grand jury that would be one thing, but where does the law state that it's illegal to manipulate public opinion?

You make it sound like lying politicians are a new trend that needs to be stopped before it beocmes too prevalent. You make it sound like perjury in federal court, leaking classified documents, and trashing people's reputations is somehow morally superior to making war on false pretenses. Beleive me, if Bush was using policy to guide his military decisions he learned that trick from Clinton whose actions in Somalia, the Balkans, Sudan, and Iraq sacrificed thousands of people for the sake of boosting his public approval rating.

The president shouldn't have to lie to people to get them to do the right thing. The legitimate reasons for the war in Iraq are far better than the ones these memos allude to.

in this particular context, comparisons to Clinton are irrelevant. but if the president lied to take the country to war, then he is as impeachable as clinton was:

-Providing misinformation to the United Nations Security Council, Congress, and the American people overstating the offensive capabilities of Iraq, including weapons of mass destruction, as justification for military action against Iraq.
-Repeatedly manipulating the sentiments of the American people by erroneously linking Iraq with the terrorist attacks of September 11th by Al-Qaeda.
-Repeatedly claiming that satellite photos of sites in Iraq depicted factories for weapons of mass destruction in contradiction with the results of ground inspections by United Nations teams.
-Providing the International Atomic Energy Commission with forged documents describing the sale of uranium to Iraq by Niger, and referring to that sale in the State of the Union Address after being told by the CIA that the documents were forged.

You really must try to get more sleep Albed.
I think it's beginning to effect your judgement.
You seem to be getting more and more confused.
Breaking UN mandates is not a reason for war.
If that was the case we would have invaded Israel years ago.
Now be a good boy,stop making a noise and go to sleep now.

:KSY:

I guess following me around and trolling is better than spreading terrorist propaganda.


You must really miss masturbating though.


Try learning instead. Start with the Korean War.

"Take Action"

Sure, just let me put some finishing touches on my time machine and we'll go back and stop the war from happening. But if anyone has any reasonable suggestions for "action" I'm willing to hear them. Other than signing petitions and complaining loudly, what are we hoping to accomplish here?

The P+++++T ACT has made many of my suggestions questionable/illegal. ;)

Our current two party system needs to be purged of everyone somehow(legally). We need to convince the rest of the Ameicans about this. It starts at home. I consider this place my home on the internet.


Informing. Venting. Letting our opinions out for all the world to see.


Can I have a ride on your time machine?

how about some accountability?

if the Downing St. memo is accurate (and the British government says it is), then we have a president who took us to war under false pretenses with fake documents and bogus evidence, misused the intelligence, repeatedly lied about his intentions, grossly underestimated the cost, miscalculated the opposition, and completely failed to plan for the aftermath of the invasion - all of this at a cost of thousands of US casualties and billions of dollars.

should there be no accountability for the gross incompetence (at least), if not dishonesty, of your leaders? how many US soldiers have to get killed for this lie (about 1600 so far - that's one thousand and six hundred Americans, kids most of them) before otherwise decent people like yourself say "enough"? the cost is going to top $500 billion by 2010 (that's half a trillion dollars) - money incompetently committed under false pretenses....do you really think no one should ask how "how the f@$k did we did get here?"

specifically, the entire iraq fiasco should be publicly dissected and investigated with a fine-tooth comb, if for no other reason than to ensure that it never happens again like this. and if there are impeachable offenses here, then so be it.

Well alright, site the law he broke and I'll get on the impeach Bush campaign with you. But you have to convince me that Bush had the means, the motive, and the opportunity to do such a thing. You probably already have answers for what he did and how he did it, but can you answer why? Bush didn't need to lie to get us into this war, so why would he want to?

All joking aside, there would be a solid case against the president if there were more evidence than one suspiciously leaked memo from a foreign intelligence agency. Given this administration's mountains of deniability I doubt you'll get any resolution that you'll be satisfied enough to call 'accountability.' Sorry to disappoint you.

Come on now,you don't think I'm following you,do you?
Don't be frightend now,nasty man won't hurt you.

"miss masturbating"
Where is she?
Is she a troller too?

"Start with the Korean War"
I'll have a read up,I was too young at that time.
Did you win that one all on your own?

How we got f#$cked by our leaders, from today's NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/16/op...rugman.html?hp

the recruiting problem mentioned above is particularly telling: last month's recruitment goals were missed by 40%. so how come all the chickenhawks, like Rush Limbaugh & Hannity aren't out there asking people to enlist? how come you never hear the prez, the VP, or Rumsfeld trying to pump up the public to sign themselves or their kids up for this war?

it's because they can no longer give out the "fighting in Iraq for our freedom" spiel without looking like fricking idiots, and they know it. they don't want to call attention to the fact that Iraq is a one-way to ticket to hell and they helped create it.

our PM and his lackeys dont mind looking like idiots then
howard was there during 911
i have believed since then he has known full well about the whole charade..

now this whole shady business is coming out into the open...i wonder how they will sidetrack the issue over here..
US ,UK &AUS are up to their armpits in the BS they have created to justify their war for terror

the arabs think flushing of korans happen on a daily basis now..

nothing like a terror event and a new war to keep our sleepy sheep in the dark

Breaking News by Rossputin

In their upcoming Monday edition (dated 5/23), Newsweek now says they can not verify their story that there were incidents of "Qur'an desecration" at Guantanamo. Those charges were the apparent cause of riots in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Indonesia that left dozens dead and many more injured in the past week.

http://www.legendgames.net/showstory.../WN0000145.txt

"nothing like a terror event and a new war to keep our sleepy sheep in the dark"


What a wonderful way to put things.
I think to goes to the heart of the problem we all face.
Getting a different view out to people.
Then again you can lead sheep to water,can't make them drink.
Then again if they're week,they're easier to fleece.

funny you should bring that up...

here we have the White House lecturing Newsweek on their lack of judgement for running with this story based on a single, unverified source. Scott McClellan has a short memory; it was about a year he was trying to justify Bush taking the whole country to war, based on several single unverified sources:

the White House is also criticizing Newsweek for a lack of accountability:

ironic, ain't it?

One more time malvo cut thru the chit.

what's the opposite of accountability?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052701618.html

incidentally, if you feel, as i do, that the Downing St. memo raises questions that your government should answer, go to here to sign the following letter, sponsored by Michigan Congressman John Conyers:

Let's see how promptly they get the attention they desperately seek.

from the Memorial Day editorial page of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

the prez responds
 

finally:

of course not. it was our last option. we really had no choice whatsoever. but Blair doesn't look to happy...

hmmm...how could Blair fail to be inspired by the President's words?

maybe Tony is spreading all the peace and freedom he can handle in Iraq and he'd really like to move on to other problems like aid to Africa and global warming. hopefully, these issues can wait til we're done spreading peace and freedom.

Nah, we can leave African hunger and global warming up to Hollywood to fix, they seem to know a lot about it and the Lord knows they can certainly afford to fix it.

too bad there is no oil in zimbabwe, sudan, somalia ect. or exxonmobil would be there to "FIX" things.

If there was oil there what would need to be fixed??? Countries with oil are not poor. Their people live pretty well, aslong as a murderous rapist like Saddam is not in power that is.

which apparently is a good thing, as long as someone else has to go get rid of him.

Hear, hear, you are so right TheKnife. So easy to say you back up some retard's decision but so easy to enjoy the protection of the Canadian citizenship. It's not like he's gonna get drafted if your gov becomes desperate for soldiers to fight this war. It's truly easy to complain when you are totally secured and not submitted to the rules of a gouv that doesn't have power over you.

LOL---Very funny post!!!!!


Would you like me to quote your past posts you have made about America or their President you hypocrite, First I could not be drafted anyway, I am over the age limit for one and I have tried to join the military but I have a respiratory condition and I failed the medical. Which I will say pissed me off more then anything that has happened in my life seeing it really was not a real problem, to me anyways. ----I am just going to stop because I am just wasting my time with this post.

eh???

Ah, to be deaf and smug is pure happiness, no?

No need to hear others when you know everything.










Except what you need to know most.

sadly true. hopefully the next president won't be so tragically flawed.

but this explains a lot:

obviously, the Prez decided a long time ago that launching and waging war, preferably in Iraq, was a prerequisite to being a great president. he got all the political capital he needed on 9/11 and spent it in Iraq.

ah, this explains Cheney's "dancing in the streets of Baghdad, greeting us as liberators" fantasy.

which is why the Downing St. documents Minutes (they are actually not a memo, but rather minutes of a meeting with the head of British intelligence) dovetail perfectly with every aspect of the run-up to the war. from PMCarpenter:

The Freeway Blogger strikes again:

The impeachment of George W. Bush is a matter for Congress, not the media.

Somebody please inform the Freeway Blogger.

;)

it will take the media to light a fire under this Congress.... but this story just will not go away.

from the links above, from news outlets all around country, all within the last 48 hours:
...and on and on.

Yes it is, especially if you are projecting your uneasyness about your prez on this situation ;)

the gathering shitstorm
 

the Downing St. Minutes are only a part of the picture....there's lots more:

this means that Bush and Blair were both lying at last week's joint press conference:

Michigan Congressman John Conyers opens congressional hearings next week on the Downing Street Minutes.

the ongoing leak of these various documents to the British press suggests a faction within the British government is determined to set the record straight. watch for corroboration from the US side under similar circumstances.

I'll be waiting. We'll see if the "secrets" these rags are publishing actually lead anywhere.

I don't know how well the Bush administration managed to spin its domestic media and consequently the perception of American audiences - maybe some Americans are genuinely surprised of what the memo has revealed. For European audiences there's hardly anything surprising - this is precisely how things looked to Europeans (despite their political standing) already months before the war: Bush was hell bent to go to war and would find any excuses to do so, and Blair was following him like an obedient poodle. It would of course be nice if the leaders of important western democracies would not lie blatantly to their citizens to excuse wars that will inevitably cause lot of death and destruction but I suppose most people don't simply expect such moral integrity from politicians these days.

- tg :WA:

Without Dan Rather promoting them, they just don't reach enough dumb, gullible people anymore.

the documents coming out now confirm what most people already suspected. but taken as part of a larger picture, combined with the testimony of people like Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, and Ambassador Joeseph Wilson, they demonstrate a pattern of manipulation and deception on the part of the administration. this has been rising up to the surface of the public consciousness as the public looks at the mess we have created in Iraq, looks at the rising death toll (25 more soldiers died this week), look at the bleak future there, and righteously asks "how did we get into this?"

since it has become painfully obvious we were misled into the war, we were and continue to be lied to about the decision to go to war, and we were completely unprepared for the consequences of this decision, it is just possible the US public has had enough.

If this singular piece of damning evidence is all it takes to convince the public, then you're right. As I said, I'm still curious to see what will happen and at this point I won't make any predictions.

deep down inside, i think the public knows that the president has lied to them. whether the public wants to confront this particular demon is the question.

as for that singular piece of damning evidence, i'm not sure which you are referring to - there are so many. there is, of course, the Downing St. Minutes. then there is the document published in today's London Times (published by Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News, for you fans of the liberal media myth):

then there is the testimony of Richard Clarke:

or Paul O'Neil:

or the President's own words, dated March 2002:

or how about Cheneys words, also from March 2002?

...and there is so much more. Hearings start next week - let's see if Michigan Congressman John Conyers is smart enough to put together all of the pieces.

hers a few links for the IMPEACHMENT of GWBushhhhhhhhhh



http://democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2003/msg03006.html

http://www.larouchepub.com/pr_lar/20...ch_cheney.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/pd...record_rep.pdf

http://doorguy.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/6/174551/5268

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/200...y_trgtted.html

http://www.justiceforbush.com/docs/i...yer_sbibc1.pdf

http://www.perspectives.com/forums/forum71/43442-1.html

Eh, Real Player required so I can't watch it. Can you summarize?

Google proves nothing, except that people who hate Bush like to post their gripes online.

it's a well-edited little piece of spin, but it has some interesting points and quotes...

incidentally, this is a nice Real Player Alternative - handy to have for the occasional .rm file you run across.

the path to war
 

from today's papers...

Baltimore Sun

Mineapolis Star-Tribune

LA Times

...and so forth. but all of this fuss is still not likely to amount to anything if it's based solely on the British version of events, (even in spite of mountains of circumstantial and anecdotal evidence supporting it). nope, it's gonna take an American to make all this start to stick to the prez....somebody with insider documentation. perhaps another Deep Throat.

hearings start tomorrow (6/16) at 2:30 pm est - watch it on C-Span 3 or here.

the journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step - a Republican lawmaker breaks the code of silence:

Bob Woodward, on 60 Minutes

Wait, you're saying the President walked into the Treasury and stole $700 million dollars and nobody noticed or tried to stop him? We need more details on this caper. When did it happen and who found out about it? How could Congress allow this? I mean, weren't there security cameras and guards?

like this:

Bush's Legal Obligation to Tell Congress About $700M for Iraq

April 21, 2004

Since Bob Woodward disclosed that President Bush in July of 2002 diverted $700 million into Iraq invasion planning without informing Congress, the Bush Administration has failed to provide one shred of evidence to rebuff the charge. According to Woodward, Bush kept Congress "totally in the dark on this" leaving lawmakers with "no real knowledge or involvement." Not only does the Constitution vest the power of the purse with Congress, but whichever of the two supplemental bills passed between 9/11 and July 2001 the President drew the money from had explicit language obligating him to inform key congressional leaders.Unfortunately, instead of opening an investigation, White House allies on Capitol Hill actually told USA Today that the move was acceptable because "the $700 million was small compared" with the overall spending bills.

IF THE WHITE HOUSE CLAIMS TO HAVE USED THE POST-9/11 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL...

BUSH REQUIRED TO TELL CONGRESS, EVEN IF HE USED THE 9/11 SUPPLEMENTAL: While the President was given discretion to direct $10 billion of the post-9/11 Emergency Supplemental bill, the legislation specifically obligated the President to "consult with the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committees on Appropriations prior to the transfer" of any funds. In other words, the President was obligated to tell key congressional leaders of both parties anytime he moved money. [Source: Text of HR 2888, Post-9/11 Emergency Appropriations, 9/14/01]

BUSH DELIBERATELY USED VAGUE LANGUAGE IN DOCUMENTS TO HIDE SECRET MOVE: The White House issued two legally mandated updates to Congress about where supplemental funds were being spent. Both covered portions of the time Bush made his $700 million order. But in these documents, instead of telling Congress money was going to Iraq, the White House deliberately used vague and evasive language. For instance, in both of its updates to the Appropriations Committee, the Administration only said it had used monies for "increased situational awareness" and "increased worldwide posture" – and did not mention Iraq at all. [Source: OMB Notification, 8/9/02 & 10/17/02]

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS CHAIRMAN SAYS WHITE HOUSE NEVER NOTIFIED HIS COMMITTEE: Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), then-Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee which should have received notification, issued a statement on 4/20/04 saying "the Bush White House provided no consultations as required by law about its use of funds for preparation for a war in Iraq in advance of those funds being spent." [Source: Byrd Statement, 4/20/04]

BUSH SAID 9/11 BILL FOR NEW YORK AND CURRENT MILITARY OPERATIONS – NOT IRAQ: In his speech to Congress after 9/11, President Bush promised to use the Emergency Supplemental Bill specifically for aid to New York and for military operations against the terrorists who struck America. He said he would use the "$40 billion to rebuild our communities and meet the needs of our military." He said nothing about Iraq. [Source: President Bush, 9/19/01]

IF THE WHITE HOUSE CLAIMS TO HAVE USED THE JULY 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL...

BILL REQUIRED BUSH TO TELL CONGRESS BEFORE MOVING FUNDS: According to the text of the August 2002 Supplemental, the Bush Administration was only permitted to transfer "up to $275 million" of previously appropriated funds within the Pentagon, and only "15 days after notification to the congressional defense committees." In other words, the White House was obligated to tell Congress if money was moved. [Source: Supplemental Bill, 8/2/02]

BILL REQUIRED BUSH TO TELL CONGRESS IF FUNDS GIVEN TO FRONTLINE STATES: According to the text of the August 2002 Supplemental, the President was allowed to use $390 million for aid to countries assisting with the Global War on Terror. However, that money could only be spent only after "15 days following notification to the appropriate Congressional committees." [Source: Supplemental Bill, HR 4775, 8/2/02]

UNABLE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE THEY EVEN MENTIONED IRAQ TO CONGRESS: The Administration has yet to produce one reprogramming or transfer notice to Congress about the supplemental which mentioned Iraq. White House spokesman Scott McClellan "added that the White House had asked the Pentagon comptroller and OMB to document what had happened" but there has still been no evidence. [Source: LA Times, 4/20/04]

THE SUMMER SUPPLEMENTAL WAS SIGNED AFTER SECRET ORDER WAS MADE: According to Woodward, the order for the $700 million was given in July of 2002. The White House would have trouble arguing it took the secret $700 million out of the summer 2002 supplemental, considering the bill wasn't signed into law until August 2. [Source: Congressional Record, 8/02]

I wonder if the President was a Democrat,
would this have been sorted out by now?
How do they get away with this sort of thing?
Bearing in mind it's all like it reads.

"the White House is completely disconnected from reality"
 

this is coming from a Republican Senator. however, the White House is going on the offensive:
apparently, as far as the White House is concerned, the war we are are losing in Iraq is not a military problem or a political problem. it's a public relations problem and all will be well if they can just convince us all is well.

the DSM hearing set a small fire last week under the administration's credibility
and as we head into next news cycle, it appears to be still burning.

yet another leakled memo....
 

apparently, the US and the UK actually started the war in May 2002, with massive air raids on Iraqi facilities. while UN mandates allowed patrolling and enforcement of the Iraqi no-fly zone, this increased air activity was in fact illegal and the Brits knew it:

so, while Congress did not authorize military action until October 2002, Bush had already started the war on his own:

these new memos from the British government, as published in the London Times today, add a new dimension to the previously disclosed DSM information: in addition to fixing intelligence to sell and support a predetermination to attack Iraq, the administration was already illegally attacking Iraq without any authorization from Congress.

edit: a succinct editorial (one of dozens from around the country today) from today's SF Chronicle:

upping the ante
 

Democrat Senators starting to show some spine:


These are the signatories: Senators Johnson, Corzine, Reed, Lautenberg, Boxer, Kennedy, Harkin, Bingaman, and Durbin.