The Downing Street Memo

[Sylvus]

I apologize if this has already been discussed, the search feature did not find it.

The secret Downing Street memo



SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY



DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. 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.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

Emphasis mine. This continues here and more information can be found at downingstreetmemo.com.

In a nutshell, a leaked, confidential memo of the minutes of the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002. The report was leaked over a month ago, and Tony Blair's office has not denied it's truth, nor has anyone been able to discredit it.

My question to you is, does this change your opinion of the war and/or the people who declared the war? To me, it appears that this memo lends credence to the claims that we were lied to from the get-go.

[Lohrno]

The US doesn't make a comment on it's authenticity, and the Brits say it's true.

Where is the outrage??

[Aruman]

In a nutshell, a leaked, confidential memo of the minutes of the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002. The report was leaked over a month ago, and Tony Blair's office has not denied it's truth, nor has anyone been able to discredit it.

Blair quote: "the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all."

No, his office didn't respond, but Blaire did.

I still believe that action was taken based on the best available intelligence at the time, even though this information turned out to be wrong. However, I still believe that this war/invasion was justified by more than a WMD concern.

[Arborealus]

In a nutshell, a leaked, confidential memo of the minutes of the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002. The report was leaked over a month ago, and Tony Blair's office has not denied it's truth, nor has anyone been able to discredit it.

Blair quote: "the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all."

No, his office didn't respond, but Blaire did.

I still believe that action was taken based on the best available intelligence at the time, even though this information turned out to be wrong. However, I still believe that this war/invasion was justified by more than a WMD concern.

---------->But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.<---------

[Fash]

that was one persons impression....

it's my impression too... but i don't give a fuck... we should've finished saddam back in 91... good riddance, sadsack.

[kyoukan]

you don't mind if your president manipulates you and lies to you to start a war?

[Lohrno]

you don't mind if your president manipulates you and lies to you to start a war?

Most people don't.

[Winnow]

Bush needs to declare himself a living god like the Pharaohs in ancient Egypt, enslave the Canadians and make them build huge pyramid shaped oil storage tanks. He could feed them American beer to keep them sober.

[Jice Virago]

Blatant evidence of criminal activity isn't enough to bring down Bush now, because he hasn't been taken down by it in the past. I mean, seriously, we have had two obviously tampered elections, a complete takeover of the media, an offshore prison with no rights or due process, and a host of obvious conflicts of interest (Enron debacle, Halliburton no compete bid, ect) take place without so much as a wimper in the local press. In fact, its gotten to the point where people who are even questioning policy, even within the GOPs own ranks are being villified.

This thing is a smoking gun, but the Neocons have learned too much from their Nixon era predecessors and have far too much control over the media. Bush could assape a preeschooler on national TV while shooting wheelchair bound old ladies and shouting "I LOVE THE COCK" at the top of his lungs, and the GOP Spin machine would still have it under wraps.

[Fash]

to quote george carlin.....

the government doesn't lie.. it engages in disinformation.

[Lohrno]

Bush could assape a preeschooler on national TV while shooting wheelchair bound old ladies and shouting "I LOVE THE COCK" at the top of his lungs, and the GOP Spin machine would still have it under wraps.

Heh that was funny when he did that.

[Sylvus]

The reason behind my post is that while many of us believed he lied, this is the first concrete proof, provided it's true.

For those of you who tried to go along with the myriad of reasons given for engaging in this war, does that lie bother you at all?

I'm guessing from the lack of activity from the Bush supporters in this thread that you aren't interested in a "we told you so?"

[Winnow]

No. I'm not really interested.

This war is about oil. Oil to me, unfortunately is our most important matter of national security. I don't think we'd be there if Bush (the people behind Bush that are actually running the country) said we were going to the Middle East to secure the flow of oil.

I'm not happy that it's come to this but it's not going to change anytime soon. I won't blindly ignore all attempts to mislead the american people but in this particular instance, I'm all for it. It's not a conservative or republican thing. Any administration is going to have to protect our interests in the Middle East and "we need our oil" isn't going to get the job done. Terrorism is directly connected to our need for oil as well. If we didn't need oil, we wouldn't be in the Middle East and people from that part of the world would care as much about us as we care about them...not at all.

It's a fucked up world we (western countries) created and I don't see a solution. We aren't going to get the ultra powerful/rich oil people out of Washington. (or the leaders of other countries tied into oil) They aren't going to give up their money making oil businesses in favor of alternative energy and the general public is reactionary...which means...they aren't going to react until oil is $5.00 a gallon because life is too good right now to create any kind of meaningful protest against the incredible combined power of the petroleum industry.

The whole thing is simple.

Problem: Dependance on oil
Solution: Alternate energy source
Why it's not going to happen: complacency, inability to combat the top 3% controlling our future and their interests.

So yeah, I could care less what Bush knew.

[kyoukan]

so you admit that you will freely attack and invade countries to steal their oil, but you blubber like a fucking baby when a few of them ram a jet airplane into one of your skyscrapers?

I can't wait until more of you die. I hope you are the first.

[Nick]

See Winnow I think you got a great awareness of what's happening, but I think you are so fucking defeatist. It's a shame.

[Seebs]

Teeny,

Do you really think that it’s an enlightened stance that we are in Iraq mainly because of oil? What a smug narcissistic slug.

There is a reason why countries without a US-needed natural resource like Rwanda or Ireland can kill each other off willy-nilly and the US not give two shits.

It’s not hypocrisy, it’s bidness, and bidness is booming.

[Winnow]

I can't wait until more of you die. I hope you are the first.

They aren't having much success attacking the continental U.S. but our allies might take a beating! If Vancouver gets hit next, a nice unprotected prosperous city, we will return the favor and you can land your plane(s?) at one of our airports until the dust settles.

The strip clubs aren't quite as nice in Seattle but you could still get a job cleaning one for awhile on a work visa.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

The reason behind my post is that while many of us believed he lied, this is the first concrete proof, provided it's true.

For those of you who tried to go along with the myriad of reasons given for engaging in this war, does that lie bother you at all?

I'm guessing from the lack of activity from the Bush supporters in this thread that you aren't interested in a "we told you so?"

Of course you are also trusting British memos which was also responsible for giving us misinformation in the first place which helped lead us to war. So you think we should believe this one now, but they should have no believed anything from the Brits before?

[Animalor]

The reason behind my post is that while many of us believed he lied, this is the first concrete proof, provided it's true.

For those of you who tried to go along with the myriad of reasons given for engaging in this war, does that lie bother you at all?

I'm guessing from the lack of activity from the Bush supporters in this thread that you aren't interested in a "we told you so?"

Of course you are also trusting British memos which was also responsible for giving us misinformation in the first place which helped lead us to war. So you think we should believe this one now, but they should have no believed anything from the Brits before?

You're actually blaming the brits for GWB sending your army to Liber-invade Iraq???

Christ man, the US wouldn't trust a foreign nation to order a cheeseburger correctly, let along dictate policy on how/when/why to attack another nation.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Part of the reasoning was the (faulty) intelligence given by the Brits and Russians. Without it, there was no way Congress would have given the OK to head over to Iraq. Bush could have forced us in anyway much like LBJ did with Vietnam and label it a police action....but that would have been a major mess for him at re-election time.

[Sylvus]

The whole thing is simple.

Problem: Dependance on oil
Solution: Alternate energy source
Why it's not going to happen: complacency, inability to combat the top 3% controlling our future and their interests.

So yeah, I could care less what Bush knew.

Actually, I would say that a big part of our inability to find an alternate energy source is that the man who controls our country, as well as many of the people he picked to develop policy, ARE ALL RICH BECAUSE OF OIL.

So the President lies, and you can forgive him because he needed to do it to secure oil. Because we need oil. Because the President won't provide incentives to reduce our reliance on oil, nor will he support measures to punish those people that use too much oil. Because he and his friends are getting richer off of oil. Or they are getting richer rebuilding a country that we invaded because of oil under the guise of a war against a direct threat to our lives that turns out to have been a fabrication. At any rate, they are all getting rich by telling us lies and starting unnecessary wars and blocking measures to clean up our environment and save us money at the pumps... AND THEN YOU VOTE FOR THE SAME FUCKING PRESIDENT.

For the love of Christ, how stupid are you people? How can you defend someone who is whispering lies into your ear while his hand is pulling money from your pocket? And you're not only defending him, you're encouraging him to keep doing it. It's like you're all a bunch of battered women who keep on going back to their abusive husband. Thank god he's not ugly like John Kerry though!

I cannot understand it.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Where were you when Clinton was in office? I don't recall him being rich from oil. Where was the push for alternate energy from him? There are also a shit ton of democrats in Congress. Why have none of them pushed a bill through? Bush does not create bills although he can influence Congress to write one. You are trying to put the blame for everything wrong in the world on the shoulders of one man who is only in office for 8 years.

[Sylvus]

Part of the reasoning was the (faulty) intelligence given by the Brits and Russians. Without it, there was no way Congress would have given the OK to head over to Iraq. Bush could have forced us in anyway much like LBJ did with Vietnam and label it a police action....but that would have been a major mess for him at re-election time.

Said "(faulty) intelligence" is exactly what this memo is detailing. "The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Bush wanted to invade Iraq, so he took the intelligence that he got - be it from our own agencies or abroad - and shaped it to his liking.

GWB: "I want to invade Iraq"
(six months later)
GWB: "Hey look at that, other people say Saddam has WMD's too! Let's go invade Iraq..."
(ten months later)
GWB: "Whaddya know, no WMD's. Must have been some bad info from the other guys."

[Winnow]

For the love of Christ, how stupid are you people? How can you defend someone who is whispering lies into your ear while his hand is pulling money from your pocket? And you're not only defending him, you're encouraging him to keep doing it. It's like you're all a bunch of battered women who keep on going back to their abusive husband. Thank god he's not ugly like John Kerry though!

I cannot understand it.

People need to take the focus away from the actual leaders. Bush, Kerry, whoever, are really just the front men. It doesn't matter who is in office when it's non politicians holding the actual power behind the scenes. Mix in the power of the military industry and you're fucked. No one is getting into office that hasn't made deals with lobbyists of these factions.

I was serious when I called out Canada and any other nation to come up with an alternative energy source. Research is severely crippled here in the United States due to interest groups...mostly interested in making money instead of solving problems. (democrats as well...don't kid yourself...LBJ killed Kennedy in order to crank up the war mahine in Vietnam and he was a democrat) If countries feel helpless because they feel used by the United States, pulling their resources and coming up with their own solution is the one thing they can do as it's much harder to hinder progress abroad.

Please go over again what Kerry's big plans were to solve our oil problem.

May 27, 2004
Kerry's Oil Contradiction
The USA Today lambastes the Democrats and John Kerry for their recent proposals regarding gas prices:

Here is an excerpt:

On Tuesday, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry stood in front of a row of school buses in Portland, Ore., and blamed skyrocketing gasoline prices on President Bush's failure to pressure foreign oil producers to open their spigots more.

Kerry's attack is the latest attempt by Democrats to convince voters that Bush is responsible for prices averaging $2.06 a gallon for unleaded nationwide, up 60 cents since December. Last week, a group of Democratic senators called on the administration to lower prices by releasing 1 million barrels a day from the government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Ten Democratic governors are demanding an investigation of oil prices, and Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe claims the White House is "in the pocket of Big Oil."

Ho-hum. Must be an election year, when the aim is to get votes, not fix the problem.

The oil-price spike is driven by a trio of long-term forces: rising demand at home, inadequate supplies and spectacular growth in emerging markets, particularly China. No quick solution exists for any of the three. Or at least none that will work by Election Day. So Democrats would rather flog the administration and trot out a few useless bromides than propose sensible remedies.

[Sylvus]

Where were you when Clinton was in office? I don't recall him being rich from oil. Where was the push for alternate energy from him? There are also a shit ton of democrats in Congress. Why have none of them pushed a bill through? Bush does not create bills although he can influence Congress to write one. You are trying to put the blame for everything wrong in the world on the shoulders of one man who is only in office for 8 years.

You know where I was when Clinton was in office? It damn sure wasn't at a pro-Clinton rally! I never said Clinton was free from blame, nor did I say I particularly liked Clinton, and I definitely didn't say that George Bush was the only one responsible for our current predicament. I really don't give a fuck whose fault it is that we're reliant on oil, nor do I care to hear about all the different chefs who have put a pinch of this or that into the recipe for us having to suck Middle East cock or just run in, guns blazing and take over countries.

The fact of the matter is that Bush is in control currently. Impropriety or not, every step he's taken regarding the middle east has been one that will make himself, his cabinet, or his friends some money. While I'm all for making my friends money, hell I refer people to my friend's electronics store every day, I generally try to avoid doing it in such a way that tens of thousands of people will die and the rest of the world will look at me as a total asshole. You don't see anything wrong with the way he's conducted his reign as President?

[Voronwë]

we are a long long long long way from being able to use alternative energy to meaningfully provide energy for our cities.

hell most places still generate electricity by burning coal i think.

we certainly need to move aggressively to position ourselves for the day when oil supplies are dwindling. but in between now and then we need to also position ourselves to secure oil supplies.

that being said, lieing about the war in the fashion the administration has done and continues to do is pretty shameful.

[Sylvus]

People need to take the focus away from the actual leaders. Bush, Kerry, whoever, are really just the front men. It doesn't matter who is in office when it's non politicians holding the actual power behind the scenes. Mix in the power of the military industry and you're fucked. No one is getting into office that hasn't made deals with lobbyists of these factions.

I agree with you 100% that the people behind the scenes are the biggest hinderence to changing where we are at today, but that problem is exacerbated so badly by having their lapdog in office. Yes, every President has been influenced by the oil (and related) companies. I don't like that at all, I think the lobbys out there are one of the biggest cancers to our country. As such, I particularly hate the current administration who is completely in bed with the oil companies.

As far as Kerry's plans went, if pressuring foreign oil producers to increase the supply of oil would have put us in the same boat we were in today, but I was paying less for gas, I certainly wouldn't call that being in a worse spot than I am today. Again, you are deflecting this. I am not saying Kerry had any answers, and I didn't particularly like the guy and would have preferred just about anyone else over him, other than Bush. But I do think that Kerry, and just about everyone else in the world, would have a much greater chance of turning on their evil oil baron overlords and trying to start us moving in the right direction on breaking reliance on oil than GWB ever will.

[cid]

that being said, lieing about the war in the fashion the administration has done and continues to do is pretty shameful.

They know there is not a fucking thing we can do about it, but maybe bitch on message boards about it.

[Voronwë]

what Sylvus is also saying is that 85%+ of the people who voted for Bush did so directly against their own individual financial interests.

frankly that is pretty impressive politics. The Republican party has convinced white people with household incomes under $50,000 to vote for them because they share the same "values".

Like how fmr Christian Coalition head Richard Reed (running for Lt Gov in GA) took money from gambling lobbyists in Mississippi to fund anti-gambling legislation in Alabama. Reed claimed that since it was to fund anti-gambling legislation that it was not hypocritical to take money from these organizations that were clearly sinful.
Nevermind the fact that it is in the financial interest of the Mississippi casinos to NOT have casinos in ALabama. So he was absolutely helping them out tremendously.

hook, line, and sinker

[Winnow]

what Sylvus is also saying is that 85%+ of the people who voted for Bush did so directly against their own individual financial interests.

frankly that is pretty impressive politics. The Republican party has convinced white people with household incomes under $50,000 to vote for them because they share the same "values".

That is impressive. Besides securing a steady flow of oil and protecting our homeland, I align with more independant views. That shows how important I felt those two issues were. As for the religious freaks, even Marbus was for Kerry so it appears Bush didn't have all cultists locked up...so that leaves the issue of security and oil again as the major driving force behind Bush's victory. Kerry inspired zero confidence on these two issues. The key to winning for the democrats is to find a strong candidate with a legit military background (high ranking, not hero) that will instill some confidence in the american people...the votes will then flow as that would be enough to sway a few percent. Look at the recent candidates..Gore? Kerry? please. Clinton got in because we had just crushed Iraq and the world was at relative peace. If we get another wuss candidate from the democrats (that includes Hillary), look for a third straight term for republicans despite the economic issues.

The stuff we're dealing with started long before the present politicians were around that we bitch at today.

[Sylvos]

Clinton also was re-elected because he was the consumate politician and incredibly charismatic. There will not be an ideal canidate until both parties have a majority of their older, asshole members die of old age. So you roughly i'd say 12 years til the new blood comes into being where the GenX'ers are going to be in the running for president and a new type of politics emerge.

[Nick]

I guess you're calling Winnow the slug and not me Seebs? Not sure there, but I been WoW grinding all day so forgive me.

What Voronwe said is dead on as usual.

Kilmoll, trying to pass the buck onto the British is so hysterically predictable of you I don't think anything else needs to be said.

[Lohrno]

The stuff we're dealing with started long before the present politicians were around that we bitch at today.

But they are definitely NOT helping things either...

[masteen]

Very frankly, until the majority of Americans are no longer ignorant fools who believe that all truth cometh from the TV, nothing will ever change.

[Wulfran]

I was serious when I called out Canada and any other nation to come up with an alternative energy source. Research is severely crippled here in the United States due to interest groups...mostly interested in making money instead of solving problems.

The issue here is Canada is one of your largest suppliers of petroleum products so we have as much to gain as anyone in keeping the status quo. Sure once our supplies start to degrade it may become worthwhile to investigate alternative energy supplies but right now we are in the same position, with regards to the R&D end as you are...

[Seebs]

I think its safe to say Teeny, we are all slugs in our own special way.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

I guess you're calling Winnow the slug and not me Seebs? Not sure there, but I been WoW grinding all day so forgive me.

What Voronwe said is dead on as usual.

Kilmoll, trying to pass the buck onto the British is so hysterically predictable of you I don't think anything else needs to be said.

Almost as retarded as blaming every problem in the middle east and world today on the U.S.?

[Winnow]

The issue here is Canada is one of your largest suppliers of petroleum products so we have as much to gain as anyone in keeping the status quo. Sure once our supplies start to degrade it may become worthwhile to investigate alternative energy supplies but right now we are in the same position, with regards to the R&D end as you are...

I mentioned this on another thread Wulfran. Cananda is ramping up it's oil industry. You are slowly turning into another oil based country for GNP. I think you're right in that Canada won't be helping with the world's need for alternative enrergy.

Since 1947, when oil was first discovered in the Leduc Field, Alberta's production of crude oil and natural gas has transformed this frontier pastoral province to a burgeoning industrial center. The rise in energy prices by OPEC since 1973 then magnified the value of Alberta's energy production, causing the center of economic gravity and prosperity to shift westward. Canadian population and investment capital are leaving the old industrial centers in the East and seeking employment and return in Alberta. With just 2 million people, or 8 per cent of Canada's population, Alberta is generating 12 per cent of the country's GNP, growing larger every year. The neighboring province of Saskatchewan is enjoying a similar petrodollar boom although it has smaller deposits of primarily heavy oil. So does British Columbia, which has considerable reserves of natural gas.

Ultimately, the only way oil power can be defeated is through democracy. Canada can contribute to democratization by upholding a universalistic foreign policy instead of double standards. Political conditions are now imposed on loans and other agreements with oil-less countries such as Jordan - but not on oil dictatorships. We should insist that the same respect for human rights and democracy be demanded equally of all the states with which Canada deals.

The words "oil sands" does not sound particularly poetic, and it isn't. But this dirty porridge is nevertheless a large part of Canada's gigantic oil reserves, concealed under the vast prairie of the province of Alberta. This oil is difficult and costly in energy terms to recover. But once it is inside the pipeline on its way to insatiable consumers in the USA, it makes Canada the 14th largest oil producer with exports to the USA larger than those of Saudi Arabia.

This oil does not only burn in American furnaces. It is also the source of a heated Canadian debate, unique in the world, but something which should perhaps not be so: Whether or not Canada should ratify the Kyoto climate treaty [protocol].

The treaty will dramatically reduce the CO2 emissions of the industrialized countries, and what ratification will do to the Canadian economy - and not least the oil sand which, according to the oil industry, would be too expensive to extract [- remains to be seen.] [Comment: this translation is accurate. Language appears missing from the text as printed].

...On the opposing side is business and industry with the often American-owned oil industry as the vocal vanguard. Canadian businesses send 85 per cent of their exports to the USA and feel placed in an unfair competitive position in relation to their American counterparts. The distances in Canada are greater and the temperatures lower than in other parts of the world, which increases energy demand. According to employers, the price for Kyoto will amount to almost one half million lost jobs and a significant reduction in GNP.

The energy-intensive oil and gas industry predicts that investments of 50 billion dollars are in peril. Recently, the oil company Canadian Natural Resources announced that it would withhold an investment of 100 million Canadian dollars until the consequences of Kyoto were known. According to some predictions, investment in coal mining could drop by up to 48 per cent. But not all are buying into these sombre predictions.

[Metanis]

For the sake of argument let's say this memo is absolutely real.

So what?

The memo doesn't state WHO is fixing the intelligence. It doesn't state that Bush directed the "fix". For that matter it doesn't change the underlying fact that much intelligence about Saddam and Iraq was deeply troubling.

Minds are already made up, this memo is too vague to matter.

[Kelshara]

You are right about one thing: Your mind is definitely made up.

[Lohrno]

The memo doesn't state WHO is fixing the intelligence. It doesn't state that Bush directed the "fix". For that matter it doesn't change the underlying fact that much intelligence about Saddam and Iraq was deeply troubling.

Minds are already made up, this memo is too vague to matter.

But Bush came to England to get support based on this evidence. The memo says that it was fixed. If the evidence is being presented by Bush and is fixed, who do you think would do it?

Clinton got a hummer and he got impeached. Bush starts a war based on bad intelligence, and there is no real investigation?!

[Nick]

Who blames all the problems of the world on the US Kilmoll? That would be stupid. Nice selective observation you got there.

In the Middle east in particular, Iraq and Palestine are two very painfully obvious examples however of US fuckupery (not to mention the murderous Israeli government).

Edit: Well it's obvious the justification for war was based on lies (from day fucking one), I guess it comes down to how much you value your freedom, democracy and the legitimacy of a government that lies to you and murders people based on the lies you naively believed in good faith.

But whatever floats your boat.

[Animale]

It's because the Repubs control both houses. Oh well.

Guess we'll just have to wait for the history books to have people understand how morally corrupt this white house is.

Animale

[Lohrno]

Guess we'll just have to wait for the history books to have people understand how morally corrupt this white house is.

If someday the Republicans do not control everything then maybe...

[Fash]

In order for the democrats to take over, they need to have some actual ideas and plans...

democrats should be upset at their own party and what it's doing...

the only idea in recent history that a democrat fleshed out with details, the progressive indexing social security plan, was quickly adopted by president bush.... democrats subsequently bashed it.

kerry's only plan was to do everything "better".

dean says the democrat vision is "better" than the "dark, evil vision" of the republicans.... the only details are a "strong" this and a "strong" that.

but whats the plan, stan?

'the party of no' will make no ground against the party actively trying to implement change.

[kyoukan]

In order for the democrats to take over, they need to have some actual ideas and plans...

Ideas and plans, you say? hmm...

You know, I think you have the makings of a political strategist!

[Metanis]

The memo doesn't state WHO is fixing the intelligence. It doesn't state that Bush directed the "fix". For that matter it doesn't change the underlying fact that much intelligence about Saddam and Iraq was deeply troubling.

Minds are already made up, this memo is too vague to matter.

But Bush came to England to get support based on this evidence. The memo says that it was fixed. If the evidence is being presented by Bush and is fixed, who do you think would do it?

Clinton got a hummer and he got impeached. Bush starts a war based on bad intelligence, and there is no real investigation?!

Ok, you convinced me. I absolutely will NOT vote for George W. Bush in 2008. And I'll support charges against him in the World Court. Perhaps he will be found guilty in abstentia... they'll ask the UN to DO something about it.... GW will be terrified of UN action... I can see the headlines now... Dateline 2411 - UN bombs GW's Tomb declaring swift retaliation for war crimes committed 400 odd years ago...

[Nick]

We can only hope.

[Marbus]

And so it begins to be addressed in the US media...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/16/ ... index.html

Marb

[Cartalas]

Why Does VV remind me of the movie HOLES!!!!


Keep digging guys.