Still Waiting On a Bush Supporter To Explain The Downing Memos...
---OHHHH THATS' RIGHT...YOU CAN'T!!!! ---
The "Downing Street memo" sufficient evidence to impeach Bush
(18.06.2005)
The "Downing Street memo" seems to confirm what most of the world has suspected for a long time, that Bush, with some help from the British Prime Minister Tony Blair, manipulated information to provide an excuse to invade Iraq.
The memo from Matthew Rycroft to David Manning (Blair's foreign policy advisor), clearly shows that the Bush administration had already prepared reports on taking military action against Saddam Hussein and Iraq, as the two options mentioned in the memo state (a "Generated Start" and a "Running Start").
These discussions took place in July 2002, some 8 months before the actual invasion itself. The Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, said in the memo that, although no date for an attack had been decided "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". This was a fairly accurate guess, as the attack began two months after this date.
George Bush and Tony Blair have not denied the authenticity of the "Downing Street memo", but claim that it does not accurately reflect events. We disagree, as many others do, and believe it reflects the events very clearly indeed.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan tried to dismiss the importance of the memo by saying "our focus is not on the past. It's on the future and working to make sure we succeed in Iraq". Whilst the Bush administration would like others not to focus on the past, the past and the future are both very relevant!
As the arguments concerning the illegal invasion of Iraq continue to be debated, the Bush administration have begun using exactly the same tactics again, only this time with Iran as the target (see our article on this here).
There is no question that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" as the following extract from the memo below shows:
____________________________________
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.
_____________________________________
You would think that there was more than enough evidence now to impeach President Bush, but it seems that an American President acting like a terrorist is far less serious than a former President (Bill Clinton) getting up to a little "hanky panky" in the White House?
Unfortunately, simply getting rid of George Bush will not solve the problem as he is only a puppet for the real people who have control, and if he was impeached (and removed from office), Dick Cheney would take his place!
The best solution (although still not perfect), is to have another election and this time make sure that the voting is carried out honestly. However, even if the Democrats were to win, would this really make a difference? Wouldn't the people with the real power still control things as they do now?
The whole system in the United States needs to be looked at much more closely and to introduce some rules that make it difficult for a situation like this to happen again.
Certainly, the media that support Bush need to be watched very carefully, as they have played a very important part in allowing the Bush administration to gain such power. In a recent poll, 42% said that Bush's work as President was "satisfactory", but if they were allowed to read the real facts in the "biased" Newspapers, this figure would be much lower! Maybe those who still support Bush should ask themselves this question "What exactly is Bush doing for the USA that is helping the average citizen or the country?". But don't just repeat what you read in the papers, take the trouble to find out for yourself. Perhaps ask yourself whether YOU personally are better off with the Bush policies?
A full scale war is getting very close in the Middle East, which is sure to kill even more US troops and maybe even set off a World War? There is perhaps still time to stop this, but only if America accept that the danger exists. Let's hope that this doesn't take too much longer.
The "Downing Street memo" is not a fake or some attempt by a "conspiracy theory" group working for the "Democrats" to remove Bush, it is a real document that shows the US President, and his administration, were involved in starting an illegal war in Iraq, that has killed thousands of people. Anyone else would have been removed and thrown in prison for much less!
Isn't it ironic that Bush can avoid prison with so much evidence against him, but "potential" terrorists can be held for years in camps without trial or proof that they have done anything wrong? Is this the American justice that we hear so much about?
---YES,...To TRY to explain it, first you have to READ IT. I know you bush supporters find that a painful act, but do try to focus.---
The "Downing Street memo" sufficient evidence to impeach Bush
(18.06.2005)
The "Downing Street memo" seems to confirm what most of the world has suspected for a long time, that Bush, with some help from the British Prime Minister Tony Blair, manipulated information to provide an excuse to invade Iraq.
The memo from Matthew Rycroft to David Manning (Blair's foreign policy advisor), clearly shows that the Bush administration had already prepared reports on taking military action against Saddam Hussein and Iraq, as the two options mentioned in the memo state (a "Generated Start" and a "Running Start").
These discussions took place in July 2002, some 8 months before the actual invasion itself. The Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, said in the memo that, although no date for an attack had been decided "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". This was a fairly accurate guess, as the attack began two months after this date.
George Bush and Tony Blair have not denied the authenticity of the "Downing Street memo", but claim that it does not accurately reflect events. We disagree, as many others do, and believe it reflects the events very clearly indeed.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan tried to dismiss the importance of the memo by saying "our focus is not on the past. It's on the future and working to make sure we succeed in Iraq". Whilst the Bush administration would like others not to focus on the past, the past and the future are both very relevant!
As the arguments concerning the illegal invasion of Iraq continue to be debated, the Bush administration have begun using exactly the same tactics again, only this time with Iran as the target (see our article on this here).
There is no question that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" as the following extract from the memo below shows:
____________________________________
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.
_____________________________________
You would think that there was more than enough evidence now to impeach President Bush, but it seems that an American President acting like a terrorist is far less serious than a former President (Bill Clinton) getting up to a little "hanky panky" in the White House?
Unfortunately, simply getting rid of George Bush will not solve the problem as he is only a puppet for the real people who have control, and if he was impeached (and removed from office), Dick Cheney would take his place!
The best solution (although still not perfect), is to have another election and this time make sure that the voting is carried out honestly. However, even if the Democrats were to win, would this really make a difference? Wouldn't the people with the real power still control things as they do now?
The whole system in the United States needs to be looked at much more closely and to introduce some rules that make it difficult for a situation like this to happen again.
Certainly, the media that support Bush need to be watched very carefully, as they have played a very important part in allowing the Bush administration to gain such power. In a recent poll, 42% said that Bush's work as President was "satisfactory", but if they were allowed to read the real facts in the "biased" Newspapers, this figure would be much lower! Maybe those who still support Bush should ask themselves this question "What exactly is Bush doing for the USA that is helping the average citizen or the country?". But don't just repeat what you read in the papers, take the trouble to find out for yourself. Perhaps ask yourself whether YOU personally are better off with the Bush policies?
A full scale war is getting very close in the Middle East, which is sure to kill even more US troops and maybe even set off a World War? There is perhaps still time to stop this, but only if America accept that the danger exists. Let's hope that this doesn't take too much longer.
The "Downing Street memo" is not a fake or some attempt by a "conspiracy theory" group working for the "Democrats" to remove Bush, it is a real document that shows the US President, and his administration, were involved in starting an illegal war in Iraq, that has killed thousands of people. Anyone else would have been removed and thrown in prison for much less!
Isn't it ironic that Bush can avoid prison with so much evidence against him, but "potential" terrorists can be held for years in camps without trial or proof that they have done anything wrong? Is this the American justice that we hear so much about?
---YES,...To TRY to explain it, first you have to READ IT. I know you bush supporters find that a painful act, but do try to focus.---
posted by Christy at 7:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home