NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't poke around the forums very much, but we're trying to spread this around as quickly as possible.

The Downing Street Memo (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/) is basically a page and a half conclusively proving that President Bush lied to us all and fixed the intelligence to justify the war (among other things). In other words, if CNN ran this thing as Breaking News for 24 hours, Bush would probably be impeached by August.

Read it for yourself, then do a side-by-side comparison (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/whycare.html).

Now, the White House has totally ignored it so far, even after 88 Congressmen demanded an answer. This is a bit irritating. So - no matter where you are on the political scope - I ask you to sign this open letter (http://www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com/index.asp?Type=SUPERFORMS&SEC={A04AC483-8779-41AA-8106-20065E7FD43F}) to Bush. (You only need to fill in your name and e-mail to verify.) All this thing is asking for is the truth - and what's the harm in that?

Thank you in advance.

(And don't blow this up into a flame war, there are about ninety political threads on page one around here. :) )

I'd rather blackmail CNN into running it as breaking news for 24 hours like you said as an example.

I don't poke around the forums very much, but we're trying to spread this around as quickly as possible.

The Downing Street Memo (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/) is basically a page and a half conclusively proving that President Bush lied to us all and fixed the intelligence to justify the war (among other things). In other words, if CNN ran this thing as Breaking News for 24 hours, Bush would probably be impeached by August.

Read it for yourself, then do a side-by-side comparison (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/whycare.html).

Now, the White House has totally ignored it so far, even after 88 Congressmen demanded an answer. This is a bit irritating. So - no matter where you are on the political scope - I ask you to sign this open letter (http://www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com/index.asp?Type=SUPERFORMS&SEC={A04AC483-8779-41AA-8106-20065E7FD43F}) to Bush. (You only need to fill in your name and e-mail to verify.) All this thing is asking for is the truth - and what's the harm in that?

Thank you in advance.

(And don't blow this up into a flame war, there are about ninety political threads on page one around here. :) )
This would tie in nicely with the Bush impeachment thread?

Ah, has it been mentioned over there? Good. Either way, though, this memo is a separate, specific issue that I thought deserved individual recognition.

Ah, has it been mentioned over there? Good. Either way, though, this memo is a separate, specific issue that I thought deserved individual recognition.
Well digging for the truth is most admirable.....keep up the good work!! :)

Even if this memo is credible, it really doesn't change my mind about anything. I never really beleived that Sadame was a threat to the U.S. No nation truly is, after all. The motivations for war were probably associated with Iraq planning to switch the currency it trades oil in to the Euro. This would have further weakend the Dollar. Also, the administration probably wanted to establish a military presence in the area for further campaigns against terrorism. If Bush wants to claim that it was to liberate the people of Iraq then more power to him. He has succeded in protecting U.S. interests and creating a distraction for the terrorists. They are all blowing themselves up in Iraq instead of comming here and blowing themselves in our police stations and churces. Iraq is a lot closer to Suadi Arabia (the origin of most terrorists) than the U.S.

If for any reason the document eventually gets discredited, the resulting backfire will essentially destroy the Democratic Party in their hopes for a good 2006. Getting behind it could prove to be incredibly risky.

If for any reason the document eventually gets discredited, the resulting backfire will essentially destroy the Democratic Party in their hopes for a good 2006. Getting behind it could prove to be incredibly risky.

That's why we give it to the Green Party, and let it destroy Them!

That's why we give it to the Green Party, and let it destroy Them!

Bingo! :)

If for any reason the document eventually gets discredited, the resulting backfire will essentially destroy the Democratic Party in their hopes for a good 2006.

not necessarily. at least this one isn't obviously faked or falsified, like all those documents the bush administration keeps trotting out. they seem to be doing fine, no matter how many obvious forgaries they mention in state of the union addresses...

For what it's worth, the British government has yet to deny its accuracy, though it's been making its way 'round the blogs over the last month or so. I'm fairly confident in calling it fact.

This would tie in nicely with the Bush impeachment thread?
I would certainly say so! *wink* *nudge*
Oh wait .... it did. *ahem*
;)

Ah, has it been mentioned over there? Good. Either way, though, this memo is a separate, specific issue that I thought deserved individual recognition.
True, your thread does. I've posted the *Memo* a few times in various places but you have indeed gone further with it, in a commendable fashion.
*bows*

If for any reason the document eventually gets discredited, the resulting backfire will essentially destroy the Democratic Party in their hopes for a good 2006. Getting behind it could prove to be incredibly risky.
Regardless of who uses it, it's not an article that any one U.S. political party can claim responsibility/perks for. It's been out a while and i've heard VERY little in the U.S. "liberal" media saying anything about it at all.

In other words, if CNN ran this thing as Breaking News for 24 hours, Bush would probably be impeached by August.
You do know that Fox News has more viewers than CNN right? And that all the Cable news networks together are essentially inconsequential compared to the network news? And that professional Republicans care more about consolidating party power than the well being of the country?

It's easy to get the administration to contradict itself by putting their quotes side by side, and someone in the Whitehouse commited treason (which we still kill people for). The resutls: A giant yawn. I would consider this the darkest period of Americas political history that I've lived through, yet a historical perspective informes me that all things considered, it's still pretty good. I suppose that truth can either be very reassuring or downright terrifying.

If for any reason the document eventually gets discredited, the resulting backfire will essentially destroy the Democratic Party in their hopes for a good 2006. Getting behind it could prove to be incredibly risky.
Both the British and the US governments have been confronted with this and neither has disputed its authenticity. The US government has done a pretty good job--along with the news media--of ignoring it, but they haven't disputed it. I think it's pretty safe. Besides, how much worse could it get for the Democrats?

We'll Phil Gramm (iirc) did say that they'd be hunting Democrats with dogs in Texas. I used to think he was joking. Now I think he was talking about what he and DeLay are going to be doing this thanksgiving.

\ And that professional Republicans care more about consolidating party power than the well being of the country?

It's easy to get the administration to contradict itself by putting their quotes side by side, and someone in the Whitehouse commited treason (which we still kill people for). The resutls: A giant yawn. I would consider this the darkest period of Americas political history that I've lived through, yet a historical perspective informes me that all things considered, it's still pretty good. I suppose that truth can either be very reassuring or downright terrifying.
Word.
*bows*
*extends a root beer in a fashion of appreciation*

We'll Phil Gramm (iirc) did say that they'd be hunting Democrats with dogs in Texas. I used to think he was joking. Now I think he was talking about what he and DeLay are going to be doing this thanksgiving.
Looks like they'll be nitpicking through episodes of "Law & Order" in not-too-dissimilar a fashion than Dan Quayle and "Murphy Brown" :rolleyes:
And yeah, i may just wear the t-shirt - but i'm not buying one. ;)

read it
still doesn't prove bush lied.
it proves british intelligence had concerns about justifications for the war,

on the matter it also leaves out the cease fire violation would have been a legitimate reason for the war resuming, saddams ties to terrorism and also the continued use of stonewalling tactics and aversion to finding a poltical solution(of course much of that happened after this memo was produced), as colin powell said "the iraqi government has closed the door on every political solution put on the table".
weather or not they beleived iraq had less WMD that his neighbors is irrelevant, the political weight after 12 years of violated mandates, failed sanctions, and failed inspections meant that if anybody faced military threat it was iraq.
this was born out by the wording of resolution 1441 which had unanimous backing on the UN council.

now look at the threat assement report the president saw nearly 6 months later.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/h072103.html
these intelligence breifings coupled with a literal mountain of other intelligence from the US and it's allies is what the president based his final decisions for war on.

as for the "fixing" comment, after nearly a yearlong investigation in the US, no evidence of any doctoring, stretching or massaging intelligence was ever found, and this concurs with what bob woodward wrote about the intelligence meetings he took part in when the president pointed questioned the CIA director about the amount of intelligence and told him not to let anybody stretch to make his case.

the downing street memo is only a small bit of intelligence in a much bigger picture. don't miss the forest while you look at the tree.

I signed it a month ago, but nothing will happen, George Bush will not be impeached for the simple reason that it is not as good a news story as a blowjob.