Downing Street Memo explained (MSNBC David Shuster)

<<SNIP>>
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8337422/

Downing Street Memo explained
Controversial documents leave many questions unanswered

Updated: 3:05 p.m. ET June 24, 2005

David Shuster
MSNBC Correspondent



WASHINGTON D.C. -- It's a memo based on a briefing given to British Prime Minister Tony Blair eight months before the invasion of Iraq. U.S. forces had already taken control in Afghanistan. CIA Director George Tenet and his British counterpart Richard Dearlove had just met in Washington. President bush was busy ratcheting up his rhetoric about Saddam Hussein.

....

The so-called Downing Street memo reads: "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. 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."

....

But the memo doesn't offer any specifics or cite an admission from any U.S. decision maker.

At the White House recently, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair denied fixing any facts on Iraq. The leaders said the memo's allegation about a rush to war contradicts the U.S. attempt to involve the United Nations first.

Does this mean Blair's intelligence chief had it all wrong at the meeting? Or did the Bush administration use the U.N. as a cover to go to war with Iraq?

<</SNIP>>

Just as the minutes say they plan on doing.

This is bullshit. They knew they wouldn't get it and they just invaded like they had planned to do all along.

The liberal media allows this fine point slip by without comment. :eyes:

Does this mean Blair's intelligence chief had it all wrong at the meeting? Or did the Bush administration use the U.N. as a cover to go to war with Iraq?

Forget for a moment that the Bush White House has a record of fixing facts to fit their policies. If the recorder of the minutes got it wrong, don't you think that Blair's intelligence chief would have said so by now? And if Bush WAS serious about getting the UN's permission to go after Saddam, why didn't he allow the weaspons inspectors to finish their inspecting?

No, the answers are not in the memo, but they might be in a formal independent congressional investigation. In the wake of Clinton being investigated over lying about a sexual indiscretion, I think the Downing Street minutes obligate us to find out what the answers really are.

:headbang:
rocknation

If a few more months were allowed for the inspection Blix would have reported what David Kay reported: No WMDs. This would have meant that the UN Sanctions would have been dropped and Saddam could sell Iraqi oil to China, India via the Euro and U.S. Military would have no on the ground foothold in the ME. The Bush Regime would not allow that to happen.

The DSM minutes are not enough to require Impeachment. What is needed are conclusive docs from the CIA. If those have not been shredded I hope a rank and file CIA will leak them to the Net &/or Knight Rider.

How many "suspects" can there be? It's all a matter of record, unless the past 2 years just didn't happen. Have you read Woodward's book?