Comments on: Memos Show British Concern Over Iraq Plans

By: Peejz

Peejz — Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:33:12 +0000

32-:lol::lol:

By: Sasha

Sasha — Tue, 21 Jun 2005 02:05:33 +0000

Sounds like Smith has been in close contact with Sandy Berger on destroying documents, Bill Burkett on how to type fake documents, and CBS News on how to report on them.

By: TedintheShed

TedintheShed — Tue, 21 Jun 2005 01:23:09 +0000

27,

Just because Bush and Blair didn’t question the existence of the document in a press conference by no means authenticates it’s existence either, let alone the contents (which they outright said was false). To me, it says nothing one way or the other to the matter.

Ted

By: TedintheShed

TedintheShed — Tue, 21 Jun 2005 01:19:37 +0000

28,

“The issue is whether GW committed to war illegally, and without Congressional approval.”

If that’s the question, then Iraq was perfectly legal- as Commander-in-Chief he can legally use troops via Executive Order as was the case in Korea, Viet Nam, Somalia, etc, etc…

Ted

By: Peejz

Peejz — Tue, 21 Jun 2005 01:04:02 +0000

27- No the original has never been authenticated. Remember he is potecting the source.

By: Ellis

Ellis — Tue, 21 Jun 2005 01:03:59 +0000

24. “It would have been irresponsible for the President NOT to have been discussing an invasion of Iraq”

Agreed, and that is not the point or debate. The issue is whether GW committed to war illegally, and without Congressional approval. Strategizing is natural and to be expected. Implementation is something else.

By: Ellis

Ellis — Tue, 21 Jun 2005 00:58:26 +0000

I understand that the presence of an actual original has been authenticated, and that neither Bush nor Blair have denied its existence. Their responses at the joint press conference they had two weeks ago addressed the timing of actions and when they went to the UN. Neither questioned the exisitence of the docs. Also, I don’t think there is any question re: authenticity in the UK.

By: Peejz

Peejz — Tue, 21 Jun 2005 00:46:10 +0000

No, we are questioning whether there is an original.

By: Ellis

Ellis — Tue, 21 Jun 2005 00:44:13 +0000

“in the absence of an original” — I imagine the original being questioned is the copy originally given to Smith; not the actual original internal docuement. I’m not certain, but that would make sense. Surely the actual original wasn’t removed from Downing Street offices.

By: Sunnye

Sunnye — Tue, 21 Jun 2005 00:26:23 +0000

Have we all forgotten what led up to the invasion of Iraq? 9 YEARS of UN inspectors being led on wild goose chases and kicked out of the country. Dozens of UN pleadings, threats and warnings about Saddam’s weapons. Saddam shooting at American planes over Iraq.

The memo discussed here was supposedly (and in the absence of an original and with a government confirmation under the protection of anonymity) written two months before President Bush went to the UN. At that time he told Saddam to let inspectors in or else. Saddam defied him and almost every member of Congress was pressuring the President to invade.

It’s only in hindsight that those people have changed their tunes. It would have been irresponsible for the President NOT to have been discussing an invasion of Iraq when he first went into office. After 9/11, it would have been insane not to.

I’m afraid, thanks to the hounding of the media, we’ve forgotten where we were back then.

ALSO, the affect of the war on the Middle East has been phenomenal — democratic repercussions in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Pakistan and more.

If the memo is true (and the statement is speculative, not fact), it is nothing to be ashamed of and certainly not the “smoking gun” progressives make it out to be.