Eulogy for the Downing Street Memo

The Perspective ^ | 06-30-05 | TheRobb7

[TheRobb7]

Dearly Beloved,

We have gathered here today to pay our last respects to the latest attempt of the Sore Losers to smear our President, George W. Bush.

If you recall, just days before the November 2004 election, Dan Rather and his minions at the C-BS network tried to foist upon the American public "fake but accurate" documents about the Presidents service in the Air National Guard. The documents were proven to be forgeries and the attempt to take down a sitting President backfired.

Recently the so-called "Downing Street Memos" have surfaced, purporting that the President "fixed" the facts to support the Iraq war effort.

It has been a main contention of the President's enemies that he lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction(WMD's) to get us into a war.

However, what has been conveniently forgotten is that the belief that Saddam Hussien had WMD's was widely held BEFORE PRESIDENT BUSH TOOK OFFICE IN JANUARY 2001.

A brief look at news articles from CNN.com provide sufficient proof:

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/01/iraq/

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/iraq.political.analysis/

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/

So you see, my dear friends, since the belief that Saddam had WMD's goes all the way back to the Clinton Administration, President Bush did not lie, "fix" or fabricate the WMD issue.

So as we say good bye to another dear fabricaton of the Left, let us now with strong resolve push forward to the bright future that is before us, proving to the world the true liberating power of democracy.

Feel free to stop by the casket on your way out.

[TheRobb7]

God Bless Freeper Nation! Thanks for visiting The Perspective!

[hoosiermama]

You might want to help circulate this from Doug from Upland!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1433562/posts

[fml]

I think there should be a cremation.

[MortMan]

I think there should be a cremation.

Or, at least Howie Dean could scream the eulogy. ;-P

[Daughter of the revolution]

Have you ever read the Constitution?

I think you should begin by studying the powers allocated to the various branches of government. You will note that only Congress has the power to declare war. Since Congress was deliberately misled, this whole Iraqi misadventure was unconstitutional; that is why it is an impeachable offence.

To be against the tenets of the Constitution is un-american, for the Constitution embodies the governing principles of our republic. When you think of the word patriot, do you think of one who tramples or one who defends the Constitution? Better read the document (it's dry but not overly long) and decide if you are a true american or one who would surrender to the passing fancies of a small group of individuals who neither respect nor defend the document. If you question my reasoning, look at how many of YOUR civil liberties have already been abolished in the name of expediency and "terrorism."

The Downing Street minutes

[Bernard]

However, what has been conveniently forgotten is that the belief that Saddam Hussien had WMD's was widely held BEFORE PRESIDENT BUSH TOOK OFFICE IN JANUARY 2001.

This is all very similar to people like John Kerry referring to Vietnam as "Mr. Nixon's war." I've never seen any statistics, but did more American servicemen die in Vietnam while Lyndon Johnson was President that died while Richard Nixon was President? The only reason I think that might be true is that I've never heard anybody quote the opposite.

[MortMan]

...Since Congress was deliberately misled...

Deliberately misled? Interesting point of view.

The Germans believed the intelligence. The British believed the intelligence. The French (apparently) believed the intelligence. Even the UN believed the intelligence.

'Deliberate' is an allegation unsupported by the facts in evidence, friend. To the best of the rest of the world's knowledge, even to the best of the evidence regarding Saddam's knowledge, Iraq had WMD.

Yes, I've read the constitution. Perhaps you should reread a truthful history of the times leading up to the war.

[Gribbles141]

http://www.republicanfilms.com/

Download the Clinton Video, then tell me if anyone lied...dur.

[Daughter of the revolution]

I am completely comfortable with finding out the truth, let the chips fall where they may. I am loyal to this nation, not to any party or person. The only way to find out if the allegations are true is for a full investigation to take place; if one could be done for Whitewater, a minor scandal which did not involve committing troops to war, then the DSM allegations certainly warrant a special prosecutor with subpoena powers.

I was just as vehement about getting to the truth about Clinton's misdeeds. Those who are to enforce the law are not above the law, and THAT is something they must understand, no matter what party they call "home."

[Daughter of the revolution]

Not a Clinton supporter or apologist in this house!

[Max Flatow]

Since Congress was deliberately misled

Please stop getting your news from Al Franken.

[TheRobb7]

First, thanks for posting your reply. You are obviously quite intelligent and passionate about our country.

In one of your posts you mentioned the Downing Street memos.

The memos allege (not prove) that the Bush Adminsitration "fixed" the facts around their desire for war.

However, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee (a bi-partisan committee) that was not the case. You can read the report at http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf

There you will find the following:

"The Committee was not presented with any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure...or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to do so."

If the Democrats on that committe thought that the report was wrong, then they put their signatures on a lie.

Hence, we find ourselves in a conundrum:

Do we believe the report of a bi-partisan Senate committee or the unauthenticated memos of a British journalist?

Again, let me thank you for your intelligent responses.

God bless you and all my fellow Freepers. :)

[Daughter of the revolution]

I got it from reading the documents themselves.

Pre-emptive warfare is a dangerous exercise, only to be considered when there is a serious threat to the nation.

The Downing Street memos purport that even our allies with British intelligence, MI6 specifically, did not believe Iraq posed a threat. The memos state that if Britain were to join the US in this Iraq venture, it would have to be justifiable; legitimate grounds for launching an attack would have to be created before the invasion could proceed.

Then came the bombshell that intelligence was "cooked" in order to satisfy this need for compelling evidence to go to war.

I thought about Joe Wilson as I read that. I wondered if he had been telling the truth after all. I thought about others, like the Brit whose mysterious death involved "sexing up the intelligence." I began to wonder what happened. This is true political theatre.

Whether you question the memos authenticity or not, they are provocative and well worth reading. I am neither condemning nor dismissing, but asserting that as citizens we have the right to know if deception was used to draw our nation into a conflict that is claiming american lives.

[Daughter of the revolution]

Hello Robb,

Thank you for sending the link to the Senate Intelligence Committee report. I'm still reading it! It's a bit dry for my taste, but I will review it in it's entirety.

I did read the accessment on Niger, from which I gleaned some suprising information. I also noted that some lengthy sections pertaining to the UK were completely blocked out. Though I assume this is in the interests of national security, that information could possibly have given us a better reading of the veracity of the allegations included in the DSM.

Your graciousness and political acumen are highly valued by me; there is no exercise I enjoy so much as stretching my mind. I hope today has given you reasons to smile.

Now, back to reading!

[MikeA]

Pre-emptive warfare is a dangerous exercise, only to be considered when there is a serious threat to the nation.

---

From CNN:

Russia 'warned U.S. about Saddam'
Friday, June 18, 2004 Posted: 12:46 PM EDT (1646 GMT)

MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.

The warnings were provided after September 11, 2001 and before the start of the Iraqi war, Putin said Friday.

The planned attacks were targeted both inside and outside the United States, said Putin, who made the remarks during a visit to Kazakhstan.

However, Putin said there was no evidence that Saddam's regime was involved in any terrorist attacks.

"I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations," Putin said.

He said the information was given to U.S. intelligence officers and that U.S. President George W. Bush expressed his gratitude to a top Russian intelligence official.

"This information was indeed passed on through our partner channels to our American colleagues and, moreover, President Bush had an opportunity and used this opportunity to personally thank the leader of one of the Russian special services for this information, which he considered to be very important," Putin said.

Putin made his comments in response to a question from reporters seeking clarification on similar statements leaked by an unnamed intelligence officer in a dispatch by the Interfax news agency.

Russia opposed the invasion of Iraq and Putin said Friday the information did not effect its stance on the war.

He said there were international norms and procedures that weren't observed regarding "the use of force in international actions."

Regarding how the information might have been related to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Putin said, "Whether or not this was sufficient basis to state the United States was acting within the boundaries of self-defense, well, I don't know. This is a separate issue."

The United States, meanwhile, never mentioned the Russian intelligence in its arguments for going to war.

Hours after Putin spoke, Bush addressed troops at Fort Lewis in the U.S. state of Washington, but he didn't react to the Russian leader's remarks.

He repeated his position that Saddam's regime was a threat to the world and that dangers it posed were the grounds for the invasion last year.

"This is a regime which gave cash rewards to families of suicide bombers. This is a regime that sheltered terrorist groups," Bush said.

He also cited Musab Abu al-Zarqawi, the wanted insurgent in Iraq suspected of many terrorist bombings in Iraq, as an "al Qaeda associate."

Asked about Putin's remarks, U.S. National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said, "We don't typically comment on intelligence matters. We do have an excellent record of cooperation in the war on terror with the Russian government. And a big part of the cooperation is information and intelligence sharing."

Putin's comments come two days after members of a U.S. commission looking into the September 11 attacks found there was "no collaborative" relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

The panel also found "no credible evidence" that Iraq was involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks carried out by al Qaeda hijackers.

Bush and his vice president, Dick Cheney, have strongly disputed suggestions that the commission's conclusions contradict statements they made in the run-up to the Iraq war about links between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam's regime. He said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible." (Full story)

Bush, who has said himself that there is no evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11, sought to explain the distinction Thursday.

The president said that while the administration never "said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated" with Iraqi help, "we did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said. (Full story)

In the lead-up to the Iraq war, Bush made stronger statements alleging cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda.

In a October 2002 speech he said, "Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

The 9/11 commission's report said bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to (Saddam) Hussein's secular regime."

It says the contact was pushed by the Sudanese, "to protect their own ties with Iraq," but after bin Laden asked for space in Iraq for training camps, "Iraq apparently never responded."

The report also said, "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

CNN Moscow Bureau Chief Jill Dougherty contributed to this report.