Are Bush And Blair Liars?

[Chewbacca]

Do these memos and other information like some in Bob Wooward's book reveal intentions that war with Iraq was in fact not a final and last resort?

Does the evidence stick? Is an inquiry appropriate while we have troops dying on the ground, some days by the 1/2 dozen?

What if we were mislead, what if we have been decieved? How would you feel? What would we do? Would we close down shop over in Iraq, withdraw and allow the Iraqi's to duke-it-out amongst themselves? To find out we were decived about the rational for the war would make a convient excuse to withdrawal.

I think that we were not exactly decieved. The most dangerous tricksters are the one's believe their lies are actually the truth. In other words, I think Bush and Blair actually believe their rationales for bombing and invasion, no matter how bullet-ridden, flimsy, and largly ideological I think they are.

I think that the lack of post-war planning and preparation is a larger, more pressing, and certainly a more obvious crime.

Link

Democrats call for inquiry into 'Downing Street Memo'
Last Updated Thu, 16 Jun 2005 20:13:35 EDT
CBC News

Senior Democrats are calling for a full investigation into a memo that appears to accuse U.S. President George W. Bush of misleading Americans into backing the war with Iraq.

Bush has always maintained that "the use of force has been and remains our last resort."

But the memo, called the Downing Street Memo, could be the first documentary proof that Bush deceived the American people.

During a forum organized by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee held to investigate the implications of the memo, Rep. John Conyers said the document "means that more than 1,600 brave Americans and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis would have have lost their lives for a lie."

"Quite frankly, the evidence that appears to be building up points to whether or not the president has deliberately misled Congress to make the most important decision a president has to make, going to war," said Rep. Charles Rangel.

The memo is based on a briefing given to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top security advisers in July 2002, eight months before the war.

Labelled "top secret," the memo summarizes a report from Richard Dearlove, the head of British intelligence, who had just met senior Bush officials in Washington.

The memo says: "Military action was now seen as inevitable."

That "Terrorism and WMD [weapons of mass destruction]" would be used to justify the war.

But, the memo says, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Neither Bush nor Blair has challenged the authenticity of the Downing Street Memo. But earlier this month both said it is wrong.

"The facts were not being fixed in any shape or form," said Blair.

"Somebody said we had made up our mind to use military force to deal with Saddam [Hussein]," said Bush. "There is nothing further from the truth. My conversation with the prime minister was how we can do this peacefully."

A separate document says Blair pressured Bush to take his case to the United Nations to give a legal justification for the war.

Michael Smith, the reporter for the Sunday Times who obtained the leaked memos, said that was a brilliant case of misdirection.

"The whole business about going to the UN is not to avert war, but actually to get an excuse to carry out war. And I think that's the killer document for me."

At the hearing, Democrats called for a congressional investigation and some witnesses said Bush may have to be impeached.

"It is a high crime to engage in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the American people about the basis for taking the nation to war," said constitutional lawyer John Bonifaz.

The U.S. media have given scant coverage to the Downing Street Memo, so it may not have much of an impact in Washington.

On Thursday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan dismissed the allegation in the Downing Street Memo. He said the Democrats were "simply trying to rehash old debates that have already been addressed. And our focus is not on the past. It's on the future and working to make sure we succeed in Iraq."

But what is having an impact is the surging number of American soldiers killed or wounded in Iraq. New poll numbers now show that most Americans feel the war wasn't worth fighting.

[ 06-16-2005, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Chewbacca]

OMG Even the 'freedom fries' guy is now against the war!!!


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...sp?story=64737
*SNIPPET*
In the most visible protest, the veteran Democratic congressman John Conyers organised a forum on the so-called "Downing Street Memo", the July 2002 British Government document indicating that the Bush administration had already made up its mind to invade Iraq, and that intelligence was being "fixed" to fit that policy.

Six weeks after it was leaked in the British press, the memo has belatedly become a hot topic in Washington. Mr Conyers was to present a petition from more than 100 of his Democratic colleagues in the House, signed by 500,000 people, demanding that Mr Bush explain himself.

The White House has haughtily brushed aside this criticism, saying the memo contains nothing new, and again dismissing charges that the intelligence process was politically manipulated. But the administration may find it more difficult to deal with bipartisan demands for an exit timetable for the 140,000 US troops in Iraq.

One of the sponsors of the congressional resolution is Dennis Kucinich, the Ohio Democrat and staunch opponent of the war, who ran for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination. More worrying for the White House, another sponsor is the North Carolina Republican Walter Jones, a strong backer of the invasion (and an author of the 2003 "freedom fries" campaign against France in Capitol Hill cafeterias).

"I just feel the reason of going in for weapons of mass destruction, the ability of the Iraqis to make a nuclear weapon, that's all been proven it was never there," Mr Jones said. "I feel that we've done about as much as we can do."

MORE...

[Aragorn1]

Yes

[Jorath Calar]

I thought everyone, everywhere, with IQ bigger than their shoe size figured out they were lying... long time ago...

why is this news now?

[Felix The Assassin]

Have yet to meet a politician that didn't lie. Either outright, or bullet ridden and flimsy, they all never speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. But yet it's part of their oath. Go figure!

You can thank that guy that needs to go away, and quickly, for the post crapola that is happening. The sooner Rumpy is gone, the sooner things can be brought under control, stabilized, and de-militarized. Until then, it will remain a hodge podge of stink!

[Aragorn1]

Originally posted by Felix The Assassin: Have yet to meet a politician that didn't lie. Either outright, or bullet ridden and flimsy, they all never speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I don't know, there are some the that just speak the truth and nothing but the truth, just not the whole truth!! Much better thanactually lying!

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Felix The Assassin: Have yet to meet a politician that didn't lie. Either outright, or bullet ridden and flimsy, they all never speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. But yet it's part of their oath. Go figure! You can thank that guy that needs to go away, and quickly, for the post crapola that is happening. The sooner Rumpy is gone, the sooner things can be brought under control, stabilized, and de-militarized. Until then, it will remain a hodge podge of stink!

Yeah, Politicians have to say what the people who are voting for them want to hear and inevitably this will be opposite of what some other people want to hear. Is it lies? Is it truth? I guess sometimes it depend on which side of the fence you are on,eh? This is exactly why I try to stay in a different yard.

On your second point, I see straight past and up the chain of command for accountability. The buck stops at the desk of the Executive branch and at Congress. One gives the final war order, the other approves and pays for it. But it all comes back to what do we do about it? Who is being held accountable for mistakes, misteps, and mistruths and how?

I now simply hope all the good being done, like reconstruction and establishing the framework for democracy, is not all for nothing and hope it is ultimately "worth" the final tally of deaths and grievous injury.

[ 06-20-2005, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Jorath Calar: I thought everyone, everywhere, with IQ bigger than their shoe size figured out they were lying... long time ago... why is this news now?

Has it been established beyond a reasonable doubt in the face of all pertinent evidence though?

Lying about war is pretty serious. For this to happen without consequence is a damnable offense, a high crime for certain.

Now if they were just gravely mistaken, rather than decietful, how much more or less serious offense is this?

[Aragorn1]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by Jorath Calar: I thought everyone, everywhere, with IQ bigger than their shoe size figured out they were lying... long time ago... why is this news now?

Has it been established beyond a reasonable doubt in the face of all pertinent evidence though? [/QUOTE]I would say so about Blair, don't know what has come out in the states about Bush

[Azred]

Who cares if they were lying? Most politician lie most of the time. We expect this, and thus judge anything a politician is saying by that standard when they say it. Only fools and idealistic college students think otherwise. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

The real problem with troops dying, aside from the fact that troops are dying, is that most Americans don't have the cajones to handle the tougher side of life. In every military action troops die. In this case, though, don't blame the Bush Administration for continuing deaths; rather, blame the damnable insurgents because they are the ones doing the killing. They are also the ones continuing to cause their country to be occupied by foriegn troops. Were they to stop, the troops would go away faster.

Although I do sometimes think we should should leave everyone to enjoy the outcomes of the situations they create for themselves, in situations like Iraq it is more despicable to turn a blind eye than to put an end to regimes like Hussein's. Look at Africa for the last 20 years--everyone in the world, including America, should be ashamed for doing nothing.

Anyway...if they lied then they lied. So what? It's in the past, so forget about it and look to the future. Bush will be gone soon enough anyway, so it is best to consider for whom to vote in 2008 and work for policy change at that time, assuming policy change is what you want.