It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush in hot hot water over the Downing Street memo, its about time!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by astroblade
i don't know if anyone has noticed, but goose continues to source little more then this shady democracynow.com website. only on this thread have i seen a citing of other sources.kinda funny how those that yell "Sheep!" at other can in fact be sheeps themselves.


I quote Democracy Now .org a lot for one reason it is the only free press in America right now it is a news program on a station called free speech tv, totally funded by donations from people and they receive NO government funding at all. They report things that the corporate owned news media won't or they report at least two weeks ahead of the others in this country.

To call Democracy Now news program shady is a joke when you are listening to corporate owned news. Some of our news is coming from corporations that owns companies making a ton of money off of this war. GE owns NBC they also own companies making money off of this war and they are the ones you and others depend on for your news. Most of the corporate owned news channels are run by CEO's who are republicans. If you think these things don't affect your news then I feel sad for you. Here is a place to go to to check out who owns your media and what you see and what you think if this is all of the news you are listening to. BTW I check out many sources for my news but FSTV just happens to always give a detailed accounting complete with interviews and transcripts, so that is why I quote them a lot. Then I go to the major news outlets to see if they are even reporting anything or to see how it is swayed to give you the consumer a certain viewpoint. I've actually heard some of the correspondents give their own viewpoints and that is a real no-no in journalism.
www.cjr.org...


www.freespeech.org...
Our Structure
Free Speech TV is a publicly-supported, independent, non-profit TV channel that is a project of Public Communicators, Inc., a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization. It is available nationally, 24/7, on DISH Satellite Network. Selected programs are available on 108 community access cable stations in 28 states. Click here to see the members of the Free Speech TV Advisory Board



cjf

posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Matthew Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide, a third party; this ‘memo’ constitutes a third party discussion and more precisely summation of what are construed as third party ‘ idea of the facts’. Has anyone come forward to validate facts contained inside the ‘memo’?

So far it is nothing more than Hearsay.



.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
So, by virtue of this post, you're stating that a war void of reasonable, or hell, real clear & present dangers is justified because, historically, American presidents have a long & august history of misleading their citizenry?


Exactly, hardcore defenders of Bush are the same ones who scream and cry "LOVE OUR TROOPS", "WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?" but have no problems with our troops being sent to die in vain or mind that our government PURPOSELY mislead us into believing that Iraq was a dangerous threat.


No wonder the U.S. military is having a hard time recruiting...


[edit on 6/7/2005 by Lecky]



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   
What Did bush Decide and When Did He Decide It?

The Downing Street Memo reported that in a July 23, 2002 meeting between Prime Minister Blair and his war cabinet, attendees of the meeting discussed the fact that President Bush had already made up his mind to attack Iraq. According to the minutes of the meeting:

"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action."

Yet, as the record below proves, President Bush claimed over and over after July 23rd until the war began that he had not made up his mind.

Bush: "Of course, I haven’t made up my mind we’re going to war with Iraq." [10/1/02]

Bush:"Hopefully, we can do this peacefully – don’t get me wrong. And if the world were to collectively come together to do so, and to put pressure on Saddam Hussein and convince him to disarm, there’s a chance he may decide to do that. And war is not my first choice, don’t – it’s my last choice." [11/7/02]

Bush: "This is our attempt to work with the world community to create peace. And the best way for peace is for Mr. Saddam Hussein to disarm. It’s up to him to make his decision." [12/4/02]

Bush: "You said we’re headed to war in Iraq – I don’t know why you say that. I hope we’re not headed to war in Iraq. I’m the person who gets to decide, not you. I hope this can be done peacefully." [12/31/02]

Bush: "First of all, you know, I’m hopeful we won’t have to go war, and let’s leave it at that." [1/2/03]

Bush: "But Saddam Hussein is – he’s treated the demands of the world as a joke up to now, and it was his choice to make. He’s the person who gets to decide war and peace." [2/7/03]

Bush:"I’ve not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully.” [3/6/03]

Bush: "I want to remind you that it’s his choice to make as to whether or not we go to war. It’s Saddam’s choice. He’s the person that can make the choice of war and peace." [3/6/03]

Bush: "We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force." [3/8/03]

Bush: "Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it." [3/17/03]



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   
This memo has been out for awhile in the British press and so far no one has disputed it. Below it says a senior American official has said it is accurate, here is all I can find on the former American official, if I find a name I will definitely give it but so far it looks like his or her name is not being given. For a ton of info on this downing street memo go here
en.wikipedia.org...

source
A former senior U.S. official told Knight Ridder it was "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during the senior British intelligence officer's visit to Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity.


downingstreetmemo.com...

When asked, British officials "did not dispute the document's authenticity." and a senior American official has described it as "absolutely accurate." Yet the Bush administration continues to simultaneously sidestep the issue while attempting to cast doubt on the memo’s authenticity.

downingstreetmemo.com...

The DSM is just one aide’s impressions of what was said in a meeting, so we don’t know what the players actually said or thought.

This argument seeks to discredit the document’s accuracy by suggesting that it represents one person’s—presumably erroneous—impression of the meeting. However, given numerous opportunities to refute or clarify any of the memo’s contents, none of the players has done so. Not the British government, the Prime Minister, or any members of his cabinet. In fact, at a joint appearance, neither British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw nor US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice refuted any aspect of the memo’s legitimacy or accuracy.

Interestingly, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has moved from refusing to comment on the memo at all, to calling the memo “flat out wrong” to, most recently, avoiding any direct commentary on its veracity.

//ed to shorten link//


[edit on 7-6-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]


cjf

posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by goose
This argument seeks to discredit the document’s accuracy by suggesting that it represents one person’s—presumably erroneous—impression of the meeting. However, given numerous opportunities to refute or clarify any of the memo’s contents, none of the players has done so. Not the British government, the Prime Minister, or any members of his cabinet. In fact, at a joint appearance, neither British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw nor US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice refuted any aspect of the memo’s legitimacy or accuracy.

Interestingly, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has moved from refusing to comment on the memo at all, to calling the memo “flat out wrong” to, most recently, avoiding any direct commentary on its veracity.


I hear what you are saying but….

Failing to dispute creditability of any item is never an overt admission to creditability nor can one imply by inaction by one party to be construed validation upon another party as to facts contained in a hearsay document. Not moving to discredit an ‘alleged factual document’ means nothing, the responsibility of validity falls upon the shoulders of the author first. Validity will come only from actual members privy to the specific conversations which produced such a summation. The statements remain hearsay until proven otherwise.


.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by cjf

Originally posted by goose
This argument seeks to discredit the document’s accuracy by suggesting that it represents one person’s—presumably erroneous—impression of the meeting. However, given numerous opportunities to refute or clarify any of the memo’s contents, none of the players has done so. Not the British government, the Prime Minister, or any members of his cabinet. In fact, at a joint appearance, neither British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw nor US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice refuted any aspect of the memo’s legitimacy or accuracy.

Interestingly, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has moved from refusing to comment on the memo at all, to calling the memo “flat out wrong” to, most recently, avoiding any direct commentary on its veracity.


I hear what you are saying but….

Failing to dispute creditability of any item is never an overt admission to creditability nor can one imply by inaction by one party to be construed validation upon another party as to facts contained in a hearsay document. Not moving to discredit an ‘alleged factual document’ means nothing, the responsibility of validity falls upon the shoulders of the author first. Validity will come only from actual members privy to the specific conversations which produced such a summation. The statements remain hearsay until proven otherwise.


.


Actually that is directly from the website and is their answer to your question not mine. I posted ti to show that the question had already been raised and what their answer was. Sorry I did not mean to make you think I was criticizing you for asking the question and pointing it out that it was a third party memo.
I agree completely with you whether a document is for real or not should be questioned, and only through investigation can we be sure of that one way or the other.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   
The supporters of this war against Iraq were fed a line of propaganda, they not only fell for, but to this day still argue that the basis for same was in fact based on truth. This memo speaks to exactly how they were manipulated into believing Hussein was an sort of threat. There is nothing below that the non-supporters of this war did not put on the table, but the hijinks worked, and once more the gullible masses were played like fools.


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 terrorism, WMD sales pitch using doctored intelligence geared specifically to sell the plan.

The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record.

Exactly why the UN had the plug pulled from under them when it was announced the war would go ahead, because Hussein was in fact cooperating, this is well documented in Blix’s reports.

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

Yet they denied this vehemently

The Defence Secretary this refers to Rumsfeld 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.

Nothing like a well timed war to ensure the party in power remains elected.

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.

In other words: bogus! Imagine attacking a nation on the pretense of it having WMD when it was at best a 4th rate threat.

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.

work up a plan says it all.

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.

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

Obviously the humanitarian rationale was also bogus, but since the UN would not grant authorization, which obviously did not extend past the Gulf war resolutions as many like to pretend, and self-defence would be too tricky a manipulation to pull of, the next best, humanitarian grounds was thrown out when the WMD charge proved worthless.



The Defence Secretary …He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route.
Meaning the neo-con war machine.



It might go nowhere, partly because many who staunchly supported the war would rather not admit they were lied to and played like a fiddle, but others clearly have their own very pitbull on a pant leg attitude, and as long as that keeps up, the possibility of action against these criminals, Blair included, may is not to be discounted.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Well it seems that after reading the memo is nothing in there that I already know, so while back last year we were arguing about the true intentions to go into Iraq, at that time many were so blind as to scream insults to anybody that didn't agree with it.

Well at least I have the satisfaction of looking back to that time and said "told you so"


Actually I am having the satisfaction of many think lately, I am just been nice about it.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Also... there needs to be an investigation...

the reason they are not denying any of these accusations, and instead misdirecting or addressing other issues when asked, is becuase there is a really big smoking gun somewhere... (probably a signed order or a record of minutes of a meeting...) that will come back to bite them, if they add any more denials...

they don't want to have to eat the words of it, when it is released...


cjf

posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by goose
Actually that is directly from the website and is their answer to your question not mine. I posted ti to show that the question had already been raised and what their answer was. Sorry I did not mean to make you think I was criticizing you for asking the question and pointing it out that it was a third party memo.
I agree completely with you whether a document is for real or not should be questioned, and only through investigation can we be sure of that one way or the other.


I agree there is a great deal for many to answer to and I will be extremely interested in what becomes of any investigation of the ‘memo’. To place this memorandum in the ‘lime light’ and proclaim this is 'the smoking gun’ at this point constitutes no more than an assumption. The memorandum itself is contradictory, full of assumptions and opinion citing little to no fact; waving the paper and saying ‘see I told you so’ it is far too early.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Although I'm not sure how a real reporter snuck into yesterday's press conference but it seems a month after it's release, the DSM was finally brought up. Basically, Bush denied the accuracy of the memo but not it's authenticity...that's fine then he shouldn't mind an investigation.

The Memo Comes In From the Cold

Just a reminder that the Downing Street Memo was not meant to be revealed to the public, it's actual minutes from a high official meeting. It makes you wonder how something could be "interpreted" in such a manner


The Downing Street Memo

Below is a breakdown of the various individuals mentioned in the memo - all of whom were present during the meeting with the Prime Minister and subsequently received copies of these minutes.

• Foreign Policy Advisor - David Manning
• Matthew Rycroft - aide to Manning, wrote up the minutes of the meeting.
• Defence Secretary - Geoff Hoon
• Foreign Secretary - Jack Straw
• Attorney-General - Lord Goldsmith
• Cabinet Secretary - Sir Richard Wilson
• Chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee - John Scarlett
• Director of GCHQ - Francis Richards, head of the UK's "signals
intelligence establishment", an intelligence agency, which reports
to the Foreign Secretary
• Director of SIS (aka MI6) - Sir Richard Dearlove, identified as 'C' in the
meeting minutes, heads the UK's foreign intelligence service
• Chief of the Defence Staff - Admiral Sir Michael Boyce
• Chief of Staff - Jonathan Powell
• Head of Strategy - Alastair Campbell
• Director of Political & Govt Relations - Sally Morgan



[edit on 6/8/2005 by Lecky]



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   
``


actually there's been ongoing coverage on this ...

check out: www.hiddenmysteries.org...
as they provide various links, such as
* The War to Deceive America Into War and the War to Cover Up the Deception
* LEAKED MEMO PROVES BUSH LIED ON IRAQ
* After the Downing Street Memo: The Case for Impeachment Builds
* If Bush can Do It, So Can We
* Turning Point on the War
* Side Lining the CIA

~~~ those ^ recent links~~~

Besides, what's this fluffy news, that Kerry- donning the mantle of
Gallant, Charging, Knight ! and presumably leading us....
heck fire, that guy had a lower GPA up at Yale than the
socalled dufus, stumble bum, President GW Bush

Kerry makes no never mind to me...it's when ole Ralph Nader voiced his concern, that the wax build up in my ear popped


cjf

posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lecky
Below is a breakdown of the various individuals mentioned in the memo - all of whom were present during the meeting with the Prime Minister and subsequently received copies of these minutes.


Etc....

Please post exactly, without any inferences or speculation, how precisely you know this information to be true and accurate. I’m intrigued.

.

[edit on 8-6-2005 by cjf]



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   
The memo itself doesn't surprise me. Anyone who thought George W. Bush wouldn't think of some way to go into Iraq to finish the job his father started didn't know the two were related.

The question is - is it really all about the oil? I've begun to wonder lately. We're in Afghanistan now, which oil inc. wanted to build a pipeline. We're in Iraq now, which oil inc. wanted to get their unimpeded mits on Iraqi oil without paying bribes to Saddam. I don't think I'm the only American who has noticed how much oil prices have risen since we went into Iraq. Is that just a coincidence?

Venezuela has oil - and we push 'democracy in South America' and complain and threaten Venezuela for their anti-American stance.

Mexico has oil, and we let their citizens illegally immigrate unimpeded.

Iran has oil, and we complain about their nuclear ambitions and threaten to invade.

Saudi Arabia has oil, and we look the other way when 19 of their citizens fly planes into our buildings.

Russia has oil, and Bush and Putin are friends.

In fact, do we do anything at all that isn't directly related to pressuring or influencing some oil producing country?

Next thing I expect to hear is that oil has been discovered in North Korea.

Or maybe the Iraq war really started with Britain because they were tired of patroling the no-fly zone and wanted to blame us for the war required to end them.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by cjf

Originally posted by Lecky
Below is a breakdown of the various individuals mentioned in the memo - all of whom were present during the meeting with the Prime Minister and subsequently received copies of these minutes.


Etc....

Please post exactly, without any inferences or speculation, how precisely you know this information to be true and accurate. I’m intrigued.
[edit on 8-6-2005 by cjf]


First of all, I don't know for a fact that the memo is authentic hence my reasoning that there should be an investigation. As for the information you quoted me on click the 2nd link I provided. You may find this one handy as well...

Wikipedia-Downing Street Memo



[edit on 6/8/2005 by Lecky]



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   
news.yahoo.com...

Some activists who opposed Bush's decision to attack Iraq have been peppering editors with letters and e-mails to push the media into more aggressive coverage. Last week, a group known as Democrats.com offered $1,000 to anyone who can get Bush to answer "yes or no" to this question: Did he or his administration "fix the intelligence" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to terrorism?


"We want what the Michael Jackson, Paris Hilton and Star Wars stories have gotten: endless repetition until people have heard about it," says David Swanson, one of Democrats.com's organizers.


Robin Niblett of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, says it would be easy for Americans to misunderstand the reference to intelligence being "fixed around" Iraq policy. " 'Fixed around' in British English means 'bolted on' rather than altered to fit the policy," he says.


Ombudsmen at both The New York Times and The Washington Post have been critical of their newspapers for not covering the story more aggressively.


USA TODAY chose not to publish anything about the memo before today for several reasons, says Jim Cox, the newspaper's senior assignment editor for foreign news. "We could not obtain the memo or a copy of it from a reliable source," Cox says. "There was no explicit confirmation of its authenticity from (Blair's office). And it was disclosed four days before the British elections, raising concerns about the timing."

if the Democrats are trying to push this story more aggressive people will assume its tainted and. political instead of trying to just make it as fact



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
news.yahoo.com...
Robin Niblett of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, says it would be easy for Americans to misunderstand the reference to intelligence being "fixed around" Iraq policy. " 'Fixed around' in British English means 'bolted on' rather than altered to fit the policy," he says.


How come there are people from Great Britain who interpreted it in the same context. And why the hell didn't Blair just mention that yesterday during the press conference?




USA TODAY chose not to publish anything about the memo before today for several reasons, says Jim Cox, the newspaper's senior assignment editor for foreign news. "We could not obtain the memo or a copy of it from a reliable source," Cox says. "There was no explicit confirmation of its authenticity from (Blair's office). And it was disclosed four days before the British elections, raising concerns about the timing."

if the Democrats are trying to push this story more aggressive people will assume its tainted and. political instead of trying to just make it as fact


Yes USA TODAY has always had a wonderful reputation for quality journalism.
What I want to know is why isn't anyone asking Blair or Bush basic questions such as oh I don't know "Are those minutes authentic"? Why do they automatically assume it's a fallacy? Journalists are supposed to uncover facts, this isn't some random memo floating around, it's thought to be credible. No one has claimed it to be a forgery, which it very well could be.

By the way Blair basically all but admitted that it was an authentic document when he said:

"And let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations."

White House Press Conference 6/7.

[edit on 6/8/2005 by Lecky]



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Well, please take the source with a grain of salt, but I found this article interesting:

Link to Story Quoted Below

The Associated Press errantly revised a question asked by a Reuters reporter about the Downing Street minutes, RAW STORY has discovered.

The AP transcript says the reporter asked a question which included the phrase, "intelligence and facts remain fixed" around the policy of removing Saddam Hussein. The official White House transcript and audio file confirmed by RAW STORY found that the reporter in fact had said "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military action."

Remarkably, the Washington Post's full transcript disagreed with an article by its own reporter, Dana Milbank. Milbank's version included the correct quotation.




So, the memo shouldn't have got out... it did... and now the disinformation and confusion starts...

BTW, for anyone interested, here is a link to the "extremely sensitive" memo in question. The Secret Downing Street Memo



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
If anyone can find an audio link to Bush's answer, I think it would prove highly interesting to those who haven't heard it. I caught it on the radio last night. His answer was as though he didn't understand the question. I wouldn't say he denied the accuracy of the memo outright, more like he just repeated a catchphrase over again repeatedly, namely "we always considered use of force to be a last resort." He didn't mention or address the memo at all in his answer. It's a shame the reporter didn't get a chance or didn't bother to press Bush for a direct reply to his original question.

I suppose that's what all politicians do when faced with questions they can't answer without losing face or subjecting themselves to liability, but for God's sake, people- his OWN people, even- are dying by the hundreds as a result of his actions on the matter. There comes a time when the usual journalistic niceties allowed a head of state should end and the people demand a forthright answer.

-koji K.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join