Antiwar Group Says Leaked British Memo Shows Bush Misled Public on His War Plans [NYT]

New York Times ^ | June 17, 2005 | By SCOTT SHANE

[johnny7]

WASHINGTON, June 16 - Opponents of the war in Iraq held an unofficial hearing on Capitol Hill on Thursday to draw attention to a leaked British government document that they say proves their case that President Bush misled the public about his war plans in 2002 and distorted intelligence to support his policy.

[johnny7]

I feel sorry for the soldiers mom... but joining these puss-bags will only prolong her sorrow and deny her the meaning of her sons supreme sacrifice.

[Zenith]

The Anti-American PRESS is getting Their Marching Papers from the GLOBAL Socialist.

They will try anyting !!

[Noachian]

So, the NY Times tabloid is once again passing off editorial opinion as "All the news that's fit to print".

I can understand the liberal editors of the Times getting off on anything that's anti-Bush, they're mental cases after all, but do they really expect anyone but extremist liberals to care?

[Levante]

"...a leaked British government document that they say proves their case that President Bush misled the public..."

Let me guess...

A FAKED but "Accurate" document, eh?

[hflynn]

This BS might have worked 10 years ago but the Downing Street memo is an opinion, not a factual account of anything that occurred in the Bush Administration. I just love watching the DEMS run head 1st into brick walls. Bubba should be telling these children that this dog won't hunt but let's face it, Hillary looks more moderate everyday these crazies run with this story and the Durbin storys.

[alloysteel]

Are we sure this is not just a much more sophisticated fake document than the ones used by Dan Rather in attempting to "prove" George W. Bush shirked his ANG duties? Many of the passages seem to contradict other directives that were made at high levels both prior to and subsequent to the date indicated in this "memo".

What if this plant is just another high-level falsification? Who would have done the editorial job, and what were the objectives?

[johnny7]

The print lies... and censor the truth. They work hand-in-hand with the DNC and both give aid and comfort to our enemies.

Hanging is too good for them.

[demkicker]

To borrow a phrase, the NY Times isn't good enough for a cat to poop on....

[seastay]

These people are trying to redefine what is black and what is white. For example the word "Mislead" is a verb, it means to lead in a wrong direction or into an error.

How is it that any event be proven to be mislead by the leaders of such the event concluded into a success?

Furthermore , even if they disagree as to the success of the mission, in order to prove any misleading has taken place one has to prove it by verifying the circumstances of the outcome to show that the direction is wrong or is in error presently and not by circumstances before the event !

They have yet to prove that the middle east is less stable, there are less human rights violations taking place, that the oil for food program was a success, or the that the US is less secure now .

This is just another example of the wacky PC culture trying to warp thought process of what constitutes a crime and it events; sort of analogous to "hate " crimes laws where in their mind the real crime happens before the actual crime, and is punishable by a far greater penalty, and only in certain circumstances which often they cannot even define themselves.

[an amused spectator]

Well, at least most of the younger people know that the Left is full of cr*p when it comes to this war.

What amuses me is that the MSM doesn't seem to realize that nobody pays attention to their fact-deficient "reporting" these days. :-)

[The Toll]

The fact that they think they have something with this just shows how deperate they really are. Some British guy wrote down that he thinks the U.S. administration wanted to attack Iraq.

The obvious response to such lunacy is to simply as them which administration in the last 12 years hasn't wanted to attack Iraq?

[MarkL]

From the title, it seems to me that putting both "anti-war group" and "New York Times" in the title is redundant.

Mark

[Smokin' Joe]

Oh come on. You can't blame the Times for taking a leak when they get a chance.... /sarc

[Gefreiter]

s,
Speaking of laws, I think the Left ought to pay more attention to them. Lefties trumpet the ultimate authority of international law (which, alas, there is no such thing), but only when it suits their purposes.

I might recommend the moonbats bone up on the cease-fire agreement that ended GW1, the long-established right to self-protection, and the unalterable fact that the American Congress authorized the current war.

Sorry hippies, the war's legal all 'round. Ramsey Clark and his pals in the Hague can piss up a rope.

[Just mythoughts]

BJClinton sent his two underlings, Secretary of State, mad Maddie and the Defense Secretary, Wild Bill Cohen out across this country, to promote a removal of Saddam.

Bjclinton could not show is face in public.

We do need to have this investigation, and especially video of Wild Bill Cohen carrying that 5lb sack of sugar claiming it was the comparable amount of anthrax that old Saddam had and was a threat to US.

Bring it on lying corrupt liberals.....

[astounded]

..."Hillary looks more moderate everyday these crazies run with this story and the Durbin storys."...

I think you hit upon the democrat party's grand strategy - all but hillary are acting crazy, setting her up as a "moderate" who will "save" the party and the US. It's a grand scheme, but hillary has the FBI files and the dirt on the major players to pull it off. No doubt the clintons are blackmailing the democrat bigs to go along. After all, the queen of new york is the "great white hope" of the party of losers.

[seastay]

The word moonbat is not in my dictionary but you defined it quite well, laugh!

[Gefreiter]

s,
Well thanks, but to be fair I didn't make it up.