Turn on thread page Beta

'Downing Street' Memos Show Bush and Blair Administrations Lied watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    What do you mean by corporate stooges? And none of the above are on the directorial staff of PNAC.
    Well, here are the signatories of the PNAC's 1998 letter urging Clinton to invade Iraq: Elliott Abrams, Richard L. Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Peter W. Rodman, Donald Rumsfeld, William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Robert B. Zoellick.

    I guess a lot of these people have left the PNAC since 1998 and been given official government positions.

    A corporate stooge is someone acting in the interest of corporations while pretending to act in the interests of the people.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    The New American Century crowd---people like Fukuyama and Wolfowitz---plus Cheney, Paul Bremer, Bush himself, really.
    Fukuyama didnt support the current war in Iraq tho. Know what you are saying and altho I agree they probably are all coperate stooges.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    Well, here are the signatories of the PNAC's 1998 letter urging Clinton to invade Iraq: Elliott Abrams, Richard L. Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Peter W. Rodman, Donald Rumsfeld, William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Robert B. Zoellick.

    I guess a lot of these people have left the PNAC since 1998 and been given official government positions.

    A corporate stooge is someone acting in the interest of corporations while pretending to act in the interests of the people.
    And how do you come to the conclusion that these men are corporate stooges?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by material breach)
    I agree they probably are all coperate stooges.
    Glad to see substantiation is a priority when drawing an argument.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Downing Street Memos demonstrate very clearly that we need an investigation into what happened in the run up to the Iraq war by a Congressional committee with subpoena power. Where there is such a significant public and congressional demand for such an investigation not to have one is incredible and smacks of a cover-up. If there is nothing to find out, why are the Republicans doing everything they can to keep the Downing Street Memo story under wraps and prevent John Conyers holding hearings on the questions raised by the Downing Street Memo? I can offer the answer Occam would favour - they don't want there to be an investigation because they've done something wrong that it'll find out.

    There's an enormous amount of evidence to support the case against Bush and his administration but we can only get all the relevant evidence with subpoena power. It's already clear that the invasion of Iraq and the acquisition of its oil wealth and other industries was being planned as early as February 2001. The memos suggest the misleading of not simply the British and American people but the British and American legislatures as well.

    Why would anyone oppose the acquisition and investigation of all the evidence? If Bush misled Congress and lied to the American people, the American people need to know. What's more, if he has committed a high crime (which it would be incredible to argue that deceiving Congress over the issue of war, resulting in over 1600 American deaths alone is not) then he needs to be impeached for it.

    There's no argument, except where people have tried to derail this topic. We need to know the truth, now. If Bush committed such an incredible crime and isn't impeached, democracy is dead in America.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomorrow2Day)
    There's an enormous amount of evidence to support the case against Bush and his administration

    If Bush misled Congress and lied to the American people, the American people need to know. .
    Case against what?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    And how do you come to the conclusion that these men are corporate stooges?
    By connecting the dots. It's the most sensible explanation of their actions that I know of.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Case against what?
    You've reached new levels of having nothing to say and saying it as loud as possible. Finish reading the sentence before you hit post. I will not take part in "I can't hear you" pantomime nonsense - if you don't think there should be an inquiry, that's fine. Why not?

    If you're happy to see an inquiry, good for you - stop derailing this topic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomorrow2Day)
    You've reached new levels of having nothing to say and saying it as loud as possible. Finish reading the sentence before you hit post. I will not take part in "I can't hear you" pantomime nonsense - if you don't think there should be an inquiry, that's fine. Why not?
    An enquiry into what?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Tomorrow2day said:
    You've reached new levels of having nothing to say and saying it as loud as possible. Finish reading the sentence before you hit post. I will not take part in "I can't hear you" pantomime nonsense - if you don't think there should be an inquiry, that's fine. Why not?
    If you're happy to see an inquiry, good for you - stop derailing this topi
    :congrats:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MMA)
    Tomorrow2day said:


    :congrats:
    Seeing as you seem to be enlightened, perhaps you can tell me what the terms of the enquiry would be and what case would be made?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The inquiry would investigate whether George W. Bush and the Bush administration "fixed" facts and intelligence around the case for the Iraq war and in so doing misled Congress and the American people. This would involve using subpoena powers to acquire all documents relevant to the planning of the Iraq war in both the US and UK, examining the memos already leaked and interviewing in Congress people involved in the build-up to the Iraq war. It would be a long and complicated inquiry but the evidence of the already leaked "Downing Street Memos" and the corroboration of the DSM's implications by senior government sources on both sides of the pond suggest that it definitely needs to take place. Obviously I am no lawyer, nor am I likely to be chairing this inquiry, so I can't exactly go into minute detail on its terms. It might go as far as to ask whether the enormous deception arguably demonstrated by the DSM constitutes a "High Crime" under the US constitution and consequently justifies the impeachment of President George W. Bush.

    Laws in which he may be in violation include but may well not be limited to both the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, which makes it a felony to issue knowingly and willfully false statements to the United States Congress, and the federal anti-conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, which makes it a felony “to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose...”

    As for what case would be made, if the evidence were to show that George W. Bush had committed a "High Crime" he would be impeached for it. If the evidence were to show he had committed a small crime but not one that justified impeachment he might be tried for it - at the least the American people would know. If the evidence were to show he had misled the American people but committed no crime, once again, at least the American people would know. If the evidence were to show he had not deceived either Congress or the American people over the Iraq war, there would be no case against him at all - and once again, the American people would know.

    It is precisely because we need to have this inquiry that we cannot say that there definitely is or is not a case to be made against George W. Bush - whatever the answer, the question demands resolution.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomorrow2Day)
    The inquiry would investigate whether George W. Bush and the Bush administration "fixed" facts and intelligence around the case for the Iraq war and in so doing misled Congress and the American people.
    So in all of this unchecked rummaging through any number of documents or correspondence, if we find evidence that indeed Bush had decided that he wanted to remove Saddam as per the Senate policy in place since 1998, and was trying to build a case with facts and intelligence, what lies do you think we will be able to expose?

    And on what basis do you think any powers would be obtained that allow you to get hold of classified correspondence and material on a whim?

    Off topic: thanks for reverting back to reasonable discussion after your outburst.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    So in all of this unchecked rummaging through any number of documents or correspondence, if we find evidence that indeed Bush had decided that he wanted to remove Saddam as per the Senate policy in place since 1998, and was trying to build a case with facts and intelligence, what lies do you think we will be able to expose?

    And on what basis do you think any powers would be obtained that allow you to get hold of classified correspondence and material on a whim?
    I am no expert but I was under the impression that Congress can and at times has exercised subpoena power? If it has not, it can always call on the government to release the relevant papers voluntarily, since refusal to release them will only further damage their reputation and perhaps be indicative of their guilt. As it is, Downing Street papers, confirmed as real by high-ranking government sources, indicate deception in the building of the case for war.

    One example of conduct that may be exposed as illegal by an inquiry focuses on a formal letter and report which the President submitted to the United States Congress within forty-eight hours after having launched the invasion of Iraq. In the letter, dated March 18, 2003, the President makes a formal determination, as required by the Joint Resolution on Iraq passed by the U.S. Congress in October 2002, that military action against Iraq was necessary to “protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq...” John W. Dean in his book 'Worse Than Watergate' states that the report accompanying the letter “is closer to a blatant fraud than to a fulfillment of the president’s constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the law.”

    Precisely what such an inquiry would reveal to be true and to be false no one can of course say - and when no one can say on a matter of such monumental importance, an inquiry is generally a good idea. Ignorance and democracy are not the best of friends.

    Off topic: thanks for reverting back to reasonable discussion after your outburst.
    On behalf of everyone who has read the above posts, no, thank you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomorrow2Day)
    I am no expert but I was under the impression that Congress can and at times has exercised subpoena power? If it has not, it can always call on the government to release the relevant papers voluntarily, since refusal to release them will only further damage their reputation and perhaps be indicative of their guilt. As it is, Downing Street papers, confirmed as real by high-ranking government sources, indicate deception in the building of the case for war.
    But youre not telling me what deception may have taken place. You cant just call for the release of sensitive documents without any kind of substantial basis, especially, in this case, when a policy to remove Saddam had existed since 1998.

    One example of conduct that may be exposed as illegal by an inquiry focuses on a formal letter and report which the President submitted to the United States Congress within forty-eight hours after having launched the invasion of Iraq. In the letter, dated March 18, 2003, the President makes a formal determination, as required by the Joint Resolution on Iraq passed by the U.S. Congress in October 2002, that military action against Iraq was necessary to “protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq...” John W. Dean in his book 'Worse Than Watergate' states that the report accompanying the letter “is closer to a blatant fraud than to a fulfillment of the president’s constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the law.”
    We're not hear to talk about what Mr.Dean thinks on the back of his book sales, I want to know why you believe that the President knowingly lied to the American public and to Congress when he stated that diplomatic means would not be successful in removing the threat posed by Iraq as recognised by UNSCR 1441, and in enforcing the UN resolutions against him.

    Precisely what such an inquiry would reveal to be true and to be false no one can of course say - and when no one can say on a matter of such monumental importance, an inquiry is generally a good idea. Ignorance and democracy are not the best of friends.
    There doesnt appear to be any grounds for an enquiry.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    But youre not telling me what deception may have taken place. You cant just call for the release of sensitive documents without any kind of substantial basis, especially, in this case, when a policy to remove Saddam had existed since 1998.
    You seem to have forgotten the Butler and Hutton inquiries in this country, which were set up to examine information and ascertain what happened because people did not know. This is the purpose of an inquiry. There are a great many deceptions that may or may not have taken place -among them, the two principle claims of Bush's March 18, 2003 letter to Congress.

    It is only by the release of sensitive documents and the questioning of witnesses that this question can be resolved - currently the sensitive documents that are in the public arena suggest "the intelligence and facts were being fixed". Something like 112 members of Congress have called on George W. Bush to respond to the implications of the Downing Street documents, and that number continues to rise.

    We're not hear to talk about what Mr.Dean thinks on the back of his book sales, I want to know why you believe that the President knowingly lied to the American public and to Congress when he stated that diplomatic means would not be successful in removing the threat posed by Iraq as recognised by UNSCR 1441, and in enforcing the UN resolutions against him.
    That is not my belief - rather I would like to find out the facts of the situation so as to be able to arrive at the truth of the matter. The Downing Street Memos, along with other leaked documents and reports, suggest deception. I want to see an inquiry that establishes why Lord Dearlove said the intelligence and facts were "fixed", whether they were, whether Congress was deceived and whether this suffices as a case for impeachment of the President. Do you oppose the Congressmen who wish to hold such an inquiry? If so, why? Even if you consider the evidence of the DSMs insufficient, wouldn't an inquiry simply prove that to be the case?


    There doesnt appear to be any grounds for an enquiry.
    112 Congressmen and hundreds of thousands of people disagree. If you truly believe there are no grounds to suggest the President deceived Congress or the American people you should be welcoming an inquiry. I welcome it because I believe there are grounds to suggest such a deception and I want to know the truth.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomorrow2Day)
    You seem to have forgotten the Butler and Hutton inquiries in this country, which were set up to examine information and ascertain what happened because people did not know. This is the purpose of an inquiry. There are a great many deceptions that may or may not have taken place -among them, the two principle claims of Bush's March 18, 2003 letter to Congress.

    It is only by the release of sensitive documents and the questioning of witnesses that this question can be resolved - currently the sensitive documents that are in the public arena suggest "the intelligence and facts were being fixed". Something like 112 members of Congress have called on George W. Bush to respond to the implications of the Downing Street documents, and that number continues to rise.
    FACTS and INTELLIGENCE were being fixed around a 1998 Congressional policy to remove Saddam Hussein because, as the President believes, there were no diplomatic means to enforce the UN Resolutions against his regime including UNSCR 1441 that declared Iraq to be a threat.

    What is the basis for this accusation of deception? Its not being demonstrated.

    That is not my belief - rather I would like to find out the facts of the situation so as to be able to arrive at the truth of the matter. The Downing Street Memos, along with other leaked documents and reports, suggest deception
    Which ones? Which deceptions!?! What in that memo suggests that Bush deceived Congress?

    112 Congressmen and hundreds of thousands of people disagree. If you truly believe there are no grounds to suggest the President deceived Congress or the American people you should be welcoming an inquiry. I welcome it because I believe there are grounds to suggest such a deception and I want to know the truth.
    I dont welcome enquiries that are built on nothing but dislike and disagreement.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    FACTS and INTELLIGENCE were being fixed around a 1998 Congressional policy to remove Saddam Hussein because, as the President believes, there were no diplomatic means to enforce the UN Resolutions against his regime including UNSCR 1441 that declared Iraq to be a threat.

    What is the basis for this accusation of deception? Its not being demonstrated.

    Which ones? Which deceptions!?! What in that memo suggests that Bush deceived Congress?

    I dont welcome enquiries that are built on nothing but dislike and disagreement.
    In the very narrow domain of the original Downing Street Memo alone, we find phrases like:

    "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."

    "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."


    While these phrases can admittedly be argued as quite innocent (well, insofar as the plotting of a war for which the case is "thin" is innocent) they can also be argued as suggesting deception. And this is the implications of that one Downing Street Memo alone.

    Outside the implications of that one memo, there are the claims of his letter to Congress - "reliance on . . . peaceful means alone will [not] adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq . . .." despite the fact that there was not then, and there is not now, any evidence to suggest that even if Iraq had had WMD's those weapons would have been any kind of threat to the United States, much less the "continuing threat" to the "national security" President Bush told Congress Iraq presented.

    George Tenet himself made this crystal clear in his February 5, 2004 speech about the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. In that speech Mr. Tenet said, unequivocally,

    "Let me be clear. Analysts differed on several important aspects of these [hypothosized WMD] programs and those debates were spelled out in the estimate. They never said there was an imminent threat."

    Then there is the suggestion, some would say the fact, that on at least four separate occasions, Bush flat-out lied about Iraq's nuclear capabilities. Bush took already exaggerated estimations about Iraq's alleged nuclear threat to the U.S. and stretched them even further. The intelligence community, as wrong and as biased as it might have been, told Bush that as of 2002 Iraq was at least five to seven years away from developing a nuclear weapon.

    I have access only to well-publicised documents in the public domain. I have spent only about ten to fifteen minutes collecting these three suggestions of deception. Over a hundred congressmen and hundreds of thousands of people with access to far more information than I have want nothing more than a simple inquiry to establish whether Bush deceived Congress, whether he deceived the American people and whether, if he did, that requires his impeachment. There is plenty of precedent for impeachment over far lesser crimes.

    I do not know every detail of American law or every detail of the intelligence and events surrounding the Iraq war but I would like to know whether Bush lied as so many documents suggest. An inquiry could establish that. To me, the idea of someone "fixing" facts and "fixing" intelligence suggests, to quote Robin Cook, a significant "lack of candour".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomorrow2Day)
    In the very narrow domain of the original Downing Street Memo alone, we find phrases like:

    "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."

    In the context of British scepticism, the intelligence and facts were being fixed around a policy to remove Saddam, a policy that the US administration felt was justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD, and a congressional policy to remove Saddam that existed since 1998. The facts and intelligence made the US case and went on to convince the British government who stressed the need for UN consultation. Bush and Blair time and time again reiterated the security threat posed by the possibility of WMDs getting into the hands of terrorists. A threat that was reiterated as part of UNSCR 1441.

    "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."

    While these phrases can admittedly be argued as quite innocent (well, insofar as the plotting of a war for which the case is "thin" is innocent) they can also be argued as suggesting deception. And this is the implications of that one Downing Street Memo alone.
    Where is the deception? They were trying to build a case that would demonstrate that all diplomatic means had been exhausted. This they went on to do, and on the basis of which, having exhausted those diplomatic means, the President declared that military force was required to enforce the UN resolutions against Saddam. This is consistent with the perceived dialogue between the US and UK governments at the time of the DS memo.

    Outside the implications of that one memo, there are the claims of his letter to Congress - "reliance on . . . peaceful means alone will [not] adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq . . .." despite the fact that there was not then, and there is not now, any evidence to suggest that even if Iraq had had WMD's those weapons would have been any kind of threat to the United States, much less the "continuing threat" to the "national security" President Bush told Congress Iraq presented.
    There was a national security threat demonstrated by the possibility of WMDs getting into the hands of terrorists. One recognised by Congress.
    There was a threat as recognised by the UN in UNSCR 1441, that the US enforced because all diplomatic routes were dead.

    "Today, the gravest danger facing America and the world is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons...These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to their terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation."

    George Tenet himself made this crystal clear in his February 5, 2004 speech about the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. In that speech Mr. Tenet said, unequivocally,

    "Let me be clear. Analysts differed on several important aspects of these [hypothosized WMD] programs and those debates were spelled out in the estimate. They never said there was an imminent threat."
    This policy never suggests an imminent threat, neither does the memo, neither does the President in his address to congress or to the American people. Where is the deception?

    "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"


    Then there is the suggestion, some would say the fact, that on at least four separate occasions, Bush flat-out lied about Iraq's nuclear capabilities. Bush took already exaggerated estimations about Iraq's alleged nuclear threat to the U.S. and stretched them even further. The intelligence community, as wrong and as biased as it might have been, told Bush that as of 2002 Iraq was at least five to seven years away from developing a nuclear weapon.

    I have access only to well-publicised documents in the public domain. I have spent only about ten to fifteen minutes collecting these three suggestions of deception.
    None are convincing im afraid. Deception here seems to be a misunderstanding on your part of the actual basis on which military action was taken. If well-publicised documents had been scrutinised at the time in question, I doubt there would be any such accusations.

    I do not know every detail of American law or every detail of the intelligence and events surrounding the Iraq war but I would like to know whether Bush lied as so many documents suggest.
    As so many opinions suggest. You havent demonstrated once where a document quotes or states the US president offering a direct contradiction of himself.

    Calls for an enquiry based on scepticism and a hunch that maybe he lied about something over a 18 month period, isnt acceptable in my opinion.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thanks Tomorrow2Day for your detailed and thoughtful posts , as well as everyone who has contributed your 2 cents on this issue, even if they were merely lazy vapid 1-sentence remarks.

    Here's an interesting thread I came across on The Cellar which is closely related to this one. Check out the posts by BigV and tw!

    Long related blog post on Hullabaloo. An excerpt:

    I speculated back in September of 2002 that the neocon faction was pushing its American Empire wet dream and using 9/11 as an excuse. Others believe that in the grand sweep of things we invaded to place permanent military bases to protect the oil fields.(Ann Coulter says "why shouldn't we invade for oil? We need oil.") Still others think we needed to show some muscle and Afghanistan just wasn't sexy enough. Was it Israel? I wrote the other day that it now appears that Bush may have bribed Blair into invading Iraq by promising that he'd hold back just long enough to cripple al Qaeda and keep them from blowing up London --- something which the evidence suggests that Bush and his cronies really had no interest in. And then there's the racist and revenge motives.

    We really don't know, do we? Perhaps it was all those things. Which would then raise another important question. How is it possible for the United States of America in 2003 to invade and occupy another country for a handful of different, unstated reasons? What kind of ****ed up process could have the president with one reason for invading, the vice president another, the Secretary of Defense yet another --- and the congress and the press simply signing off on official lies?

    These are the big questions that the Downing St Memo has opened up. Yes, we already knew the intelligence was fixed, we knew they understood that Saddam was no threat, we knew they lied to the American people and we knew that they intended to go to war no matter what. But we still don't know for sure why they did all that. Until we do, I don't think we will be able to figure out how to deal with it.
    Which is all the more important that an independent inquiry be made to expose the truth! Please support their efforts! http://downingstreetmemo.com/takeaction.html
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 24, 2005
The home of Results and Clearing

1,521

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.