Redstate

Well, it'd all be believable... except for the details.  If they were really serious, they'd probably want to tell the Democratic Representatives since they are the only ones with the power to impeach.  For once those silly Senators have no power.

Remember that story about the giant spiders that Allah would send to gobble up the Americans in Fallujah?

Put this story in the same pile.

You briefly entered the Moonbat Dimension...

The British memo is the opinion of one analyst. The Senate already released their report of pre-war intelligence on Iraq which found that the CIA's estimates were "not unreasonable" based on the intelligence at hand.

Further, the Report found no evidence of pressure on intelligence analysts to change their views on Iraq.

Finally, the whole "BUSH LIED!!!1!!!" argument doesn't even pass the smell test. If Bush is sinister enough to manipulate intelligence and knew Iraq didn't have WMDs from the beginning (a position that would have been contray to years of US intelligence as well as the opinion of nearly every foreign intelligence service on the planet), why in the world wouldn't he have conveniently planted a cache of Sarin or VX in Iraq? If you're going to "go to war on a lie" why the hell would you ensure that you'd get caught with your pants down? It doesn't make sense.

If the Democrats are dumb enough to try and impeach Bush over a set of blantantly idiotic and fraudulent charges, then they'd deserve the unprecedented political smackdown that would follow...

for this further information, and for the assurance that the mountainous area I must drive through to go to work and which area always makes my radio stations fade in and out, was not the Twilight Zone after all, but only a Moonbat Dimension ... and what an annoying phenomenon it is, at that.

You might want to read the Downing Street memo for yourself. Its authenticity has not been disputed by either the Brits or our own government. Interestingly enough, the mainstream media has been very late in the game in reporting this. The story broke internationally over a month ago, but it is just now coming out in the US. Many see it as a "smoking gun", and a large bipartisan group of Congressmen have asked the President to explain the memo. He still hasn't.

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html

I chose to believe a bipartisan Senate review of the pre-war intel on Iraq (see links in Jay's post, above) and chose further to believe that this leaked British memo is more-or-less crap and/or one-man's-opinion.

Who, by the way, is this "large bipartisan group of Congressmen" of whom you speak?  Names, please.

Ah, and if the best they can get for validation is the ever-popular "former senior U.S. official" who "spoke on condition of anonymity", I'm afraid you're in fake-Newsweek territory here.

The key phrase that has everyone so excited is 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.

In which fixed is being implied to mean falsified. That is, however, not the only reading of the line. It could also mean focused, verified, concentrated etc.

If one assumes that it means falsified, that would mean that the participants in the meeting knew there were no WMD, in which case why did they say: For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

So, that portion demonstrates that the participants in the meeting did think there were WMD's present.

Why the President of the United States should be expected to explain the contents of a sketchy secret memo of a British meeting is a bit puzzling. If it were a U.S. meeting that he were present at, that would be another thing.

There was a flurry of "Impeach Bush" activity over on DailyKos a couple weeks ago in response to the Downing Street Memo.  It basically comes as a direct response to the GOP lowering the bar on impeachment in 1998.  The reasoning is that, if Clinton could be impeached for deceipt in relatively inconsequential matter, Bush should be impeached for deceipt in a highly consequential matter, namely initiating war with Iraq.  Whether either president's deceipt is actually impeachable is irrelevant - it is an attempt to make the GOP live up to the standard it set with Clinton's impeachment.

Although I am from the other side of the aisle, I think calls for Bush's impeachment are ridiculous.  Assuming for the moment that Bush did willfully deceive Congress, it would be Congress' own fault for blindly believing the president and/or authorizing him to go to war without expecting him to use that authorization as he pleased.

It seems like the "falsified" version of fixed is what works best, since it wasn't just intelligence, but facts which were being fixed.  That doesn't mean they knew specifically that there were no WMD.  That would be damn near impossible to prove.  It just means evidence of WMD was ambiguous and unconvincing.  Since we have independent reports that invasion of Iraq was Bush policy from the start, for a variety of reasons, it is not reasonable to believe that the decision to go to war was based on the presence or absence of WMD's.  This is supported by the decision to initiate the invasion in spite of the U.N. inspectors on the ground finding nothing where we told them to look before the war.

"If one assumes that it means falsified, that would mean that the participants in the meeting knew there were no WMD, in which case why did they say: For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary

So, that portion demonstrates that the participants in the meeting did think there were WMD's present."

Actually, all it indicates was that they still entertained the position that Iraq may have had WMD.  From the link:

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.

And, if Saddam did have WMD, it was in small quantities.

This, I believe, is also considered 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.

Keep in mind this was written well before congress granted executive power to take military action in Iraq.

I believe that the concern the DailyKos group is airing is that the case for WMD was presented as ironclad, multiple times, by the highest levels of the administration.  It was not just said that there were WMD's, but that we knew where they were.  Or at least this was the justification that was given to the public.

The text of this memo seems to indicate that our intelligence was not nearly as strong as was indicated to the nation, and, additionally, that we were attempting to goad Saddam into an act we could use as a pretext for war.  Again--all before congress had granted any special powers to the president in this matter.

I read through the choppy memo the other day (sorry, I don't have it in front of me now), and I actually don't recall that it was any more focused on WMD in Iraq than any other published bipartisan discussion of the issue in the late 90's/early 00's.  That is to say, yes, evidence of WMD programs were sketchy and unconvincing, yet war opponents conveniently forget that at the time, it was an international and bipartisan understanding that there was a WMD threat from Ba'athist Iraq (how convenient that some have forgotten).

What I did see was the basic workings of a plan for an invasion of Iraq.  And that, my friends, is what responsible military and civilian leaders do.  Our military planners devise contingency plans for every possible theather of conflict in the world, even some most everyday civilians would never think of.  That is their job.

Thus, to me, the memo is far from an indictment of President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld, Tony Blair, or anyone else involved.

As for the impeachment issue, I'd say it has no legs.  It's already been pointed out that the Senate has no say in such matters (they only try impeachments that the House has passed).  The only possible benefit of an impeachment, however unlikely, would be to the pro-invasion crowd.  Why?  It would force the news outlets which have heretofore covered up the findings of WMD-related equipment and documents to report on such, which would inevitably be trotted out in defense of the President.  Things like aluminum tubes, sarin-laced IEDs, and 200 tons of uranium in a palace outside of Baghdad, though certainly not evidence of a bustling WMD program, would indeed cast reasonable doubt on the articles of impeachment and scuttle the case.  Combine that with all of the pre-war bipartisan statements (think Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Edwards, Schroeder, and on and on and on) declaring that, surely, Saddam Hussein had a NBC arsenal and was determined to use it against Western interests, and the defense has a "slam dunk."

I'm usually a cynic, but I'm pretty sure on this one, cooler heads will prevail.

That someone has set up a web site named 'thedowningstreetmemo.com' should give you a clue that we are not in a "no-spin zone" here.

one must never let oneself be distracted by inconvenient facts, or even alternate interpretations. "Bush Lied." You will be assimilated, resistance is futile.

Yes, how could anyone think that impeachment was a proper response to perjury, suborning perjury and obstruction of justice. Silly me.

Not even the Democrats would be crazy enough to try this. More moonbat LLL 'California Dreamin'

It is almost like everyone in government talks to each other about things they want done.  They may not be talking only in front of the press from what I can tell.  They may have agendas and ideas for the betterment of the country that they can only implement over a series of weeks or sometimes even months! (who thinks that far ahead-- criminal conspirators that's who)  I am beginning to believe that not only do some powerful people not read the polls and Post everyday and every night, but that they may be (in concert with other government officials) be doing things based on their own judgement.

I am not sure just how bad this is, but the potential for abuse is obvious.  What if Cabinet Secretaries were dependent on Presidential favor to keep their jobs?  How would the country be honestly governed?  

So far the only evidence is against the props-- Bush and Blair.  The real string-pullers, the controllers back at Area51(not the phoney one in Nevada, the real Area51) are not directly implicated.  I can't imagine William Shatner and Allan Thicke doing anything so dastardly.  Thank God they are in charge.

by the GOP to impeach President Clinton goes way beyond simple deceit - an elected official lied under oath to a grand jury, a felony.  By what standard should we hold our elected officials?

The 'actual' consequences from this 'relatively inconsequential matter' are profound.  The whistleblower's careers and reputations were destroyed by a systematic, coordinated campaign of personal destruction that was carried out by democrat operatives and their accomplices in the liberal press.  Substantial threats to the security of the United States were systematically ignored or purposely shelved by President Clinton throughout this entire period.  This inaction led, either directly or indirectly, to the bombing of two US embassies in 1998, the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 and the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center in 2001.

Revisionist history?  Absolutely.

Inconsequential?  Absolutely not.        

No.. they did know there were no WMD's

these denials of WMD's are by rice and Powell.

With a simple google you can find several more denials by the

rest of this administration prior to 9/11.

It seems these denials were forgotten-else we would have had no war.

24 February 2001 during Powell's visit to Cairo, Egypt. Answering a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq, the Secretary of State said:

-- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

--------

John King asked Rice about the sanctions against Iraq. She replies:

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

___

There you have it. Four to seven months before 9/11--and just 15 to 18 months before the drive to attack Iraq seriously revved up--the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor trumpeted that Iraq had a decimated military, no "significant capabilities" regarding WMD, and was so feeble that it couldn't even threaten the countries around it with conventional military power.

____

here is the video

15 to 18 months before the drive to attack Iraq seriously revved up--the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor trumpeted that Iraq had a decimated military, no "significant capabilities" regarding WMD, and was so feeble that it couldn't even threaten the countries around it with conventional military power.

Well, I guess if you were going to knock one of these guys off to start the democracy ball rolling over there, Saddam was the one to pick.

"by the GOP to impeach President Clinton goes way beyond simple deceit - an elected official lied under oath to a grand jury, a felony.  By what standard should we hold our elected officials?"

The same standard regardless of party.  When Reagan lied under oath in his sworn affadavit to the Tower Commission did you demand impeachment?  Or does "your side" get a pass?  

The main differences are that:

  a) Reagan's lies under oath were relevant to

       the investigation at hand. Clinton's

       weren't.

  b) Reagan's lies were documented by an

       Independent Counsel from his own party,  

       Clinton's were vaguely alleged (note that

       nowhere in the proceedings were the

       supposed lies actually cited) by a

       partisan hack from the other side.

So I ask again...should Reagan have ben impeached? What does it say about the partisanship of each party that he wasn't?  

the Democrat's and the liberal media's attempt to bring down a sitting president using the Watergate Commission, reconstituted as the Tower Commission.

I will not defend the act of lying under oath by any elected official.  That said, impeachment proceedings against President Reagan would had to have been initiated by the 'Democrat' majority in the House.

Obviously, there was nothing there.  Had there been any real substance to their allegations, the Democrats would not have let go of such a 'controversial' issue until they were successful in forcing President Reagan from office.

The actual results of Iran-Contra were undeniable.  Soviet expansion in Central America was halted, and the US was made more secure because of the actions of Colonel North and others who understood the implications and inherent dangers associated with inaction.

that the relentless "who's turn is it to get even with whom" rages on.  Our men and women in uniform are doing what they think is right for themselves and their country, and the folks they think they are protecting and defending are focused on political finger pointing and back biting.

We all, from both sides, know there are major reliability issues in the media.  You look at the memo and it starts off with basic "secret, need to know, no copies" etc stuff, yet here it is in the memo.com website and in Kerry's hands on his way to Washington.  If we could all agree on both sides that everything is at best suspect in ALL forms of media, then can't we all agree that we'll each within our own agenda MAKE things true because we want so badly for it to be so?

Reds and Blues BOTH do it.  Admit it to yourselves...and in the meantime, how about being supportive of the fighting and wounding and dying until this thing is over, regardless of whether you PERSONALLY feel they are there rightly or wrongly?