Free Dating Site    

Afraid to tell the truth

A secret memo publicized in Britain confirms the lies on which Bush based his Iraq policy. Why has it received so little notice in the U.S. press?


May 6, 2005 | Are Americans so jaded about the deceptions perpetrated by our own government to lead us into war in Iraq that we are no longer interested in fresh and damning evidence of those lies? Or are the editors and producers who oversee the American news industry simply too timid to report that proof on the evening broadcasts and front pages?

There is a "smoking memo" that confirms the worst assumptions about the Bush administration's Iraq policy, but although that memo generated huge pre-election headlines in Britain, its existence has hardly been mentioned here.

On May 1, the Sunday Times of London published the confidential minutes of a meeting held almost three years ago at 10 Downing Street, residence of the British prime minister, where Tony Blair and members of his Cabinet discussed the British government's ongoing consultations with the Bush administration over Iraq. Those in attendance included the defense secretary, the foreign secretary, the attorney general, the intelligence chief and Blair's closest personal aides.

The minutes of that meeting, set down in a memorandum by foreign policy advisor Matthew Rycroft, were circulated to all who were present. Dated July 23, 2002, the Rycroft memo begins with the following admonishment: "This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents." Evidently that doesn't include those of us living in the United States, although press coverage of the document in Britain created a sensational 11th-hour backlash against Blair. (The prime minister admitted that the Iraq war had been a "deeply divisive" issue as he savored a narrow election victory Friday.)

What the minutes clearly show is that Bush and Blair secretly agreed to wage war for "regime change" nearly a year before the invasion -- and months before they asked the United Nations Security Council to support renewed weapons inspections as an alternative to armed conflict. The minutes also reveal the lingering doubts over the legal and moral justifications for war within the Blair government.

But for Americans, the most important lines in the July 23 minutes are those attributed to Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, or MI6, who in spy jargon is to be referred to only as "C." The minutes indicate that Sir Richard had discovered certain harsh realities during a visit to the United States that summer:

"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 U.N. route ... There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

At the same meeting, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw confirmed Sir Richard's assessment:

"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."

Those few lines sum up everything that went wrong in the months and years to come -- and place the clear stamp of falsehood on the Bush administration's public pronouncements as the president pushed the nation toward war.

When Bush signed the congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq on Oct. 16, 2002 -- three months after the Downing Street memorandum -- he didn't say that military action was "inevitable." Instead, the president assured Americans and the world that he still hoped war could be avoided.

"I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not become necessary," he said at a press conference. "Hopefully this can be done peacefully. Hopefully we can do this without any military action." He promised that he had "carefully weighed the human cost of every option before us" and that if the United States went into battle, it would be "as a last resort."

In the months that followed, as we now know, the president and his aides grossly exaggerated, and in some instances falsified, the intelligence concerning the Iraqi regime's supposed weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Defenders of his policy have since insisted that he too was misled with bad information, provided by U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies.

But "C" heard something very different from Blair's allies in Washington.

According to him, Bush, determined to oust Saddam, planned to "justify" a preventive war by tying the terrorist threat to Iraq's WMD arsenal -- and manipulating the intelligence to fit his policy instead of determining the policy based on the facts.

That is precisely what happened, and precisely the opposite of what the president vowed to do. Not only did Bush and his top aides lie about their approach to the alleged threat posed by Iraq, but they continued to lie about that process in the war's aftermath.

And what of the aftermath of the war in Iraq? Evidently "little discussion" was devoted to that topic as the Bush administration prepared to sell the war, or so "C" reported to his colleagues in London. Iraqis and Americans, as well as their coalition partners, have been suffering the dismal results of that lack of planning ever since.

Despite much happy talk from Washington about the successes achieved in Iraq, recent polls show that Americans are more disenchanted than ever with the war. Nearly 60 percent now say the president made the wrong decision and that the outcome is not worth the price in lives and treasure. What would they say if the media dared to tell them the truth about how it all happened?

http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/conason/2005/05/06/bush_blair_iraq/

The "Downing Street memo" (occasionally DSM, or the "Downing Street Minutes"), sometimes described by critics of the Iraq War as the "smoking gun memo",[1] is the note of a secret 23 July 2002 meeting of senior United Kingdom Labour government, defence and intelligence figures discussing the build-up to the war, which included direct reference to classified United States policy of the time. The name refers to 10 Downing Street, the residence of the British prime minister.

The memo recorded the head of MI6 as expressing the view following his recent visit to Washington that "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 also quoted Foreign Secretary Jack Straw as saying that it was clear that Bush had "made up his mind" to take military action but that "the case was thin", and the Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith as warning that justifying the invasion on legal grounds would be difficult.

The contents of the memo were leaked to the UK press in 2005. Whilst its authenticity has never been seriously challenged, the British and American governments have stated that the contents do not accurately reflect their official policy positions at the time.

To put it plainly, we recognize a dissenting opinion for what it is, a dissenting opinion. It's existance simply indicates someone didn't agree with the plan, nothing more.

In and of itself, I'd agree with you.

Don't forget, Watergate started with some tape on a door lock.

Coupled with all the other things, there is a pattern that fits one possibility better than all others. Each of these things is like a brick in a wall.

Seeing how the inspectors were pulled out, seeing WMD trailers as being deliberately referred to as being there (when proof was in that they were not), the lies and crimes of Plumgate, the admission of deceit from those in power by the President's former press secretary, the yellow cake deception, the misrepresentation of AQ in Iraq as being a major number....the list is a long and provable one.

Compared to lying about a personal sexual affair, it's quite a serious charge.

It speaks of two things. Lies to get a nation into war, or mass administrative incompetence - or both.

The result of this has been massive damage on all fronts to America - diplomatically, and financially.

And yet almost nothing is said, and toughly thirty percent of Americans still support this President - even after all this.

Every time Bush's name is mentioned on CNN they bypass reporting and launch straight into commentary. Just this morning when Bush finished his speech the reporter (NOT a commentator like Hannity, Colmes, O'Riley, Stephanopoulos etc.) launched into a 3 minute Bush bashing tirade!

And looking around you, after seven plus years of this man, at all the damage that's been done to your country from inside it's borders - you still consider this "Bush bashing" ?

It's the "Blame Game" ?

Ladies and gentlemen, the prosecution rests it's case.

You blame everything on Bush, forgetting the very economic issues you find most offensive are a result of the bill passed by Clinton, not Bush....

You think Bush acted alone in all legislative matters when in fact he only signs them after Congress presents them to him.

Prior to the end of last year, he had not vetoed a single piece of legislation …

he does everything the left puts in front of him

and for some reason HE’S the idiot when it doesn’t work….

So seven years into a President's term, with most of his time essentially unopposed by Congress, Bush is still struggling under the effects of Clinton's bills on the economy ?

How many years did Clinton have with a Democratic majority in Congress ?

So when you were referring to Clinton's economic policies, impacting Bush, you were actually referring to the Congress's economic legislation negative effect ?

Why veto when you can write up a signing statement, and no longer have to risk having Congress overturn it and send it back to you ? It's like a line item veto, but instead allows him to disregard entire areas of the laws without challenge.

He doesn't do anything that he doesn't want to do. He even pretty much rejects help from old family friends (ie : the Baker ISG study), and fellow Republicans.

I never said he was an idiot....just incompetent, stubborn , and deceitful.

You are seemingly making one President (Clinton) the root source of all the problems , while making another (Bush) a figurehead of little importance in the general affairs of the country.

If you guys truly had a "liberal" media, Bush would have at least been under investigation as part of an impeachment process perhaps two years ago. Had a "liberal media" opened up a firestorm (as the "liberal media" did with Clinton) of stories on what was going on in Iraq, and investigating it's origins - he might have already been impeached.

Simply compare what happened in Britain to Blair, with what happened in America to Bush. A far smaller amount of troops, and less direct involvement in the matter, and Blair was taking some rather heavy hits in the media on a regular basis.
Look at what happened to his popularity, and indeed his political legacy - which is now chained to Iraq.

In the USA , Bush sails on.....

Much to the chagrin of Canadian Socialists....

As well as those Americans in lifeboats, afloat on the ocean of despair, and watching the USS Economy taking on water and listing badly...to the right.

Controversy over George W. Bush's use of signing statements
There is an ongoing controversy concerning the extensive use of signing statements to modify the meaning of laws by President George W. Bush. In July 2006, a task force of the American Bar Association described the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws as "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers".[1]

George W. Bush's use of signing statements is controversial, both for the number of times employed (estimated at over 750 opinions) and for the apparent attempt to nullify legal restrictions on his actions through claims made in the statements. Some opponents have said that he in effect uses signing statements as a line-item veto; the Supreme Court had previously ruled such vetoes as unconstitutional in the 1998 case, Clinton v. City of New York.[9]

Wikinews has related news:
Bush declares immunity from Patriot Act oversightPrevious administrations had made use of signing statements to dispute the validity of a new law or its individual components. George H. W. Bush challenged 232 statutes through signing statements during four years in office and Clinton challenged 140 over eight years. George W. Bush's 130 signing statements contain at least 1,100 challenges.[6] [10] In the words of a New York Times commentary:

And none have used it so clearly to make the president the interpreter of a law's intent, instead of Congress, and the arbiter of constitutionality, instead of the courts.[11]

Some have defended presidential signing statements as "legitimate". For example, according to a member of the United States Department of Justice:

Many Presidents have used signing statements to make substantive legal, constitutional, or administrative pronouncements on the bill being signed. Although the recent practice of issuing signing statements to create "legislative history" remains controversial, the other uses of Presidential signing statements generally serve legitimate and defensible purposes.[3]

An editorial in The Wall Street Journal stated:

In its new "study," the ABA claims that Presidential "signing statements" are "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system" and urges Congress to pass a law giving itself the power to challenge them in court. It then advances a theory under which the President has no authority to judge for himself the Constitutionality of the various laws he signs. This is absurd on its face given that the President takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," thus obliging him to form an independent opinion of what this requires.[12]

The signing statement associated with the McCain Detainee Amendment, prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody attracted controversy:

"The executive branch shall construe... the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power...."

This statement explicitly invokes the unitary executive theory, which according to its adherents argues that the President, in his capacity of Commander-in-Chief, cannot be bound by any law or by Congress, since anything hindering him in that capacity can be considered unconstitutional.[13] With his signing statement to the McCain Detainee Amendment, the President has reserved his authority not to be bound by laws passed by Congress.[14]

In a January 30, 2008, editorial, the New York Times declared, "Over the last seven years, Mr. Bush has issued hundreds of these insidious documents declaring that he had no intention of obeying a law that he had just signed."[15]

Volleys of explosions rock Baghdad's Green Zone

Last Updated: Sunday, March 23, 2008

Artillery blasts rained down early Sunday morning on Baghdad's Green Zone, a heavily fortified area of the capital that houses the Iraqi government, major embassies and thousands of U.S. troops.

The attack came in three waves of rocket and mortar fire and lasted about 15 minutes. Black smoke could be seen billowing up from buildings in one part of the Green Zone.

It was not immediately known what buildings had been struck or whether there were any casualties.

Sirens blared, warning people to take cover, and a U.S.-installed public-address system cautioned to stay away from windows during the barrage.

The Green Zone, which covers about 10 square kilometres on the left bank of the Tigris River, has been a frequent target of munitions attacks. The U.S. military has blamed several past Green Zone bombardments on rogue Shia paramilitaries.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/03/23/green-zone-blasts.html

Baghdad and Mosul hit by attacks

Earlier, a barrage of fire had hit the city's heavily fortified Green Zone.

Early on Sunday, a series of 10 or 12 rockets or mortars were fired into the Green Zone one - home of the Iraqi government HQ, the US and UK embassies, and thousands of American troops - at about 0600 (0300 GMT).

As the barrage hit the Green Zone, the US public address system warned people "to duck and cover" and to stay away from windows.

No casualties were reported in the attack, which left a shroud of stinking black smoke over the city, reports the BBC's Adam Brookes.

Previous rocket attacks on the Green Zone have been blamed on rogue elements of Moqtada Sadr's Mehdi Army militia.

The barrage of rocket or mortar fire sounded like successive peals of thunder in an audio recording of the attack.

Elsewhere in Iraq, at about 0700 (0400 GMT), 13 soldiers died and about 30 people were injured in a huge blast in Mosul, caused by an explosives-laden tanker which ploughed into the army base.

Iraqi and US soldiers have been engaged in a major offensive in Mosul, the scene of intense insurgent activity in recent months.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7310173.stm

Bush uses them DIFFERENTLY than other presidents in the past. LOL man you don't even pretend to look at anything but with a myopic Republican view, you didn't even read the entire text of the page!

Also Sunday, several mortars landed in Baghdad's International Zone, according to the Interior Ministry. A U.S. Embassy spokeswoman said there were no major casualties.

The U.S. and British embassies and Iraqi government offices are in the zone, known as the Green Zone.

Although the embassy could not confirm what kind of weapon was used, the Interior Ministry said eight mortars were fired into the Green Zone.

It is not unusual for insurgents to target the Green Zone. The U.S. government is reluctant to give details of damage from the attacks because the information might help the insurgents improve their accuracy.

Other developments:

• A suicide bomber detonated a truck full of explosives outside the main gate of an Iraqi military base in Mosul, killing at least 10 Iraqi soldiers and wounding 35 people, including 20 soldiers, Mosul police said.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/23/iraq.main/index.html

The rabid left, led by the mainstream media, is so consumed with hatred for Bush they lose focus on citing the factual aspect of issues and through editorialization present a subjective case based on unqualified opinion and bias masquerading as fact...

Also Sunday, several mortars landed in Baghdad's International Zone, according to the Interior Ministry. A U.S. Embassy spokeswoman said there were no major casualties.

Baghdad police said nine people were killed when Katyusha rockets, either randomly aimed or which misfired, hit two Baghdad neighbourhoods during the attack on the Green Zone. Interior Ministry sources said five were killed.

The first barrage of about a dozen blasts aimed at the Green Zone started just before 6 a.m. (0300 GMT). Unusually, a second barrage of about eight more followed about four hours later.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L23703495.htm

Also Sunday, several mortars landed in Baghdad's International Zone, according to the Interior Ministry. A U.S. Embassy spokeswoman said there were no major casualties.

Although the embassy could not confirm what kind of weapon was used, the Interior Ministry said eight mortars were fired into the Green Zone.

The U.S. military said there were no injuries or damage from the early morning volley, which could be heard all around downtown Baghdad. The earth-jarring detonations, nearly 10 of them, even shook buildings across the Tigris River from capital's fortified core _ which houses the U.S. embassy, military facilities and the Iraqi government.

and there is no rabid left ~ just Bush haters ~ and for good reason ~ His adminstration has embrassed us, decieved us and the world , streached our military beyond safe limits, not listen to top military advisors, offered defered taxs breaks of little cosequence to anyone that makes under 80 thousand in a times when Federal spending is committed to serious projects the highest ~ for the purpose of pandering to a few.

"streached our military beyond safe limits" Do you actually know that or are you simply repeating an opinion of someone else?

Realignment to commit 6% of our current military force to a war zone is hardly stretching our military resources beyond any safe limits... I do agree though, if you ignore all the facts, it is a sensational story!

Military Bids to Postpone Iraq Invasion

Joint Chiefs See Progress In Swaying Bush, Pentagon

The uniformed leaders of the U.S. military believe they have persuaded the Pentagon's civilian leadership to put off an invasion of Iraq until next year at the earliest and perhaps not to do it at all, according to senior Pentagon officials.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff have waged a determined behind-the-scenes campaign to persuade the Bush administration to reconsider an aggressive posture toward Iraq in which war was regarded as all but inevitable. This included a secret briefing at the White House earlier this month for President Bush by Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, who as head of the Central Command would oversee any U.S. military campaign against Iraq.

During the meeting, Franks told the president that invading Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein would require at least 200,000 troops, far more than some other military experts have calculated. This was in line with views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who have repeatedly emphasized the lengthy buildup that would be required, concerns about Hussein's possible use of biological and chemical weapons and the possible casualties, officials said.

In addition to those tactical concerns, some of the chiefs also expressed misgivings about the wisdom of dislodging an aging, weakened Hussein who, by some accounts, has behaved better than usual in recent months. Their worry is that there is no evidence that there is a clear successor who is any better, and that there are significant risks that Iraq may wind up with a more hostile, activist regime.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1822-2002May23?language=printer

The U.S. Military: Under Strain and at Risk

A paper for the National Security Advisory Group II
Executive Summary

In the meantime, the United States has only limited ground force capability ready to
respond to other contingencies. The absence of a credible strategic reserve in our
ground forces increases the risk that potential adversaries will be tempted to
challenge the United States. Although the United States can still deploy air, naval,
and other more specialized assets to deter or respond to aggression, the visible
overextension of our ground forces could weaken our ability to deter aggression.
• Resetting, recapitalizing and modernizing our nation’s ground forces will be no small
challenge and will require substantial and sustained investment. Severe wear and
tear on Army, Marine Corps and Guard equipment is increasing the costs of
“resetting” the force as units return home. In addition, the costs associated with
recapitalizing aging forces and transforming for new missions are only increasing.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2006/us-military_nsag-report_01252006.htm

WASHINGTON - Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a “thin green line” that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon.

Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon’s decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended.

The 136-page report represents a more sobering picture of the Army’s condition than military officials offer in public. While not released publicly, a copy of the report was provided in response to an Associated Press inquiry.

‘Race against time’
Illustrating his level of concern about strain on the Army, Krepinevich titled one of his report’s chapters, “The Thin Green Line.”

He wrote that the Army is “in a race against time” to adjust to the demands of war “or risk ‘breaking’ the force in the form of a catastrophic decline” in recruitment and re-enlistment.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009829/

Army Equipment After Iraq

April 25, 2006

Operations in Iraq have placed the heaviest burden on the active and reserve components of the U.S. Army. While most attention has rightly focused on the war’s impact on our men and women in uniform, this report examines another, more hidden impact that the war in Iraq has had on the U.S. Army — the stress placed on Army equipment and its implications for U.S. military performance and readiness.

Three years after the invasion of Iraq, strains are beginning to appear in the U.S. Army’s equipment arsenal, reducing its capacity to supply its troops with the best warfighting tools available. While the Army has managed to sustain a high level of readiness in Iraq despite equipment strains, readiness for non-deployed units and units outside of Iraq has already been reduced.

In order to sustain the current pace of military operations in Iraq without leaving the nation vulnerable to aggression in other places, the Department of Defense (DoD) must continuously repair, rebuild and replace equipment worn out or destroyed by the war effort, a process known as “reset.” However, normal sustainment patterns have been threatened by the war in Iraq due to the high utilization rates and harsh conditions of the Iraqi environment. The Abrams tank, for example, is operating at six times its rate during peacetime, while medium and heavy trucks are operating at 10 times the typical peacetime rate. These equipment strains currently undermine the Army’s ability to confront new challenges overseas or cope with disasters at home and threaten to impede operations in Iraq over the long term.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1576981.html

Wars Strain U.S. Military Capability, Pentagon Reports

Tuesday, May 3, 2005

The Defense Department acknowledged yesterday that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have stressed the U.S. military to a point where it is at higher risk of less swiftly and easily defeating potential foes, though officials maintained that U.S. forces could handle any military threat that presents itself.

An annual risk assessment by Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, concluded that commanders are having difficulty meeting the higher standards imposed on them by conflicts around the world, including the military effort against terrorism. Presented to members of Congress yesterday, the assessment found that the risk has increased but is trending lower, according to defense and military officials who briefed reporters at the Pentagon yesterday

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/02/AR2005050201504.html

Pentagon: Strain on US Forces is Key Issue in Request for Marines for Afghanistan

11 January 2008

The top U.S. military officer says he would like to be able to send 3,000 Marines to Afghanistan, as regional commanders have requested. But he says senior leaders are concerned about the impact the deployment would have on already-strained U.S. ground forces. VOA's Al Pessin reports from the Pentagon.

Admiral Mike Mullen says Defense Secretary Robert Gates hosted a meeting of top commanders Friday morning to discuss their request, but he says no decision was made. The admiral indicated the request might have already been granted except for concern about the stress the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have put on U.S. forces at their current deployment level.

"The strain on the force is something that's front and center in my mind all the time, and all the leadership. If we had these forces readily available, I think we would have decided earlier. That is a really tough situation. And at the same time, we believe that additional forces in Afghanistan can have a big impact. It's the mission versus the strain, very specifically," he said.

Admiral Mullen says the American general who commands NATO forces in Afghanistan, General Dan McNeil, attended the Pentagon meeting. U.S. officials have pressed NATO allies to come up with the extra forces needed in Afghanistan, but Secretary Gates indicated last month that he has come to believe they just might not be able to. Secretary Gates has said he will decide soon on whether to send the 3,000 Marines to Afghanistan, adding to the 27,000 U.S. troops already there.

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-01/2008-01-11-voa68.cfm?
CFID=276429927&CFTOKEN=28565956

The difference is, the french people up there are not largely illegal immigrants. A large portion of spanish speaking people(close to 20 million) down here are illegal, and thats why you have so many people angry about it.