The actual UK memo

Good link award :toast:

:bounce:

I'd like to send this to some conservative friends. However unless there's an article spelling it out in very small monosyllabic terms they're unlikely to be able to digest it. I mean, after all-they're conservatives. *LOL*

Anyway, if someone happens to see a good link I can use to help shed light in their dark world-I'd appreciate a heads up.

but if you must have an American one, try this:

I'd like to send this to some conservative friends. However unless there's an article spelling it out in very small monosyllabic terms they're unlikely to be able to digest it. I mean, after all-they're conservatives. *LOL*

Anyway, if someone happens to see a good link I can use to help shed light in their dark world-I'd appreciate a heads up.

snip

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.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors.

Well, there ya go. And nothing from TV Talking Heads. That's why I read the papers now, and no longer watch opinion-anchors (that's what they really are) on CNN, FOX (JOKE), ABC, NBC etc., etc., etc.

doesn't mean it will, but it should, this backs it up even more.

That's why we need to seperate the "authentic journalist" from the TV talking opionion heads. They are NOT MSM, no... they're a disgrace.

All of this was basically outlined in public well before the war. I saw a piece (CNN?) which outlined the constantly changing rhetoric of the administration that began with "regime change" and moved through threats to neighbors and ultimately landed upon WMD's. The WMD thing worked in the polls so that's the way they went. It was also blatantly obvious to the most casual observer that easily as a year before hand he had started his build up "in theater" to invade. The markets were declining and jittery because of it. He even made a statement in the final months leading up to it that he had to get this war done or the economy would never recover. He couldn't afford a 6 month delay to let inspections work.

But now it's as if none of that happened. Supposedly he wasn't convinced to invade until after the inspectors didn't find what he was looking for. It was "always about regime change". It is all very Orwellian and not but a little frightening.

of concerns the incoming president should have, Clinton said that Osama bin Laden was threat #1, and Bush told him he was putting Saddam at the top of that list.

Yep. Seems it's OFFICIAL story... (from OFFICIALS STILL IN POWER!!)



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1592724,00.html

from the "Blair planned Iraq war from start" link down there.

so where are all the headlines on this (front page?)

The Liberal party over there is reportedly gaining momento.

Blair seems to be high in the polls. I don't get it. :crazy:

If they pick the Torries then it'll be business as usual. If they pick Labour it'll be business as usual. The Liberal Democrats maybe an alternative but since the UK - like the US - doesn't have proportional voting, it is almost impossible for a third party to win.

That's the brilliance of "winner takes all" voting. You'll leave the people with the choice between two parties and if you can make sure that both will continue on the same agenda, you've managed to ensure that the bureaucracy is the one who is really in control and still fooled most to think that you are a democracy.

"Blair seems to be high in the polls."

The Labour Party is high in the polls, I doubt Blair is. I strongly suspect that if the electoral system was set up appropriately, Blair would be removed as Prime Minister but the Labour Party retain a majority. As it is however, the UK electorate aren't allowed to vote for who they want as Prime Minister.

<snip>

The death of soldier Anthony Wakefield, killed on Monday after a roadside bomb attack in southern Iraq, helped bring Iraq back to the forefront. His wife said she blamed Blair for his death.

"I felt Tony Blair lied to us and only went to war to cement his place in history," Ann Toward said.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-05-03T192729Z_01_MOL529682_RTRUKOC_0_BRITAIN-ELECTION.xml

...

Are we just a day short of seeing him on the trail to The Hague?

Yay to the good ones who'll cement his place in history in his own forever shameful spot... All along with Joseph Goebbels. (Sooner or later, but preferably... ASAP.)


"If you tell a lie, tell a big one."

Goebbels


"When the Führer speaks it is like a divine service".

Goebbels

The essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never again escape from it.

Goebbels.

"Hitler is there. Great joy. He greets me like an old friend. And looks after me. How I love him! What a fellow! Then he speaks. How small I am. He gives me his photograph. With a greeting to the Rhineland. Heil Hitler! I want Hitler to be my friend. His photograph is on my desk."

An extract from Goebbels' diary



(Edited to add these "comments")

I often see links to The Times or The Guardian....is their media more independent and less of a corporate PR venue for those in power?

The Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch, as is The Sun (which has the biggest circulation). The Telegraph was owned by Conrad Black, but he was forced to sell to the Barclay brothers, who are also insanely rich (eg they own their own island). The Independent is owned by Ireland's top publisher, which is 30% owned by Tony O'Reilly (who used to run Heinz). The Financial Times is owned by Pearson, a large publishing company (eg Penguin books). The Mirror's parent company also owns many local newspapers, as does the Daily Mail's parent. The owner of the Express and Star newspapers is a multi-millionaire porn publisher. The Guardian is owned by a trust that also owns the regional paper for Manchester, and has some radio interests.

TV is less corporate. The BBC is non-commercial, of course; 'ITV' is a public company, but doesn't have much business outside the channel itself. Channel 4, although commerical, does not have shareholders - by law, any profits it makes have to go into TV or film production. Channel 5 is a public company, that many think Murdoch will try to take over, now that Labour has altered the law to allow him to (his ownership of newspapers and the satellite broadcasters Sky used to prevent this).

vindicated.


nominated.

As plainly stated as it ever needs to be.

Time for indictments.

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us - STOP THE ATROCITIES; PROSECUTE THE WAR CRIMINALS, NOW

It has to stop! Agreed!

Peace.

September 17, 2002
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- In a letter handed over to the United Nations on Monday, Iraq said it would allow the return of U.N. weapons inspectors "without conditions" to "remove any doubts Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction."

The White House was dismissive of Iraq's pledge: "We do not take what Saddam says at face value," said a Bush administration official, referring to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

In the letter, Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri wrote: "The Government of the Republic of Iraq is ready to discuss the practical arrangements necessary for the immediate resumption of inspections."

Sabri hand-delivered the letter in a meeting Monday evening with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/16/iraq.un.letter/

The US and the Brits had no valid reason whatsoever for invading Iraq.

ABC, CBC, NBC... CNN, MSNBC? Why? Shame on them and those who "refuse to see." It's got to come out - our newspapers, and mag's, maybe?

we will interview the runaway bride's fiance's second-cousin's next-door-neighbors' pet groomer to get the latest on the case.

:puke: I hate MSM!!!

On a serious note, what MSN? Not on the tube. Now, newspapers, and the internet are :thumbsup:

Actually, I only glance at network news every now and then to compare those "trivia-trumpets" to genuine news sources, and to help me further appreciate the internet.

Because they're all in bed with the Chimp in Chief, that's why. The Corporate Media does not want to do anything that might upset the Chimp. He's been very good to them and their bottom line. You NEVER bite the hand that feeds you, or controls you. The Corporate Media is owned by right wing hacks that just LOVE their tax breaks.

The myth of the "Liberal Media" is just that. Bill Kristol himself has admitted as much. They created that meme and it took off like crazy. This was just before Clinton's indiscretions and Bill gave a golden opportunity to prove that they weren't "Liberal". Then the right wing moguls like Murdoch and Moon etal. started buying up media outlets like they were candy.

They control it, everything we see, read and hear. There is only one way to take our country back but I shudder at the consequences.

which contradict the bush cabal's version of the run up to the invasion it is hard to pick just a few to highlight.

more garbage on the chimp and look where he sits. :grr:

<snip>
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.<snip>

I'm sending this to Durbin and Obama. They need to know "I" know this is out here and many, many other people also know about it. Maybe, just maybe, they will call for an investigation. This is unreal and not something they should get away with!

Tony Blair is in the lead, in fact he's never been threatened at all.

From the BBC:
"A new Times/Populus tracker poll suggests Labour support is 41%, the Conservatives 27% and the Lib Dems 23%."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4511275.stm

So buckle up for the long ride.

It is no less than INCREDIBLE that the two people responsible for the Iraqi war not only get away with lying in our faces, but are re-elected as well. This is a disgrace to democracy and another deafening blow to our "Western" esteem not only in the Muslim world, but the third world at large.

First Bush is re-elected. I don't believe this for a second myself, but it is how it appears outside the US--no media picks up on the fraud, and he's the legally elected president of the USA, no questions asked.
Now Blair is gonna win, and this adds to the picture that we, the people of the free countries, finally show our true colors, and confirm in free elections how little we care about Abu Ghraib, the false and rude claims that led to the war and the war itself in technicolor, no scenes spared.

If I lived under a dictator in a crude society in the third world, and someone said 'democracy', I would run like hell.

Any wonder the recruiting to extreme Islam is on the rise?

I'm glad this story is getting more news as it should. What will happen to Blair? And why in the hell did he keep a memo of this? That's what I don't get. Sure a private journal or something like that but he should've known that anybody could get their hands on this. :crazy: If I was taking over the world I wouldn't want to keep this memo available to the public. Could this be that one mistake that stops Bush like how Hitler had his one mistake that stopped him?

This item came out a few days ago. Has anybody seen (or heard) it mentioned on CNN?

I remember reading this actual memo then.


Anyway...good to see this on the homepage!

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simply matter to drag the people along, whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

- Nuremburg Trials of Hermann Wilhelm Goering (1893-1946), German field marshal, commander in chief of the German air force, and the second most powerful leader of the Nazi army.

KJ

I understand 60 minutes will be doing a show on Woodward's "Plan of Attack" book:

"CBS/AP) Investigative reporter Bob Woodward of The Washington Post reveals, in his new book "Plan of Attack," how plans for the Iraq war began, in secret, shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/17/iraq/main612400.shtml

But where is anyone mentioning the exposure of the UK document and it's details?

I can't even find it mentioned yet!

Anyone.......?
Anyone.......?

Nominated.

The secret Downing Street memo



SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY



DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

...

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. 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.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

<emphases not in original>

That would be one way to get this story up front.

Where are they???

Blair plays down new Iraq claims

The prime minister has again been facing questions over Iraq
Tony Blair has played down a leaked memo indicating he was looking at ways to justify war with Iraq in July 2002 - eight months before the conflict.
He claimed the Lib Dems and Tories were focusing on Iraq as they had "nothing serious to say" about other issues.

Michael Howard accused the prime minister of deceiving the Cabinet and the Commons over the war.

The Lib Dems said Iraq would dog Mr Blair if he won the election, and he would be a "lame duck" prime minister.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4503061.stm
==========================================================

Hoon saw early Iraq legal advice

Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon saw the attorney general's early advice on the Iraq war, he has revealed.
The advice, given to the prime minister on 7 March was not shown to a full Cabinet meeting on the war.

The early advice on the legality of war contained a reservations that were not included when Lord Goldsmith's advice was later published.

(snip)

Mr Blair has defended the failure to show the full 7 March advice to Cabinet, saying Lord Goldsmith was there in person to answer any legal questions and explain his view.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4506943.stm

Dear editor,

Just a quick question. Rather than report on the possible evolution of rats or who Paula Abdul sleeps with, why aren't you reporting on the secret Downing Street memo that was recently published in Britain's Sunday Times? You know, the memo that exposes the plan to invade Iraq well before it was authorized? It's the one that says, "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's the one that also said, "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." If that isn't doing anything for you, how about the fact that Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) is circulating a letter calling for a further inquiry into a secret U.S.-UK agreement to attack Iraq based on this very memo.

Why is this not front page news on your website?! Are you afraid it's not authentic? Afraid of an MSNBC version of Rather-Gate? I say you should report it anyway. IT'S NEWS! PAULA ABDUL SLEEPING WITH CONTESTANTS IS NOT! I mean, say, for the sake of argument that it's not real. Shouldn't you have a responsibility to report on it and say that it still needs to be verified as authentic? I check out your website everyday for my news and I often watch your station. Letting this slide, however, while Michael Jackson and the Runaway Bride get more of your time and effort is thoroughly disconcerting. I hope you'll get priorities in order and start reporting on the news that ACTUALLY affects the lives of EVERY American, not just target demographics. Thank you.


Sincerely,
Andrew Galgoci
Manville, NJ

I actually modified the letter for each site, changing the second sentence to include whatever goofy non-news headline they had on their web page. Plus I included the link to the actual Sunday Times article. Still, you guys get my drift. :)

We cant expect the GOP owned media to talk about this- but we can at least demand that our DEM reps speak uout and back up Conyers.

Blair has been interviewed since the memo came out. Blair acknowledges the memo. Blair doesn't declair it to be false. What Blair does is say something like, people are taking it out of context. Since the memo damages Blair so close to re-election, Blair would have swiftly, and stongly denied the contents of the memo if Blair felt he was being falsly accused of lying.

I take that to mean that the memo is 100% authentic, endorsed by Tony Blair himself.

I make sure to mention the 100% authenticity in each phone call I make to the WH comment line, to my Rep, and to both of my Senators.

How do we get a serious impeachment movement going? Is there any hope of a Congressional investigation to look at the role of Bush and the neocons in pushing the invasion?


>> What's on Bill's mind? Political commentary with attitude and more at http://www.BillsBrain.com

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. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

Just as we knew, they cooked the intelligence to fit what they wanted to do. But the other interesting part of that paragraph is that there wasn't much discussion on what to do after military action. Again, we knew this, but to see it laid out in such stark terms is pretty damning.


The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

Looks like those protests might have actually delayed the start of the war, huh?


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.

Whoops, guess they didn't think Saddam would actually except said ultimatum.

I am calling the WH twice a day to ask/demand that Bush address the incontrovertible proof that he lied to Americans repeatedly to start the War.

I am calling my (all Republican) Representative and 2 Senators twice a day to ask/demand that they sign John Conyers letter. I say "The President lied. About War. It's proven. Don't you agree he needs to answer the questions?"

I am so fucking enraged, and have been for a long time, but this memo gives me (and all of you) to the hard evidence POUND POUND POUND relentlessly.

I told the WH comment line lady that I want Bush on prime time teevee **YESTERDAY** to explain his lies.

I find myself in such a depressed place today. Three days ago I emailed these questions and the memo all over the media and there hasn't been even one xxxxing whisper in regards to it. Its outrageous and disgusting.

Your post helped me to find my way back to both my anger and hope. You are right, we CANNOT give up. We need to keep pounding.

:toast:

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

has everyone read the related article by Greg Palast?

"Impeachment TIme: Facts Were Fixed"

...http://www.buzzflash.com/

an election knowing this memo or something similar might come out. Rather than wait until it gets full blown in an investigation he would call an election while he knows his political opponents are still weak.
Just a thought.

There were English county council elections scheduled for today anyway (Blair doesn't set that date), and in recent years most governments have held the general election on the same day as a local election - which means only one trip to the polls for the electorate, only one day to organise the polling stations etc. So people were predicting today as the date for a general election last year, and even the year before.

More likely is that someone timed the leak to be in the last week of the election - which is interesting, since it was a very high-level memo, and its circulation should be very restricted. I think that means someone very high in the civil service (or even security services) is pissed off with Blair taking decisions without consulting cabinet (or his civil service advisors) properly.

When first we practice to deceive....

to be using the words "Congressional cover-up" as much as possible. This might help get the message across to our thick skulled representatives that they need to start thinking less about covering Bush's ass and more about covering their own.

We need to be keeping records now about how they're conducting themselves in regard to holding Bush accountable. The midterm election will be here soon and then of course they'll all be going which ever way the wind blows. Many I'm sure will try their best to distance themselves from the monkey Bush. We shouldn't believe a word they say unless they've got the balls to do it now.

As far as I'm concerned ANY and ALL members of the Congress should be held accountable and considered co-conspirators if they do not express outrage about this memo and demand answers.

I had not heard about this until I read it on Antiwar.com today. Then I tried to look at the actual memo and it won't load. Does anyone know if it has been cached somewhere.

".....In emotionless English, Dearlove tells Blair and the others that President Bush has decided to remove Saddam Hussein by launching a war that is to be "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction." Period. What about the intelligence? Dearlove adds matter-of-factly, "The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."

http://www.tompaine.com/20050505/articles/proof_bush_fixed_the_facts.php

Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 11:34:26 -0700


Subject: Proof Bush Fixed The Facts
Proof Bush Fixed The Facts
Ray McGovern, TomPaine.com
May 04, 2005


Ray McGovern served 27 years as a CIA analyst and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He works for Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour.

"Intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."

Never in our wildest dreams did we think we would see those words in black and white—and beneath a SECRET stamp, no less. For three years now, we in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been saying that the CIA and its British counterpart, MI-6, were ordered by their countries' leaders to "fix facts" to "justify" an unprovoked war on Iraq. More often than not, we have been greeted with stares of incredulity.

It has been a hard learning—that folks tend to believe what they want to believe. As long as our evidence, however abundant and persuasive, remained circumstantial, it could not compel belief. It simply is much easier on the psyche to assent to the White House spin machine blaming the Iraq fiasco on bad intelligence than to entertain the notion that we were sold a bill of goods.

Well, you can forget circumstantial. Thanks to an unauthorized disclosure by a courageous whistleblower, the evidence now leaps from official documents—this time authentic, not forged. Whether prompted by the open appeal of the international Truth-Telling Coalition or not, some brave soul has made the most explosive "patriotic leak" of the war by giving London's Sunday Times the official minutes of a briefing by Richard Dearlove, then head of Britain's CIA equivalent, MI-6. Fresh back in London from consultations in Washington, Dearlove briefed Prime Minister Blair and his top national security officials on July 23, 2002, on the Bush administration's plans to make war on Iraq.

Blair does not dispute the authenticity of the document, which immortalizes a discussion that is chillingly amoral.