NationStates Jolt Archive

this thread is over.

The Downing Street Memo shows that Bush lied America into an unnecessary, counterproductive war. It plainly states that "the case [for war] was thin" and that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of "regime change":

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com

These lies and deceptions constitute "high crime[s] or misdemeanor[s]" for purposes of impeachment.

Now a further British memo shows that Bush and Blair had agreed upon war in April of 2002, and were searching for a way to make it "legal". http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1650822,00.html . This directly contradicts their assertions that war was "not inevitable" and that they were looking only to ensure that Saddam disarmed himself of "WMDs".

Finally, another British memo shows that Bush gave "little thought" to the aftermath of war -- the same aftermath that has cost so many of our troops' lives and limbs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100723. html

We owe it to our troops who fight, to those who have died or lost their limbs, to ourselves, and to America to fully investigate and document the leadup to war -- and to vigorously prosecute those who deceived America into it.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org

Yeah, but remember when they pardoned Nixon?

We owe it to our troops who fight, to those who have died or lost their limbs, to ourselves, and to America to fully investigate and document the leadup to war -- and to vigorously prosecute those who deceived America into it.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org

That isn't going to happen.

Bush is a corrupt idiot who is the puppet of whomever wants to pull the strings and is in the Republican Party.

It's that simple.

We deserve better than this.

*sigh*
It amazes me to no end that, one, people are angry that we took a vicious dictator like Saddam out of power, and two, they expect us to stabilize a country like Iraq in three years.
But I suppose that all this time on NS should have dulled me to this sensation. :rolleyes:
ON another note, Timecube rules all, you are all four sided cubes made of fish. Congratulations.

*sigh*
It amazes me to no end that, one, people are angry that we took a vicious dictator like Saddam out of power, and two, they expect us to stabilize a country like Iraq in three years.
But I suppose that all this time on NS should have dulled me to this sensation. :rolleyes:
ON another note, Timecube rules all, you are all four sided cubes made of fish. Congratulations.

No, its people like us that see the bright side of things, the bright future for a country raped by its own tyranical leader. That country has more freedoms than any other time in half a century, and anyone who disagrees is a naive anti-Liberation liberal. American and coalition have done what had never been done before in the history of the world, and I am pround to be supporting such a momentous occasion.

As for the timetable, its a waste of time, cowardly, murderous, just plain liberal thing to do. Making a timetable would send a signal to the enemy that "they won, were restreating, we will give you the dates when we're out of here, but we mean business". We have come so far in our War on Terror, and the Iraqi people have gone through such lengths to preserve their place in the world, that it would be murder and a slap in the face to all the brave soldiers who gave their lives already to the cause of freedom.

No, its people like us that see the bright side of things, the bright future for a country raped by its own tyranical leader. That country has more freedoms than any other time in half a century, and anyone who disagrees is a naive anti-Liberation liberal. American and coalition have done what had never been done before in the history of the world, and I am pround to be supporting such a momentous occasion.

As for the timetable, its a waste of time, cowardly, murderous, just plain liberal thing to do. Making a timetable would send a signal to the enemy that "they won, were restreating, we will give you the dates when we're out of here, but we mean business". We have come so far in our War on Terror, and the Iraqi people have gone through such lengths to preserve their place in the world, that it would be murder and a slap in the face to all the brave soldiers who gave their lives already to the cause of freedom.

OMG yet another GOP hack, can't I escape this religious lunatics anywhere?

Snip!

Well, that's all well and good...but what does this have to do with a withdrawal from Iraq?

Simply because we may have been pulled into a war under false pretenses and were decived into sacraficing our soldiers lives for a lie...doesn't mean we should drop everything and leave, no?

How stupid would that be? Compounding our error with folly. Look at what happened to Afganistan after both the US and Russia pulled out support. The power vaccum that resulted allowed the Taliban to take over. Should we pull out of Iraq now, and doom its people to the same fate?

Of course not. The war has been fought, the die cast, we must now do everything we can to MAKE THINGS RIGHT. Perhaps that includes pursuing inquiries and prosecution domestically, but first and foremost we have a duty and a responsibility to prevent this war becoming even more devestating.

Its true that lying one's way into a conflict is horrible, but withdrawal might be just as big a crime. Like it or not, those who started down this road must see it to its end.

Mind you, I don't mean that we must "take it as is"; certainly changes in the way the war is handled are needed, perhaps shakeups of those civilians control of this war could prove useful to the war effort. But regardless of the policy decisions we make, we must understand that the GOAL is not to leave Iraq, but to leave Iraq in the best shape possible. We should all shape our arguments to that end.

OMG yet another GOP hack, can't I escape this religious lunatics anywhere?

I don’t recall him saying anything religious in this post.

I don’t recall him saying anything religious in this post.

Sorry about that, it's just no matter where I go I find a slogan bursting GOP person somewhere ranting about how Bush is being "attacked" in the media when it's his own insane and inept desisions that has lead him to being America's worst president since Nixon.

OMG yet another GOP hack, can't I escape this religious lunatics anywhere?

Im about as far from any religion as one can get. A pretty hard-core athiest, just to clear things up. What in my phrase made any reference to religion?

Well, we're over there now... Bu it's not as bad as Veitnam, I mean, the U.S. only lost Veitnam because it was fighting on behalf of the U.N. But anyways, it would be nice to set a deadline for withdrawl from Iraq, doesn't mean it has to be met. We don't need another Korean situation.

As for Saddam Hussien being a viscious dictator, he was, but U.N. sanctions killed over a million Iraqis. And Nixon wasn't that bad, Bush is a lot worse... Approval ratings will probably drop to 30% by this time next year.

Well, we're over there now... Bu it's not as bad as Veitnam, I mean, the U.S. only lost Veitnam because it was fighting on behalf of the U.N.

First I've ever heard of that.

Sorry about that, it's just no matter where I go I find a slogan bursting GOP person somewhere ranting about how Bush is being "attacked" in the media when it's his own insane and inept desisions that has lead him to being America's worst president since Nixon.

Actually Carter was probably a worse president. He's an awesome human being, the most moral guy to ever be president for sure, but that actually worked against him. There was not a whole lot accomplished during the Carter presidency.

Niccolo pretty much covered my opinion. Bush screwed up at the beginning, but a pullout now would make things a hell of a lot worse. Colin Powell, before the war, coined the "Pottery Barn" rule in the context of Iraq - "You break it, you stay for the reconstruction." That's a paraphrase, but the sentiment is there.

I would, however, quibble with the opinion that going to war initially was a bad thing. I think the humanitarian justifications for this war were very strong. But that doesn't excuse the misleading stuff on WMD and the horrific planning in terms of the occupation.

As for the timetable, its a waste of time, cowardly, murderous, just plain liberal thing to do.
I love how you use the word liberal as an insult, totally outside any recognizable definition for the word. Way to go on alienating one of your liberal allies on this issue.

ON another note, Timecube rules all, you are all four sided cubes made of fish. Congratulations.
I heart Timecube.

The Downing Street Memo shows that Bush lied America into an unnecessary, counterproductive war.

The correct word is "alledges".

The DSM, the infamous DSM.

Is this the same memo that he "typed copies of then destroyed the originals"? Did it mention anything about him getting the originals from a source calling himself "B. Burkett?"

The Downing Street Memo shows that Bush lied America into an unnecessary, counterproductive war. It plainly states that "the case [for war] was thin" and that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of "regime change":
You mean the same memos that said reporter supposedly burned to protect his source after finding a typewriter to reproduce them on?

Umm....I can say this drawing from the experience of being over in Iraq and not coming back with everyone we left with......a timetable would be nice. Actually, I'm pretty sure there is a timetable and as is with everything in the gov't, the motto is "Hurry up and wait". We rushed into this war and we'll be ther for the next ten years. Thats the timetable and thats the reason the administration won't tell us. Nobody wants to hear that, but if you've ever been there it only takes you about a week to realize we'll be there for a very long time. If we didn't have a timetable for a major overseas conflict, all our analysts, and generals, and our commander-in-chief would be idiots (partly true), but thats not the case. America hit on this girl with beer goggles on, and now we are waking up to one ugly bitch.

"No Timetable" is the same as "Duration of the War on Terror." No concrete measurement of time specified.

Therefore Bush and his foreign policy cronies can use that as an excuse to not pull out of Iraq.

Umm....I can say this drawing from the experience of being over in Iraq and not coming back with everyone we left with......a timetable would be nice.

Hmm, answer me this "veteran", if that is your real title. What exactly is our timetable for getting out of Japan? Or Germany? Or Bosnia? Or Haiti? Or Britain? Or any of the other foreign commitments democrat presidents got us into?

"No Timetable" is the same as "Duration of the War on Terror." No concrete measurement of time specified.

Therefore Bush and his foreign policy cronies can use that as an excuse to not pull out of Iraq.

And on what authority do you know this? I am fairly confident that he has no intent on leaving American forces there permanently. It took many decades before troops were removed from most of Europe; we had to rebuild them and befriend them. that is no simple task.

Hmm, answer me this "veteran", if that is your real title. What exactly is our timetable for getting out of Japan? Or Germany? Or Bosnia? Or Haiti? Or Britain? Or any of the other foreign commitments democrat presidents got us into?

How would he know that? The soldiers do not make the decisions- they execute the orders of the administration.

And on what authority do you know this? I am fairly confident that he has no intent on leaving American forces there permanently. It took many decades before troops were removed from most of Europe; we had to rebuild them and befriend them. that is no simple task.

Not authority. Observation.

Bush also said America wasn't into Nation Building when he was first "elected" either.

:rolleyes:

And Europe is a straw man comparison given that Americans were welcomed there and there was no insurgency that the United States fueled by randomly picking up, arresting and detaining Europeans for indefinite periods without proving their association with any insurgency.

Hmm, answer me this "veteran", if that is your real title. What exactly is our timetable for getting out of Japan? Or Germany? Or Bosnia? Or Haiti? Or Britain? Or any of the other foreign commitments democrat presidents got us into?

How about this...I don't know if you believe the president will just wake up one morning and say "oh, lets pull out of Iraq today", but thats not it works buddy. Calculations are being made everyday as to when we can leave and though situations might change...there is ALWAYS a timetable. Hell, you think the United States Army can plan what a soldier will eat for breakfast 3 months from now, but we can't come up with even an idea of when we will no longer occupy a country? Be real with yourself, plans may be compromised, but there is always a plan. Oh, and as for my "veteran" status, if you'd like, I guess I could fax you a copy of my DD-214 (discharge papers) if you're that concerned

Oh, and as for my "veteran" status, if you'd like, I guess I could fax you a copy of my DD-214 (discharge papers)...just e-mail the number at cobi.smith@us.army.mil
He was being a dick. Don't worry about it. Evidently if you question the government you can't have fought for it :rolleyes:

Think the Allies should have had a timetable for the war in Europe? Say, if Germany hasn't surrendered by christmas of 44 it is time to pull-out?

You don't have timetables to decide when you end a war, because NO ONE can predict when it will end. You can have timetables for the rebuilding of iraq, rebuilding the government, etc. But to have a timetable for when to pullout would the most stupid thing to do, no good commander would do that.




McCain for President 2008!!!!

its VERY SIMPLE... there is no set time to pull out of Iraq b/c we there is an army and police and defense forces to train. you cant do that in 3 years... it will take a VERY VERY long time to train them all and them leave them completely. I understand that some might have been against the war.. but complaining about it now has no purpose @ all.. the reality is.. we are in now (regardless of whether u feel we should be or not) and we CANNOT leave until we are COMPLETELY and ABOSLUTELY SURE Iraq can support itself. Remeber when we pulled out of Afghanistan too quickly after the soviet conflict... yea we KINDOF made some enemies who were PISSED OFF AT US for leaving theyre country in an unstable wreck. they KINDOF planned and KINDOF SUCCEEDED in KNOCKING DOWN THE WTC. (you might have heard of them... the Taliban.. how about Osama bin Laden,... who WE TRAINED.


so heres the truth... we will pull out of Iraq when they are ready to control it, and not a day before. Setting a date is unrealistic, unneccesary, and honestly.. just plain old stupid.

Think the Allies should have had a timetable for the war in Europe? Say, if Germany hasn't surrendered by christmas of 44 it is time to pull-out?

You don't have timetables to decide when you end a war, because NO ONE can predict when it will end. You can have timetables for the rebuilding of iraq, rebuilding the government, etc. But to have a timetable for when to pullout would the most stupid thing to do, no good commander would do that.

Another Straw Man. Iraq has not been a war since Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" on the carrier deck and proclaimed a cessation of hostile activities.

McCain for President 2008!!!!

Agreed. Anybody but a Bush or a Bushevik for President.

Another Straw Man. Iraq has not been a war since Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" on the carrier deck and proclaimed a cessation of hostile activities.



Agreed. Anybody but a Bush or a Bushevik for President.

He declared "Major Combat" over, not the fighting itself. It is still a war, but if you wish to call it something else go right ahead but don't think that just because you don't consider it a war means the US should pull-out. If you care for the Iraqis, you would want the US to stay. They need to stay until the Iraqi government can defend itself at least; don't let Iraq fall back to another dictator.

He was being a dick. Don't worry about it.

Shut up, dick.

How about this...I don't know if you believe the president will just wake up one morning and say "oh, lets pull out of Iraq today", but thats not it works buddy. Calculations are being made everyday as to when we can leave and though situations might change...there is ALWAYS a timetable. Hell, you think the United States Army can plan what a soldier will eat for breakfast 3 months from now, but we can't come up with even an idea of when we will no longer occupy a country? Be real with yourself, plans may be compromised, but there is always a plan. Oh, and as for my "veteran" status, if you'd like, I guess I could fax you a copy of my DD-214 (discharge papers) if you're that concerned

Proof mailed. As to these phantom timetables, I don't know what kind of a railroad they run in the army but if I asked my superiors for a timetable in the Corps I'd get told "When we're done." As you demonstrated by ducking the issue as it relates to all those other countries there is NEVER a timetable when you go to war. We'll leave Iraq when we're done, not before. We've been there 2 years and in that time have defeated the 4th largest army in the world, set up an interim government, held free elections and are aiding them in organizing their constitutional convention. Not too damn bad for a country that's never had democracy and freedom in all recorded history. We also managed to do all that while still defending South Korea and running the war in Afghanistan.

its VERY SIMPLE... there is no set time to pull out of Iraq b/c we there is an army and police and defense forces to train. you cant do that in 3 years... it will take a VERY VERY long time to train them all and them leave them completely. I understand that some might have been against the war.. but complaining about it now has no purpose @ all.. the reality is.. we are in now (regardless of whether u feel we should be or not) and we CANNOT leave until we are COMPLETELY and ABOSLUTELY SURE Iraq can support itself. Remeber when we pulled out of Afghanistan too quickly after the soviet conflict... yea we KINDOF made some enemies who were PISSED OFF AT US for leaving theyre country in an unstable wreck. they KINDOF planned and KINDOF SUCCEEDED in KNOCKING DOWN THE WTC. (you might have heard of them... the Taliban.. how about Osama bin Laden,... who WE TRAINED.


so heres the truth... we will pull out of Iraq when they are ready to control it, and not a day before. Setting a date is unrealistic, unneccesary, and honestly.. just plain old stupid.

Actually Osama got pissed because we a) supported Israel and B) had troops in the Middle East

Shut up, dick.

*snips*

We'll leave Iraq when we're done, not before. We've been there 2 years and in that time have defeated the 4th largest army in the world, set up an interim government, held free elections and are aiding them in organizing their constitutional convention. Not too damn bad for a country that's never had democracy and freedom in all recorded history. We also managed to do all that while still defending South Korea and running the war in Afghanistan.

All that and no running water. A-frickin'-mazing.

Hmm, answer me this "veteran", if that is your real title. What exactly is our timetable for getting out of Japan? Or Germany? Or Bosnia? Or Haiti? Or Britain? Or any of the other foreign commitments democrat presidents got us into?

Who's to say we couldn't renegotiate a number of treaties and pull our soldiers out of a number of countries, like Germany, where they are no longer needed.

He declared "Major Combat" over, not the fighting itself. It is still a war, but if you wish to call it something else go right ahead but don't think that just because you don't consider it a war means the US should pull-out. If you care for the Iraqis, you would want the US to stay. They need to stay until the Iraqi government can defend itself at least; don't let Iraq fall back to another dictator.

Actually, the continued presence of the troops are only going to aggravate the tension seething underneath the surface. The Middle East takes its religion, culture and history a lot more extreme than most regions of the world. They rememeber the Crusades like it was yesterday and the insurgents are going to draw more propaganda points from comparing the troops to the Christian armies that ran wild thousands of years ago.

It's about a seeping worund in national pride. The longer the people go thinking they're being babysat, the more resentment builds up until it bursts into more insurgent attacks and recruitment... and maybe even civil war.

And the reports of ill treatment of Muslims by the American military is putting out the fire with gasoline.

No, its people like us that see the bright side of things, the bright future for a country raped by its own tyranical leader. That country has more freedoms than any other time in half a century, and anyone who disagrees is a naive anti-Liberation liberal. American and coalition have done what had never been done before in the history of the world, and I am pround to be supporting such a momentous occasion.

As for the timetable, its a waste of time, cowardly, murderous, just plain liberal thing to do. Making a timetable would send a signal to the enemy that "they won, were restreating, we will give you the dates when we're out of here, but we mean business". We have come so far in our War on Terror, and the Iraqi people have gone through such lengths to preserve their place in the world, that it would be murder and a slap in the face to all the brave soldiers who gave their lives already to the cause of freedom.
There once was a prize fighter who had won several important fights, but was worried about his next one against a very tenacious opponent.

After much thought, the fighter decided to change his strategy. Instead of simply going the full ten rounds as usual, he decided to stop fighting after the ninth round, planning to do what damage he could to his opponent before then.

After the first eight rounds, the fighter was in good form and his opponent was in serious trouble, cut in several places and beeding.

Deciding that it was only fair to his fans to let them in on his plans, the fighter borrowed the microphone after the eighth round and announced that he would stop the fight after the end of the ninth round.

His opponent could scarcely believe his ears! After the beating he had been taking so far, he had begun to doubt he would be able to do the entire ten rounds, yet here was the other fighter saying he would quit after nine rounds. So he changed his strategy: instead of conserving his strength so he would have a chance of going the full ten rounds, he would use the last reserves of his strength in the ninth, hoping to do as much damage as possible.

When the fight commenced our fighter was met with such a rain of blows and punches that he fell to the mat dead!

The moral of the story is: if you're not willing to go the full ten rounds, don't tell anyone!

Uh... got a link for that...anecdote?

Uh... got a link for that...anecdote?
Nope. Just made it up on the spot. :)

So wait, the boxer who was losing decided to go all out and he killed the guy who was still in pretty good shape? Seems to me the first boxer wouldn't have stood a chance anyway.

It seems to me that the enemy boxer wouldn't even have to vigorously counterattack "our" prizefighter. Just endure through the 9th round, and the good guy will lose by default.

It seems to me that the enemy boxer wouldn't even have to vigorously counterattack "our" prizefighter. Just endure through the 9th round, and the good guy will lose by default.
That was the second option. :)

Considering you made it up on the spot, it's a good analogy. I like it. Here, have a cookie.

The moral of the story is: if you're not willing to go the full ten rounds, don't tell anyone!

You, sir, are a genius.

The moral of the story is: if you're not willing to go the full ten rounds, don't tell anyone!

Actually, another good moral is: if you're not willing to go the full ten rounds, you shouldn't be a prizefighter!

And to the guy who said that the UN embargo killed a million Iraqis: wrong, wrong, wrong. The blood of those people is on Saddam's hands. He's the one who perverted the embargo and starved his people so he could fund his army. He's the one who bears the responsibility, not the UN or the USA.

No timetable for Iraq pull-out? How can anyone be surprised by that? Of course the U.S. are in it for the long haul, and from the moment that war started no-one (no, not even Kerry) could've made any damn difference about it. It is a very unstable country in the biggest powder keg in the world. Yeah, let's fuck shit up there, destroy all infrastructure, awaken strife between ethnic/religious groups, and then bail. That's a good idea. The US have no choice but to stay until Iraq is a stable country (never) or the world's oil supplies run out.

Note: that shouldn't be interpreted as saying I'm against the Iraq war. I'm just stating the obvious on what kind of enterprise it is.

Considering you made it up on the spot, it's a good analogy. I like it. Here, have a cookie.
Why thank you! I'll have it bronzed! :D

You, sir, are a genius.
LOL! Thank you, but I wouldn't go that far! I just have the occasional flash of insight. :)

The correct word is "alledges".
Well, sounds like someone likes to play pragmasemantisist!!!
So, here goes again ..... *offers notes for those who care*

*ahem*

June 19, 2005, 9:49AM

DOWNING STREET MEMOS
Terror link 'unconvincing'
Leaked documents detail Britain's doubts about the United States' arguments for invasion in the Iraq war's run-up, putting both governments in the hot seat
By THOMAS WAGNER
Associated Press
LONDON - When Prime Minister Tony Blair's chief foreign policy adviser dined with Condoleezza Rice six months after Sept. 11, the then-U.S. national security adviser didn't want to discuss Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida. She wanted to talk about "regime change" in Iraq, setting the stage for the U.S.-led invasion more than a year later.
President Bush wanted Blair's support, but British officials worried the White House was rushing to war, according to a series of leaked secret Downing Street memos that have renewed questions and debate about Washington's motives for ousting Saddam Hussein.
In one of the memos, British Foreign Office political director Peter Ricketts openly asks whether the Bush administration had a clear and compelling military reason for war.
"U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing," Ricketts says in the memo. "For Iraq, 'regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."
The documents confirm Blair was genuinely concerned about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction, but also indicate he was determined to go to war as America's top ally, even though his government thought a pre-emptive attack may be illegal under international law.
Changing tolerance
"The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September," said a typed copy of a March 22, 2002, memo obtained Thursday by the Associated Press and written to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
"But even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapons) fronts: the programs are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up."
Details from Rice's dinner conversation also are included in one of the secret memos from 2002, which reveal British concerns about both the invasion and poor postwar planning by the Bush administration, which critics say has allowed the Iraqi insurgency to rage.
The eight memos — all labeled "secret" or "confidential" — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Times of London.
The Associated Press obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who spoke on condition of anonymity reviewed the copies and said their content appeared authentic.
Iraq options
The eight documents total 36 pages and range from 10-page and eight-page studies on military and legal options in Iraq, to brief memorandums from British officials and the minutes of a private meeting held by Blair and his top advisers.
Toby Dodge, an Iraq expert who teaches at Queen Mary College, University of London, said the documents confirmed what post-invasion investigations have found.
"The documents show what official inquiries in Britain already have, that the case of weapons of mass destruction was based on thin intelligence and was used to inflate the evidence to the level of mendacity," Dodge said. "In going to war with Bush, Blair defended the special relationship between the two countries, like other British leaders have. But he knew he was taking a huge political risk at home. He knew the war's legality was questionable and its unpopularity was never in doubt."
Dodge said the memos also show Blair was aware of the postwar instability that was likely among Iraq's complex ethnic and religious mix once Saddam was defeated.
Starting gun fired
The British documents confirm, as well, that "soon after 9/11 happened, the starting gun was fired for the invasion of Iraq," Dodge said.
Speculation about if and when that would happen ran throughout 2002.
On Jan. 29, Bush called Iraq, Iran and North Korea "an axis of evil." U.S. newspapers began reporting that a U.S.-led war with Iraq was possible.
On Oct. 16, the U.S. Congress voted to authorize Bush to go to war against Iraq. On Feb. 5, 2003, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell presented the Bush administration's case to the U.N. Security Council. On March 19, the U.S.-led invasion began.
Bush and Blair both have been criticized at home since their WMD claims about Iraq proved false. But both have been re-elected, defending the conflict for removing a brutal dictator and promoting democracy in Iraq. Both administrations dismissed the memos as old news.
Hot topics
Details of the memos appeared in British newspapers last month, but the news quickly turned to the election that returned Blair to power. In the United States, however, details of the memos' contents became hot topics of conversations, especially among Democratic critics of Bush.
It was in a March 14, 2002, memo that Blair's chief foreign policy adviser, David Manning, told the prime minister about the dinner he had just had with Rice in Washington.
"We spent a long time at dinner on Iraq," wrote Manning, who's now British ambassador to the United States.
"It is clear that Bush is grateful for your (Blair's) support and has registered that you are getting flak. I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was very different than anything in the States. And you would not budge either in your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the right result. Failure was not an option."
Manning said, "Condi's enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed." But he also said there were signs of greater awareness of the practical difficulties and political risks.
Blair was to meet with Bush at his Central Texas ranch in Crawford on April 8, 2002, and Manning told his boss: "No doubt we need to keep a sense of perspective. But my talks with Condi convinced me that Bush wants to hear your views on Iraq before taking decisions. He also wants your support. He is still smarting from the comments by other European leaders on his Iraq policy."
A July 21 briefing paper given to officials preparing for a July 23 meeting with Blair says officials must "ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks."
Costly nation-building
"In particular we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective. ... A postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point."
The British worried that "Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Further work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired end state would be created, in particular what form of government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime and the time scale within which it would be possible to identify a successor."
In the March 22 memo from Foreign Office political director Ricketts to Foreign Secretary Straw, Ricketts outlined how to win public and parliamentary support for a war in Britain:
"We have to be convincing that: the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending our troops to die for," Ricketts wrote. "It is qualitatively different from the threat posed by other proliferators who are closer to achieving nuclear capability [including Iran]."
Blair's government has been criticized for releasing a prewar intelligence dossier on Iraq that warned Saddam could launch chemical or biological weapons on 45 minutes' notice.
Questionable legality
On March 25, Straw wrote a memo to Blair, saying he would have a tough time convincing the governing Labour Party that a preemptive strike against Iraq was legal under international law.
"If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the U.S. would now be considering military action against Iraq," Straw wrote. "In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with OBL (Osama bin Laden) and al-Qaida."

The correct word is "alledges".

*ahem* ... again.

In a memo dated March 14, 2002, Tony Blair's chief foreign policy adviser, David Manning, tells the prime minister about a dinner he had with then-U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who's now secretary of state. Manning is now the British ambassador to the United States.
"We spent a long time at dinner on Iraq. It is clear that Bush is grateful for your (Blair) support and has registered that you are getting flak. I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was very different than anything in the States. And you would not budge either in your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the right result. Failure was not an option."
————
"Condi's enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed. But there were some signs, since we last spoke, of greater awareness of the practical difficulties and political risks. ... From what she said, Bush has yet to find the answers to the big questions: How to persuade international opinion that military action against Iraq is necessary and justified; What value to put on the exiled Iraqi opposition; How to coordinate a U.S./allied military campaign with internal opposition; (assuming there is any); What happens on the morning after?"
————
"No doubt we need to keep a sense of perspective. But my talks with Condi convinced me that Bush wants to hear your views on Iraq before taking decisions. He also wants your support. He is still smarting from the comments by other European leaders on his Iraq policy."

From a memo dated March 22, 2002 from Peter Ricketts, British foreign office political director, to Jack Straw, Britain's Foreign Secretary, on advice given on Iraq to Blair.
"The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programmes, but our tolerance of them post-11 September. This is not something we need to be defensive about, but attempts to claim otherwise publicly will increase scepticism about our case. I am relieved that you decided to postpone publication of the unclassified document. My meeting yesterday showed that there is more work to do to ensure that the figures are accurate and consistent with those of the US. But even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapon) fronts: the programmes are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up."
————
"US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing. To get public and Parliamentary support for military operations, we have to be convincing that the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending our troops to die for; it is qualitatively different from the threat posed by other proliferators who are closer to achieving nuclear capability (including Iran)."
————
"We can make the case on qualitative difference (only Iraq has attacked a neighbour, used CW and fired missiles against Israel). The overall strategy needs to include re-doubled effort to tackle other proliferators, including Iran, in other ways (the UK/French ideas on greater IAEA activity are helpful here). But we are still left with a problem of bringing public opinion to accept the imminence of a threat from Iraq. This is something the Prime Minister and President need to have a frank discussion about."
————
"The second problem is the END STATE. Military operations need clear and compelling military objectives. For Kosovo, it was: Serbs out, Kosovars back, peace-keepers in. For Afghanistan, destroying the Taleban and Al Qaida military capability. For Iraq, "regime change" does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."

From a document dated March 8, 2002, on Iraq from the Overseas and Defense Secretariat to Cabinet Office:
"Since 1991, our objective has been to re-integrate a law-abiding Iraq which does not possess WMD or threaten its neighbours, into the international community. Implicitly, this cannot occur with Saddam Hussein in power."
————
"Despite sanctions, Iraq continues to develop WMD, although our intelligence is poor. Saddam has used WMD in the past and could do so again if his regime were threatened, though there is no greater threat now than in recent years that Saddam will use WMD."
————
"The US administration has lost faith in containment and is now considering regime change."
"A legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to Law Officers advice, none currently exists. This makes moving quickly to invade legally very difficult."
"Saddam is only likely to permit the return of inspectors if he believes the threat of large scale US military action is imminent and that such concessions would prevent the US from acting decisively. Playing for time, he would then embark on a renewed policy of noncooperation."
"The US has lost confidence in containment. Some in government want Saddam removed. ... The US may be willing to work with a much smaller coalition than we think desirable."
"We have looked at three options for achieving regime change (we dismissed assassination of Saddam Hussein as an option because it would be illegal)."
"Of course, REGIME CHANGE has no basis in international law."

From a memo dated March 25, 2002, from Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to Blair:
"If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the US would now be considering military action against Iraq. In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL (Osama bin Laden) and Al Qaida. Objectively, the threat from Iraq has not worsened as a result of 11 September. What has however changed is the tolerance of the international community (especially that of the US), the world having witnesses 1/2 sic 3/4 on September 11 just what determined evil people can these days perpetuate."
Speaking about the difference between Iraq, Iran and North Korea, he said: "By linking these countries together in the "axis of evil" speech, President Bush implied an identity betwen 1/2 sic 3/4 them not only in terms of their threat, but also in terms of the action necessary to be done to delink the three, and to show why military action against Iraq is so much more justified than against Iran and North Korea. The heart of this case — that Iraq poses a unique and present danger — rests on the facts."
"A legal justification is a necessary but far from sufficient precondition for military action. We also have to answer the big question — what will this action achieve? There seems to be a larger hole in this than on anything. Most of the assessments from the US have assumed regime change as a means of eliminating Iraq's WMD threat. But none has satisfactorily answered how that regime change is to be secured, and how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be better."
"Iraq has had NO history of democracy, so no one has this habit or experience."

From a briefing paper dated July 21, 2002, given to Blair and government officials before meeting on July 23, 2002, about Iraq:
"Even with a legal base and viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks. In particular we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective. ... A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the US military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Futher work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired end state would be created, in particular what form of government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime's and the timescale within which it would be possible to identify a successor."

From minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting between Blair and top government officials. "C" refers to Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of Britain's intelligence service.
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude (about Iraq). Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
————
"The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime."
————
"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

DOWNING STREET MEMO - Forward

"The following is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to any real persons or wars is purely coincidental. Thanks to Mike and Z-Dog, you guys rock. Love to my wife Emily for putting up with all those late nights of typewriter noise. To my fans, you're the greatest. Watch for the sequel DSM2: Memo Harder."

Straughn, the whole weakness of that memo is it's one man's point of view. It's one man's opinion that the evidence was shaky. It's one man's opinion that Bush was looking for an excuse.
The DS memo is supposed to prove that Bush knew all claims of WMDs in Iraq were bogus before the invasion. The only person in the world who knows what Bush knew during that time is Bush himself. Unless you have a memo from Bush himself saying something like, "I know there are no WMDs, but I want Saddam gone anyway", all this is is one man's supposition.

Proof mailed. As to these phantom timetables, I don't know what kind of a railroad they run in the army but if I asked my superiors for a timetable in the Corps I'd get told "When we're done." As you demonstrated by ducking the issue as it relates to all those other countries there is NEVER a timetable when you go to war. We'll leave Iraq when we're done, not before. We've been there 2 years and in that time have defeated the 4th largest army in the world, set up an interim government, held free elections and are aiding them in organizing their constitutional convention. Not too damn bad for a country that's never had democracy and freedom in all recorded history. We also managed to do all that while still defending South Korea and running the war in Afghanistan.

As a fellow veteran, I agree with your assertion that troops would not be told a timetable (as i never was whenever deployed), but that theory that a plan, timetable, etc., is non existent doesn't sit with me. I mean, when it comes to the military, there are three things: Pre-Op, Op, and Post-Op. Somewhere somebody has a projected month and year of a pullout. They've has one with every war before this one and its just procedure. They estimate how much the American public can take, and how the training of these Iraqi's is comin' along, and come up with a timeframe for withdrawal. I honestly predict will be a major presence there until 2008 (election time, bitches!). Oh yeah that war in Afghanistan blows!!! Just had to say that (I hate it there) :sniper:

Straughn, the whole weakness of that memo is it's one man's point of view. It's one man's opinion that the evidence was shaky. It's one man's opinion that Bush was looking for an excuse.
The DS memo is supposed to prove that Bush knew all claims of WMDs in Iraq were bogus before the invasion. The only person in the world who knows what Bush knew during that time is Bush himself. Unless you have a memo from Bush himself saying something like, "I know there are no WMDs, but I want Saddam gone anyway", all this is is one man's supposition.
Read it harder. I don't think you understand at all what you're talking about. That's why it's such a good thing to know all the other folks' names and numbers that are involved. It isn't just Rycroft. If you'd bother reading the f*cking cluster of stuff in it you'd know. Stop acting like a Republican fundamentalist and deal with it.
You ARE in error thinking it's one person's opinion. That's why i posted.
:rolleyes:

Straughn, the whole weakness of that memo is it's one man's point of view. It's one man's opinion that the evidence was shaky. It's one man's opinion that Bush was looking for an excuse.
The DS memo is supposed to prove that Bush knew all claims of WMDs in Iraq were bogus before the invasion. The only person in the world who knows what Bush knew during that time is Bush himself. Unless you have a memo from Bush himself saying something like, "I know there are no WMDs, but I want Saddam gone anyway", all this is is one man's supposition.
There are memos coordinated to Rumsfeld, to Wolfowitz, to *beloved* Condi "52" Rice, and several other people you apparently aren't educated in debating about. It's easy enough to do, now stop behaving like an imbecile.

Some people probably don't have the guts to bother looking these things up so here's a little effort on my part to help educate a smidge.

:

Additional memos These memos are additional correspondences between various U.K. government officials and agencies. See the related articles Excerpts from the Downing Street memos and Links to Downing Street memos: Blair was worried about Bush's Iraq war plans .
· memo from the Overseas and Defense Secretariat, 3/8/2002
· memo from the legal advisors of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 3/8/2002
· memo from chief foreign policy adviser David Manning, 3/14/2002
· memo from Ambassador Meyer, 3/18/2002
· memo from foreign office political director Peter Ricketts, 3/22/2002
· memo from Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, 3/25/2002

---
IN ORDER:

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/ods020308.pdf

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/fcolegal020308.pdf

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/manning020314.pdf

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/meyer020318.pdf

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/ricketts020322.pdf

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/straw020325.pdf

DOWNING STREET MEMO - Forward

"The following is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to any real persons or wars is purely coincidental. Thanks to Mike and Z-Dog, you guys rock. Love to my wife Emily for putting up with all those late nights of typewriter noise. To my fans, you're the greatest. Watch for the sequel DSM2: Memo Harder."
Nyuk. Expect to see that on Fox some time soon, as filler. Laugh riot. I cried too, it was better than cats. :rolleyes:

I've read the downing street memo, and personally, the many ways in which the terms "the intelligence was being fixed around war" can be read lead to confusion. (Such as the intelligence was being organized around laying the groundwork for war, as opposed to being altered. It's like saying the prosecution fixed the evidence around a guilty verdict.) Beyond this, all that can be read directly from the document is that there was an attitude in DC that war was inevitable. This must also be obvious to anyone out there.

No, what I see as far more important is the fact that the British were concerned about the aftermath of the war, whilst Washington was not. Of course, this was pretty public knowledge, with people from the administration saying the occupation would only take a short while. So, yeah.

Just me being a critic.

I've read the downing street memo, and personally, the many ways in which the terms "the intelligence was being fixed around war" can be read lead to confusion. (Such as the intelligence was being organized around laying the groundwork for war, as opposed to being altered. It's like saying the prosecution fixed the evidence around a guilty verdict.) Beyond this, all that can be read directly from the document is that there was an attitude in DC that war was inevitable. This must also be obvious to anyone out there.

No, what I see as far more important is the fact that the British were concerned about the aftermath of the war, whilst Washington was not. Of course, this was pretty public knowledge, with people from the administration saying the occupation would only take a short while. So, yeah.

Just me being a critic.

Well said my friend. Very well said indeed. But now, here's a question for you. Define a short while! That varies from person to person and on the subject at hand.

Remember, it took us 7 years to reconstruct Japan. Now is a short while shorter than that? I think it is. I'm sure we'll be out of there by 2008. That's 5 years after our invasion. Yes I do think this. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Wouldn't be the first time either.

As for the time table, the Administration would be totally stupid if they told us when we are pulling out of Iraq. For those that want a timetable, your not going to get one! Why? Because the Insurgency would then just sit back and wait then launch an all out offensive when its time for us to leave. It'll look like they are driving us out and that wouldn't be politically wise. I applaud the administration for not setting a time table. The time table is really in the Iraqi hands and not in the administration's hands.

Why can't we just all agree that 'prez' George Bush is a stupid moron, in every way.
But, to a point, it's not ALL his fault he's ruining the US, it is also the religious morons who voted him in.
And i don't want to bash your religion right now(even though i should), I'm not in the mood to tell you all that there is no Lord, Allah or Jehova(there might be a sun-god though, hehe).
Back to the point, he's a moron in every way because of this:
He's a racist, who don't let black people vote. Racism = bad, because i bet all of you i can find 10 people in less than 10 min who are black and have a IQ much higher than that of Bush'.
He does not know where Ireland is. Lack of geografi = bad, because how the hell can you become president of a country where most of its heritage comes from a country you don't know where is?
He pissed of a LOT of people in europe, asia, and all of america. Pissing people off = bad, and i don't need to give an explination of that.
He lied to the face of the world saying there were WMD's in Iraq. Lying = bad, again, no explination needed.

Now anyone who pleases may raise a disscussion with me(and some probably will), but if i don't answear, don't count on one.
-Xandy

You know guys, gals, and other assorted fellow human beings, I must honestly say that I have never before run across such complete and utter wilfull ignorance in my entire adult life (and I've been on NS a long while now, to boot). Honestly, there are just too many of you with your palms held over your eyes and your thumbs hooked into your ears - while the truth sits, in the open, two feet in front of you, with a whole roomful of people standing next to you, pointing at it and trying to get you to remove the digits from your sensory inputs so you can see it for yourself.

If you don't see it, it's just because your obstinance is getting in the way of your senses.

Why can't we just all agree that 'prez' George Bush is a stupid moron, in every way.
But, to a point, it's not ALL his fault he's ruining the US, it is also the religious morons who voted him in.
...
-Xandy



WHOA WHOA WHOA... wait a second there guy. I know hes not the brightest bulb, but the grades have been out for awhile.. he was smarter than kerry (by the fact that he had higher grades in college and such) .. proven fact.... now.... about the religious morons... I hate them too... but they werent such religious morons when they voted Clinton into office... o wait did u forget he was a DEMOCRAT FROM ARKANSAS... in the Bible belt of the south. SO DONT START COMPLAINING about stupid religious ppl every time they dont vote the way YOU want them too. The fact of the matter is.. Bush won... he won a majority of popular AND electoral votes in the past election at least. A majority of the ppl want him president, and ppl have been voting for president the same way for 200 some odd years. so DONT TALK BAD ABOUT THE SYSTEM that elects someone that You dont like. DONT HATE THE PLAYER, HATE THE GAME. and if you really "HATE THE GAME" that much.. go move to France or Canada or somewhere else at least.