#27768: Tman — 06/08  at  06:00 PM
Blair and Bush answered questions yesterday about the supposedly incriminating Downing Street Memo.

(Steve Holland/Reuters): Thank you, sir. On Iraq, the so-called Downing Street memo from July 2002 says intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military action. Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Well, I can respond to that very easily. No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all. And let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations. Now, no one knows more intimately the discussions that we were conducting as two countries at the time than me. And the fact is we decided to go to the United Nations and went through that process, which resulted in the November 2002 United Nations resolution, to give a final chance to Saddam Hussein to comply with international law. He didn't do so. And that was the reason why we had to take military action.

But all the way through that period of time, we were trying to look for a way of managing to resolve this without conflict. As it happened, we weren't able to do that because -- as I think was very clear -- there was no way that Saddam Hussein was ever going to change the way that he worked, or the way that he acted.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, I -- you know, I read kind of the characterizations of the memo, particularly when they dropped it out in the middle of his race. I'm not sure who "they dropped it out" is, but -- I'm not suggesting that you all dropped it out there. (Laughter.) And somebody said, well, you know, we had made up our mind to go to use military force to deal with Saddam. There's nothing farther from the truth.

My conversation with the Prime Minister was, how could we do this peacefully, what could we do. And this meeting, evidently, that took place in London happened before we even went to the United Nations -- or I went to the United Nations. And so it's -- look, both us of didn't want to use our military. Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option. The consequences of committing the military are -- are very difficult. The hardest things I do as the President is to try to comfort families who've lost a loved one in combat. It's the last option that the President must have -- and it's the last option I know my friend had, as well.

And so we worked hard to see if we could figure out how to do this peacefully, take a -- put a united front up to Saddam Hussein, and say, the world speaks, and he ignored the world. Remember, 1441 passed the Security Council unanimously. He made the decision. And the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.

You can continue to accuse Bush of being a criminal if you want, but using the Downing Street Memo would be sort of foolish at this point.

And as far as Iraq being a "colossal blunder" is concerned, that would be news to the the people involved with the Iraq Freedom Conference.

Start of the Iraq Freedom Conference Proceedings
Baghdad - Al-Shark Al-Awsat: Yesterday, in Meridian hotel in Baghdad, the Iraq freedom Conference proceedings were launched. It included various Iraqi, Iranian and Japanese identities, names, associations and entities in all fields.

A source in the conference said to Al-Shark Al-Awsat that this conference is considered a democratic public organization, which is neither religious nor national and is independent. In addition, it struggles for the sake of the establishment of a free country and relies on the direct will of the public.

The source pointed out that the conference works through the public organizations at every level and within the scope of the local branches to this organization, to the return the authority to the public. Also, it broadens the participation of individuals, organizations, political parties, workers’ syndicates, the council of the mass, societies and the enterprises that participate in conference with regard to its goals and topics.


http://www.almendhar.com/almendharen/details.aspx?nID=2055

It's amazing how much in common you have with ID'ers when you put your head in the sand and ignore the progress of freedom in Iraq as well as the Arab/Islamic world, all undeniably brought about by policies set forth by this administration.

Both of you are ignorant of the FACTS.

#27777: Nullifidian — 06/08  at  06:45 PM
So let me get this straight. Just because Bush and Blair cook up some folderol about the Downing Street Memo, we're supposed to regard the case as closed? Would you accept an "internal investigation" of the Enron corporation spearheaded by Ken Lay and finding that nothing criminal had taken place?

Bush and Blair's take on the Downing Street Memo makes no sense at all. If they were genuinely convinced that Husayn had WMDs, then were the British intelligence investigators just convening a meeting to bounce lies back and forth?

Blair is simply lying through his teeth. Husayn did comply with the resolution to let inspectors in, and they were on the ground and roundly chastized by our so-called independent media for not being able to find WMDs. Hans Blix was called and told that he had a week to get his team out of Iraq, despite that--or probably because--they had not completed their investigation. There's a line in Chicago spoken by Billy Flynn after a triple homicide. Kitty Baxter's husband was sleeping with two women at once, and before she shot him, he said, as reported by Flynn, "What are you gonna believe? What you see or what I tell you?" It seems you've settled for the latter as far as anything from Bush and Co.

#27780: — 06/08  at  06:59 PM
TMan,

Did you not have television reception in the weeks running up to the Iraq attack? Do you not know that Osama was NOT being harbored by Saddam? The weaseling by bush to create a panic was blindingly obvious. The Downing Street memo simple documents what anyone who was not in Bush's thrall could see all along.

#27781: Tman — 06/08  at  07:00 PM
Husayn did comply with the resolution to let inspectors in, and they were on the ground and roundly chastized by our so-called independent media for not being able to find WMDs.

Um, no he didn't. He did say things like "There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was indeed destroyed in 1991."

Or-

"The (Iraqi weapons report) document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi air force between 1983 and 1998; while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."

But you would apparently rather believe a mass murdering dictator who continually lied to everyone for decades rather than a democratically elected president who had to (and did) prove his case to the entire US congress.

Suit yourself.

#27783: Tman — 06/08  at  07:09 PM
Yes Mr Desert, I knew Osama wasn't in Iraq. Nor do I believe Saddam had any direct involvement with the 9/11 attacks (the 1993 WTC attacks are a different story however).

I did believe that we needed to stand up to a madman such as Saddam who was killing anyone he could get his hands on and openly defying the international consensus that he disarm. I do believe that had we not struck down Saddam it would have been a matter of time before he WAS directly involved in a major attack on US soil. And I do believe that liberating Iraq and helping it on its way to becoming one of the first Arab/Islamic democracies in the Middle East was a strategically necessary step in winning this war.

#27784: — 06/08  at  07:11 PM
... but the things you believe were not what Congress or the public was told were the reason for the invasion. If those had been the reason given then the approval would not have been granted.

#27785: — 06/08  at  07:15 PM
I completely agree with T-man. Nixon said he had nothing to do with Watergate, and he didn't. Reagan said he had nothing to do with Iran-contra, and he didn't. Johnson was completely truthful about the actions of the U.S. during the Vietnam war, and Kennedy's veracity about the Cuban missile crisis still cannot be questioned. Heck, Clinton never got a blow-job from Monica Lewinsky. T-man's forceful logic and arguments have convinced me (who once disagreed with T-man on just about everything) of the magnanimity of President Bush and, by extension, every person in a position of authority over me that is in his same party. Their motives are always altruistic and they always know what's best for me. Sure he only cites to the most biased sources whose opinions are completely contradicted by the available unbiased reports and information or opinions of individuals that have no knowledge whatsoever or has no real bearing on the discussion. What T-man neglects to mention is that all of these biased sources have inside information that doesn't need to be provided to the public, because the public just couldn't understand it, and it would threaten national security, and people have enough to worry about--poverty, unemployment, affordable health care--to trouble them any further with information that is more easily condensed and proliferated by the virtuous people like Pat Buchanan, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, etc. We need to just stop criticizing and accept the fact that we are nothing compared to those in positions of power in this country. And if that isn't enough to passively accept whatever misguided or detrimental policy our leaders enact, just remember that America is the most charitable, freest, greatest instrument for good this world has ever seen and ever will see and therefore could never do anything harmful or ill-conceived.

#27786: Tman — 06/08  at  07:16 PM
Did you ever read the Resolution to Congress Desert?

Jeebus, it's like a broken record.

Here-

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Especially these two-

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Again, this passed both houses.

#27788: Tman — 06/08  at  07:17 PM
Sorry bill, I don't believe you.

Nice patronizing though....

#27792: — 06/08  at  07:36 PM
Where's Charlie Wagner when we need him?

#27794: — 06/08  at  07:46 PM

Don't even dream of knocking on my door

But its too late to cancel my plane ticket...

#27795: — 06/08  at  07:46 PM
The story told was that we had to attack Iraq before they attacked us. The US public bought this (while the rest of the world didnt) because of the recent 9/11 attack. Shrub and company did everything they could, including lying, to tie the two events together.

Your quotation of two boilerplate paragraphs indicating tertiaty rational does not change what happened. I suppose you believe all those magazine ads by tobacco companies mean less than the little box on the pack telling you that smoking is bad for pregnant people. Did you even notice that the 'pregnancy' notice is used most often in magazines with primarily male audience. This is not an accident, and neither is the placement of your two paragraphs.

#27797: — 06/08  at  07:56 PM
...next thing we know you will be telling us that Bush placed Social Security privatization at the center of his reelection bid because he mentioned reforming SS once at a grange hall meeting in McDermit, Nevada.

Trackback: It's Time For an Independent Inquiry Into Iraq Tracked on: Unscrewing The Inscrutable (66.197.215.85) at 2005 06 08 19:58:19
Cindy Sheehan, founder of Gold Star Families for Peace, was on MSNBC's Connected Coast to Coast with Hosts Monica Crowely and Ron Reagan this afternoon. Video courtesy of Mark at Dem Bloggers here. Cindy lost her son, Casey, in Iraq...

#27798: Tman — 06/08  at  07:59 PM
Um, desert, they weren't just two "boilerplate" paragraphs.

One was a section from Hans Blix's report to the UN in 2002, and the other was the White Houses Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

The resolution went through congress which unanimously approved it. So by your logic, congress lied to you too. And Britain held a similar resolution, which also passed with a majority.

Just because they said things you don't agree with doesn't mean they were lying.

#27800: DarkSyde — 06/08  at  08:03 PM
At the very least Tman it's reasonable to launch an independent inquiry into this.

#27801: — 06/08  at  08:09 PM
" the other was the White Houses Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq."

So, you expect me to believe that either of those paragraphs was the WHOLE resolution, and that Bush went around for months saying that our primary reason for attack was to free the Iraqi's.

Those must be some very fine mushrooms you are ingesting.

#27802: Tman — 06/08  at  08:10 PM
DS,

I find that very reasonable. And I did not mean to say that by posting the press conference excerpt that this exonerated Bush completely from any possible repurcussions from his decision to go to war.

But what I do find annoying is that the majority of congress that voted for the resolution authorizing our troops to attack Iraq (because you see, only CONGRESS can do that folks) puts them at fault just as much IF NOT MORE legally than Bush.

Bush gave the reason. Congress authorized it.

Why don't I see people complaining to impeach congress?

#27803: Tman — 06/08  at  08:11 PM
Desert,

No.

Read it again.

#27804: DarkSyde — 06/08  at  08:15 PM
Not in my view Tman. Congress was only guilty of the same offense I'm guilty of: We both bleieved the President of the United States. Now it may turn out to be an honest mistake. Bush is human and he may have been freaked out just like the rest of us and a little over cautious. But there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation in my opinion, an independent one with no hold barred, no 'executive privilege' dodges.

Bush did say flat out several times that Congress needed to give him this authority, but that it was his call. So I'm taking him at his word on that and I believed him initially when he said the War was necessary, that iraq was a threat on par with 9-11. Now I'd like to find out, as would many in Congress and the nation, just how truthful he was.

#27805: — 06/08  at  08:19 PM
You said 'one IS the Resolution ....', not part of. While Congress is granted the power to declare war, the Commander in Chief controls the military and many recent conficts, including Vietnam were not declared wars. The fact that Shrub finessed a vote, partly by using manuevers mentioned above by bill, does not shift the blame to Congress. He lied to them, he lied to you, he lied to me. Most of them know it, I know it and I think the honorable DS is being far too polite by suggesting that a study is the appropriate course of action. Impeachment would be appropriate, and the public can help make that happen by throwing a bunch of Republicans out of Congress next year so some balance is restored to our government and Congress can regain some indepedence from the Executive branch

#27808: — 06/08  at  08:36 PM
The Downing Street memo included the following passage:

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.

So when Blair stated :


No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all.

he is directly contradicting his source ("C") in Washington. Only one of them can be right.

#27810: — 06/08  at  08:44 PM
Andy Groves wrote:

"he is directly contradicting his source ("C") in Washington. Only one of them can be right. "

Don't know if you knew this already, but "C" is more that a mere "source in Washington". "C" is the codename for the head of MI6 (the British equivalent of the CIA)

Regards
Duncan

Trackback: Press-ganging, 21st-century style Tracked on: Musing's musings (66.151.149.25) at 2005 06 08 20:58:40
Readers are advised to put down any food or drink they may have in hand before reading this post. You'll also want to chew and/or swallow anything you've already taken, and if there are small children or people with delicate

#27813: Michael — 06/08  at  09:09 PM
Jebus H. Christ on a fucking crutch! Impeach Bush for starting the war on the basis of a tissue of lies. Impeach Rumsfeld for ignoring the advice of his planners on how much it would cost, what kind of manpower and materiel resources we were going to need. And court-martial the commandant of the Marine Corps for allowing his people to get away with shit like this. These are the tactics of the Gestapo, not the military that's supposedly spreading "freedom and democracy" everywhere it goes.

Oh, and Tman? You might want to start drinking something besides Kool-Aid. Just a thought.