Just curious
2007-06-04 08:21:49 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
He greatly exaggerated the facts, cherry-picked the intelligence and had his goons twist the arms of the community to get what he wanted.
He and those involved should be charged and tried, though I'm not even sure what the charges would be for the number of Iraq and US dead and the indirect embezzlement of more money than I can guess, and if convicted what the punishment should be.
But I also believe it should be the congress and the US courts that do this, not some World Court. We need to stand up and show that America once again stands for respect, fairness and truth.
2007-06-04 08:26:50 · answer #1 · answered by Ethaniel 2 · 9⤊ 4⤋
I applaud you for bringing this up. I would bet you than the nasty cons who seem to be infesting this site today, have no idea what it is. Let me give you a cut and paste of an explaination of the memo:
[The Downing Street "Memo" is actually the minutes of a meeting, transcribed during a gathering of many of the British Prime Minister's senior ministers on July 23, 2002. Published by The Sunday Times on May 1, 2005 this document was the first hard evidence from within the UK or US governments that exposed the truth about how the Iraq war began.
Since that time, much more information has come to light through leaks of secret government documents and the accounts of an increasing number of people who have witnessed the administration’s wrongdoing firsthand.
There is now in the public record a large body of evidence that vividly illustrates:
Bush’s long-standing intent to invade Iraq
Bush’s willingness to provoke Saddam (in a variety of ways) into providing a pretext for war
The fact that the war effectively began with an air campaign nearly a year before the March 2003 invasion and months before Congressional approval for the use of force
The administration’s widespread effort to crush dissent and manipulate information that would counter its justification for war
The lack of planning for the war’s aftermath and a fundamental lack of understanding of the Iraqi society ]
My second question would be, why did the white house refuse to comment on this? If someone wrongly accused me of something of that big of a deal, you can bet your sweet behind I'd defend myself. What does it take, 5 minutes, if that to at least issue a statement? Yet the White House did none of this. Somehow, they effectively swept the whole thing under a rug.
Scary, huh?
2007-06-04 08:31:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
as a manner to lie, you may desire to understand the reality. Bush might desire to no longer have lied because of the fact he did no longer understand for helpful. a million. Bush had intel there have been WMD in Iraq. 2. Bush's intel grow to be no longer the only intel that reported Saddam had WMD. 3. Saddam had threatened Iran with WMD (perchance brinkmanship). 4. If Bush have been so evil, he could have had WMD planted in Iraq to ascertain his place. 5. Saddam grow to be warned united statesa. grow to be passing legislations that would desire to enable militia action against Iraq, he had greater advantageous than sufficient time to offer the weapons to Syria, Russia, or Iran, any of which might gladly customary as a manner to discredit united statesa..
2016-11-04 22:38:22 · answer #3 · answered by vides 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The guy above "Dowahdiddy" is such a retard he didn't even check his old outdated links!
They pulled those pages because the claims were of such bull crap they knew no one would fall for what they found as being WMD's!
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
What a damn joke!
Even the links they provide are BS!
Look at the pages you supplied!
Page removed - Page removed - Page removed
I guess flimsy cheap aluminum tubes and old degraded mustard gas canisters doesn't account for claims of "Mushroom Clouds" and "Immediate Threat"
Good Lord!
2007-06-04 12:00:36 · answer #4 · answered by scottanthonydavis 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
WMDs were found but you won't believe anything that is even close to the truth. Bush killed OBL and Clinton let him go free at least twice, Bush found the WMDs. Read the links and prepare to be shocked.
2007-06-04 08:59:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Hmm that's strange how within a couple of minutes of this question being posted a bunch of thumbs down showed up. Is the liberal brigade just laying in waiting again?
Bush worked with what intelligence he had. Much of it gathered during the Clinton years as well as in the early 2000's
2007-06-04 08:55:21 · answer #6 · answered by hershadow1 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
that memo should have been the spark that lit up those who had an audience for their anti-war stance. turns out it was another missed opportunity. the charge of lieing about wmd's was part of the promotion for the war. the memo spelled out their intent to go to war, we're still on hold as to the true reason for it.
2007-06-04 08:32:59 · answer #7 · answered by jonny y 3 · 4⤊ 3⤋
The Downing Street Memo is......
bad people caught planning an illegal war
Don't you love how conservatives skirt around the truth by calling truth-seekers "liberals" and questioning the patriotism of "liberals" for daring to seek truth when "we're at war with terrorists"....
but the conservatives offer no real answers.....
just white noise.
(fine example provided in first response)
Perhaps it's the same white noise used to torture detainees in our patriotic torture chambers that we've opened a chain of since president corporation seized the White House
2007-06-04 08:41:10 · answer #8 · answered by Peace Warrior 4 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Proof of the lie, just like how Jack Abramoff told a friend in an email that Karl Rove said that Iraq would be invaded, back in 2002. This was before Bush was even talking about invading Iraq as a 'last resort'.
2007-06-04 08:27:16 · answer #9 · answered by ck4829 7 · 9⤊ 4⤋
I believe the answer is.......
An Inconvienient Truth
2007-06-04 08:27:21 · answer #10 · answered by Dave K 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋