IRAQ: Leaked memos vindicated

[bsnyder]

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/docs/memotext.pdf

Yeah, I know it has a link to the actual DS memo. I've seen it before.

But is that the memo the news article in this thread is referencing?

 

[DawnCt1]

Speaking of intoxicated..............pardon me, intoxicating.

Is it your contention the entire world had unfettered access to all classified material about Iraq?

.

The entire world had access to their OWN intelligence which confirmed that Saddam was a future threat that was bent on developing WMDs. It wasn't just our intelligence.

 

[LadyDay]

The entire world had access to their OWN intelligence which confirmed that Saddam was a future threat that was bent on developing WMDs. It wasn't just our intelligence.

Hope you didn't hurt yourself with that fancy "spin" maneuver.

So the answer to these questions is no.

1) Is it your contention the entire world had unfettered access to all classified material about Iraq?

2) Is it your contention the entire world had access to every presidential PDB, briefing, meeting, discussion, keg party, etc.?

So, in other words, the whole world, including Democrats here at home did not have access to the same information as Bush and his administraton.

Well, whattayanno, we've come full circle.

 

[graygables]

You don't want to know the truth...you can't HANDLE the truth.

It is not even imaginable to think that anyone in "the public" should have "unfettered access" to classified materials. WHY DO YOU THINK THEY ARE CLASSIFIED???

"A person is smart, people are stupid" Tommy Lee Jones' character in MIB.

 

[Disney Gator]

Am I the only one who has never even heard of these "memos"? Heavy handed US tactics? Is this really news? The US has always acted that way.

 

[LadyDay]

You don't want to know the truth...you can't HANDLE the truth.

It is not even imaginable to think that anyone in "the public" should have "unfettered access" to classified materials. WHY DO YOU THINK THEY ARE CLASSIFIED???

"A person is smart, people are stupid" Tommy Lee Jones' character in MIB.

The point here is that no one, other than the Bush administration, had unfettered access to classified documents and that includes Congress. To restate the regurgitated Bushie talking points "but they all saw the same intelligence" is ludicrous.

And the sight of a president and his administration, selling their war, 2 1/2 years into that war, with old discredited regurgitated talking points is pitiful and pathetic.

Even more pitiful and pathetic are the ones still buying into this bull****.

 

[Mugg Mann]

Rich-
There was nothing in the papers this morning on this side of the Atlantic that the memos in question were the Downing street memos. Is there anything else you can cite that confirms it?

Thanking you for your time in advance......

 

[Mugg Mann]

Am I the only one who has never even heard of these "memos"? Heavy handed US tactics? Is this really news? The US has always acted that way.

It's news when these meetings for joint planning a war in Iraq take place before 9/11 , and then the Bush administration does everything possible to try to give the impression that Iraq and 9/11 were related in order to sell the war to the public, when in fact they had absolutely nothing to do with each other.

And Disney Gator, take solace in the fact that you're by no means alone. If the media was truly as liberal and left leaning as many want you to believe, this would have been publicized everywhere when they were first disclosed in May.

 

[Free4Life11]

What is going on with this "memo"?? I think it's time someone searched Snopes. I searched the Downing Street Memo and found no mention of "heavy handed" tactics.

A memo saying "heavy handed" tactics is hardly juicy. First of, tactics in regards to what?? And heavy handed as opposed to what...limp wristed tactics? P**** tactics??

I have no idea what this memo is in regards to

 

[What the Heck]

What is going on with this "memo"?? I think it's time someone searched Snopes. I searched the Downing Street Memo and found no mention of "heavy handed" tactics.

A memo saying "heavy handed" tactics is hardly juicy. First of, tactics in regards to what?? And heavy handed as opposed to what...limp wristed tactics? P**** tactics??

I have no idea what this memo is in regards to

I like how it said that the action was to take place in January "30 days before the Congressional elections". When did we change the date of our elections?

 

[wvjules]

The entire world had access to their OWN intelligence which confirmed that Saddam was a future threat that was bent on developing WMDs. It wasn't just our intelligence.

So does that mean we attack any and all leaders that may be a "future thread'? That's a slippery slope we're walking if that's the case.

 

[dcentity2000]

The arrest was not made over the Downing Street Memo. The memo I'm talking about here is the one that criticises American handling of the situation.

Two men have been charged under the Official Secrets Act following the leak of a secret government memo.
The document involved - the Foreign Office's Iraq in the Medium Term - referred to "heavy-handed" US tactics, a government source told the BBC.

Its contents were reported in the Sunday Times in May last year.

Ex-civil servant David Keogh and former MP's researcher Leo O'Connor, both from Northampton, will appear before Bow Street magistrates on 29 November.

However, on the subject of the Downing Street Memos, I believe that someone has been arrested over those too - they were investigated and covered in the Butler Inquiry.

Tony Blair has again defended the Iraq invasion, arguing the country is better off without Saddam Hussein.
The premier was asked about a memo of a meeting eight months before war when MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove said the US president saw action as inevitable.

Sir Richard added the intelligence and facts were being fixed around policy.

Mr Blair told MPs the memo had been covered by the Butler inquiry and that a UN resolution had been attained after the meeting and before the war.

The memo refers to a meeting in Downing Street on 23 July 2002 attended by Mr Blair, Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, ex-defence secretary Geoff Hoon, Sir Richard, former head of the UK armed forces Admiral Lord Boyce and head of the Joint Intelligence Committee John Scarlett.

Rich::

 

[jimmiej]

So does that mean we attack any and all leaders that may be a "future thread'? That's a slippery slope we're walking if that's the case.

1) SH wasn't just ANY leader. He had a well-documented history. He was given years to clean up his act. Obviously, he had no intention of doing so.

2) After 9/11, "future threats" had to be taken far more seriously. We must take strong measures to ensure our national safety.

 

[wvrevy]

1) SH wasn't just ANY leader. He had a well-documented history. He was given years to clean up his act. Obviously, he had no intention of doing so.

2) After 9/11, "future threats" had to be taken far more seriously. We must take strong measures to ensure our national safety.

1 - Saddam was no worse than several other leaders around the world, and - at least for the past decade - was considerably better than many. Obviously, he HAD done so, since all of the atrocities you people keep dredging up happened 20 years ago, not 2. Unless of course you want to bring up those "torture rooms", in which case I'll refer you to Dick Cheney's office.

2 - So, we should invade anyone that could, potentially, pose a threat ? Good thing people weren't thinking that way during the cold war, or none of us would likely be here right now. 9/11 may have caused all Republicans to become cowards that think we must become what we profess to hate in order to be safe, but it didn't cause all of America to feel that way. Some of us still value that freedom that you would so willingly give away in order to procure a little fleeting "safety". The logical end to your "theory" is that we will have to conquer the world...and I'm not interested in an American Empire, thank you very much.

 

[bsnyder]

The arrest was not made over the Downing Street Memo. The memo I'm talking about here is the one that criticises American handling of the situation.


Rich::

Do you have a link to the memo you are referencing? I've never seen it, and can't find it anywhere.

 

[bsnyder]

1 - Saddam was no worse than several other leaders around the world, and - at least for the past decade - was considerably better than many. Obviously, he HAD done so, since all of the atrocities you people keep dredging up happened 20 years ago, not 2. Unless of course you want to bring up those "torture rooms", in which case I'll refer you to Dick Cheney's office.

2 - So, we should invade anyone that could, potentially, pose a threat ? Good thing people weren't thinking that way during the cold war, or none of us would likely be here right now. 9/11 may have caused all Republicans to become cowards that think we must become what we profess to hate in order to be safe, but it didn't cause all of America to feel that way. Some of us still value that freedom that you would so willingly give away in order to procure a little fleeting "safety". The logical end to your "theory" is that we will have to conquer the world...and I'm not interested in an American Empire, thank you very much.

So if we can't take care of ALL threats, we shouldn't take care of ANY?

Hmmmm, maybe we should apply that logic to welfare programs. We'll never be able to take care of every single problem every single person has, so why should we even try to alleviate anyone's suffering?

 

[sodaseller]

So if we can't take care of ALL threats, we shouldn't take care of ANY?

Hmmmm, maybe we should apply that logic to welfare programs. We'll never be able to take care of every single problem every single person has, so why should we even try to alleviate anyone's suffering?

Iraq wasn't a significant threat. It wasn't in the top 5, probably not the top 20, except on the fevered imaginings of the AEI Ahabs, who then imposed their fears upon the rest of us fraud. To continue your tinged and inapropos metaphor, beause we will always have the poor with us, should we ensure that we first seek to aid the fraudulent?

The question is not whether you adress all, buut who you address. Just War Doctrine has required for years that you can only use force in response to an actual or near imminent threat. We abrogated millenia of Western ethics to claim the mantle of "preventive war". We now see why oit is unjustifiable and unwise. But even were it both, it is only logical that you first "prevent" an attack by a party actually closest to that point. Iraq could not be honestly portrayed to be that party , which is why the Adminsitration resorted to dishonesty.

 

[yeartolate]

So does that mean we attack any and all leaders that may be a "future thread'? That's a slippery slope we're walking if that's the case.

Yeah, especially since the biggest threat to our own country may reside at 1600 Pennsyl.....

Oh nevermind.

 

[bsnyder]

Iraq wasn't a significant threat. It wasn't in the top 5, probably not the top 20...

...But even were it both, it is only logical that you first "prevent" an attack by a party actually closest to that point. Iraq could not be honestly portrayed to be that party , which is why the Adminsitration resorted to dishonesty.

More revisionist history from the revisionist party. A look at the historical record from 4 years ago would clearly put Iraq at the top of the threat list for an overwhelming majority of the prominent politicians in this country.

And you can spare me the dishonesty crap....

Cherrypicking the intelligence to make a case that the Bush Administration cherrypicked the intelligence is not only ironic, it's gotten tiresome.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Yeah, especially since the biggest threat to our own country may reside at 1600 Pennsyl.....

Oh nevermind.

Good call, yeartolate...these guys are going down with the ship, no matter how many liferafts we send out! Thankfully, W and Dick "Master of Torture" Cheney need the company. The ranks of the right wing are dwindling by the second!