PDA

View Full Version : For Gayle- the truth is out!



Qtec
06-14-2005, 06:32 AM
[ QUOTE ]
May 01, 2005

The secret Downing Street memo





SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY


DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

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.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

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.

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.

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. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.


The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

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.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.


(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)


MATTHEW RYCROFT

(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)






<hr /></blockquote>

/ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Q

Gayle in MD
06-14-2005, 11:23 AM
Thanks. Looks as though Americans are beginning to see the truth about this administration. Some of us don't like being lied to. Some of us expect thorough plans to be laid before we occupy a foriegn country. some of us expect a tax structure which reflects the democracy building principles of Ability to pay and Some of us understand that we can't teach other countries about democracy, until we demand unquestionable elections in our own country, and truth from our Executive branches of government. Some of us realize that accountability demands from we the people, do not equal unpatriotic sentiments. Judging by the recent polls, perhaps I should say Most of us are disappointed in the policies put forth by this administration. Americans, left or right, don't like being lied to by their president, Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, and Secretary of Defense. This makes Watergate look like an Our Gang Little Rascals plot.

Thanks for the post...

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
06-14-2005, 12:54 PM
[ QUOTE ]
some of us expect a tax structure which reflects the democracy building principles of Ability to pay <hr /></blockquote> Do you have a list of these "democracy building principles"? This tax structure you are referring to sounds an awful lot like this..."From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." Sounds more like marxism than democracy.

eg8r

Qtec
06-14-2005, 01:29 PM
Once again you change the subject.
Any comment on the original post?

Q..... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
06-15-2005, 05:24 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Once again you change the subject.
Any comment on the original post? <hr /></blockquote> No I have no comment for your original post. What sort of comment could be expected for to your post which offered zero intellect except for some smiley faces. Do you want some sort of a pat on the back for spending a week searching the google archives? If you had actually posted something in your own words you might get a response, but I am not responding to something someone else wrote and you don't even take the time to comment yourself.

As you can see, or maybe you cannot, my post was to a comment made by Gayle. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-15-2005, 05:24 AM
Hey Ed,
I won't address what you said here because I can't believe you posted it, but I would like to ask you, now that it is evident that this administration has lied and lied, and 58% of us are against it's policies, from SS to the war in Iraq, are you having any second thoughts about Bush?

Also, when I began posting, now, years ago, that the administration was lieing to us about their intentions, fixing policy to match their hidden agenda, throwing out advice from our most knowlegable sources if it didn't fit their agenda, if I remember correctly, you said I was on here spewing lies. Don't you think you owe me an apology?

Or, are you now going to tell me that a British Memo which was circulated amoung the Prime Minister, and his top officials in a meeting, which they all saw, none of them BTW, changed anything, or corrected anything, isn't true.

Tony Blair, stands in front of the cameras, denying what the whole world knows,...does anybody give a damn, do they even notice? THEY ALL LIED.

Where is accountability? Where in bin Laden? Where is 8.8 billion dollars, which was supposed to be used to restructure Iraq, which the Republicans refuse to investigate, while Iraqis still don't have electricity and drinking water, and sewage flows in the street, and insurgency expands around the globe?

Here's Dick Chaney, telling us that the insurgency is on its last leg, HA HA HA, how domb does he think we are. The Republicans think that if they just say something, that makes it true.

It's just amazing to me that people want to talk about Jane Fonda, Deep throat, Teddy Kennedy, while Bush continues to get away with gross unconstitutional illegal actions. He lies, then he just tells the world that they don't see what is right in front of their faces. He lies, Blair swears to it, since when is it unpatriotic to hold our leaders accountable for their indescretions? The republicans sure thought it was OK to hold Clinton accountable about his private sexual life. But those of us who question Bush, we're all unpatriotic. We're attacking our troops. Isn't that what Bush accused Kerry of doing when Kerry critisized him for letting B.L. get away. Now we find out that we could have had B.L&gt; if Bush hadn't drawn out people away from catching him in Tora Bora, and set everything on a path for S. H. and an occupation in Iraq

Bush gets up in front of the cameras, saying that S.H. wouldn't let the inspectors back in, when he DID let them back in. It's just amazing, he totally distorts reality, blantantly, over and over again. Do you republicans ever notice? Do you even care? Yet, I am accused of being an automaton, what a joke!

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
06-15-2005, 05:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I won't address what you said here because I can't believe you posted it, <hr /></blockquote> What's not to believe. Where are these democracy principles you speak of. You continually post about such things but where are they? Why can you only list them as you go but are never able to put together the list entirely at one point. Relying on "ability to pay" sounds more like marxism than democracy any day of the year.

[ QUOTE ]
I won't address what you said here because I can't believe you posted it, but I would like to ask you, now that it is evident that this administration has lied and lied, and 58% of us are against it's policies, from SS to the war in Iraq, are you having any second thoughts about Bush? <hr /></blockquote> No. I do not change my mind because the "58%" of your polled individuals don't like something.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you think you owe me an apology?
<hr /></blockquote> No, I don't. One memo does not change everything. Maybe an apology for being blunt, but that is my nature. As I see, it is a quality we both share.

[ QUOTE ]
Tony Blair, stands in front of the cameras, denying what the whole world knows,...does anybody give a damn, do they even notice? THEY ALL LIED. <hr /></blockquote> I am not sure if anybody notices (except our liberals, they can spot everything except their own wrongdoing), but I am also not worried about Blair. It is obvious that the majority of brits, like Americans, Austrians, etc. preferred the incumbent over the alternative.

[ QUOTE ]
HA HA HA, how domb does he think we are. <hr /></blockquote> This is just a jab since I don't know what Cheney thinks, but he probably spells domb as dumb. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
He lies, Blair swears to it, since when is it unpatriotic to hold our leaders accountable for their indescretions? <hr /></blockquote> I am not calling anyone unpatriotic so to answer your question, kind of, I don't think it is unpatriotic.

[ QUOTE ]
But those of us who question Bush, we're all unpatriotic. <hr /></blockquote> Well, I was only going to answer the questions, since most of this is coming across as venting, but who is calling all these people unpatriotic? And is there any chance you could give these examples in their full context, not just some portion you pulled out.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you republicans ever notice? Do you even care? <hr /></blockquote> What I care about is that America was honest and smart enough to notice Bush was better than the alternative.

[ QUOTE ]
Yet, I am accused of being an automaton, what a joke!
<hr /></blockquote> Who accused you of this?

Well, I tried to answer each of your questions, if I have missed one, let me know.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-15-2005, 07:01 AM
How could I have thought that unprecedented proof, an actual document of war, which proves the point I made here years ago, that Bush lied, threw out documented intelligence that proved that he should not occupy Iraq, that he didn't understand the can of worms he would open, that insurgence would expand around the world, and that he fixed intelligence to support his determination, lied to the Senate and Congress, a felony, BTW, would encourage you to admit that you were wrong when you said that I was spewing lies, and that your administration, is full of liars. the proof is in the memo.

Bush has created an unprecedented globalized international terroist movement, our occupation of Iraq being the rallying point, and still, you can't see the forest for the trees, or admit that you were wrong.

Gayle in Md.

Fran Crimi
06-15-2005, 07:34 AM
Ok, here's a comment on the memo. What the memo says to me is that in the opinion of Matthew Rycroft, the U.S. admin feels it's vitally important to change the Iraqi regime, and that the U.S. decided that the only effective way to accomplish this would be through force. Ways to justify the regime change to the world were being discussed and explored, such as WMD, links to Bin Laden, etc. The memo does not state whether the U.S. admin felt these were actually legitimate reasons.

The big question that is still unanswered is "Why was the regime change so important to us?"

Rycroft's opinion is that the "why" is U.S. policy related but does not offer specifics on what that policy is. Does the U.S. have a history of stepping into coutries and forcably changing regimes that do not appear to be a direct threat to us? No. So what's the policy that he's refering to? Does HE even know, or was he just generalizing for lack of a better answer?

I also find it interesting that the President of Iraq is referred to as "Saddam" throughout the memo. Referring to the President of a country by his first name? And by a Brit, no less, who's known for their properness. Would that same person dare write "Tony" or "George"? I doubt it. Strange. That makes me question, how smart or dumb or arrogant is the author of the memo?

I do know these facts, however:

Although the U.N. voted to not invade Iraq as a unit, they did not put out a resolution demanding that the U.S. not invade Iraq.

Prior to the invasion, Pres. Bush stated that he spoke at length personally with the heads of all countries. I believe that many of the conversations went like this: "We're all for it, but you have to understand that we can't publically support you, due to our treaty obligations and other inter-country relations."

People tend to fear what they don't understand. Some people tend to get angry about what they don't understand. Some people look for reasons NOT to accept what they don't understand. Pick one, Q.

eg8r
06-15-2005, 07:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
How could I have thought that unprecedented proof, an actual document of war <hr /></blockquote> This is an actual document of war? Can you give me a definition of "actual document of war"? I thought it is a "document containing meeting minutes transcribed during the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002" (quoted from downingstreetmemo website). It could be true, but I don't remember seeing any proof it was true. These are meeting minutes from the British Prime Minister, not meeting minutes from the President of the United States. These are words from Mathew Rycroft not Bush.

If you would like to offer "proof" of anything why not give us something from the source.

Now, after painfully reading through your rant, I tried to answer all your questions, so as not to be accused of avoiding them. What do I get in reply, avoidance. In addition to what you replied, did you not have a couple more seconds to answer some of the questions I asked?

So, when are we going to get that list of "democracy building principles"? I don't believe we have any democracy building principles that tell us it is ok to take from the those who have and give to those who have not. I also don't believe the Downing Street Memo is a "document of war". I could be wrong on both of these, but if you sidestep the second question as much as you have the first, we will never know.

eg8r

highsea
06-15-2005, 08:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>...Although the U.N. voted to not invade Iraq as a unit, they did not put out a resolution demanding that the U.S. not invade Iraq.<hr /></blockquote>The UN doesn't vote "not to invade" countries. The issue was never put up for a vote in the UN. Wrt the UN, only the SC can authorize military action. France and Russia would have vetoed any resolution for war, and the US would have vetoed any resolution against it. So it was never brought before the SC.

You may be thinking of the final pre-war UNSC resolution on Iraq (1441, IIRC), which threatened "serious consequences", but did not contain a trigger for military actions. Of course by then the US Congress had already authorized war.
__________________________________________________ _________

Q- Do you think this memo would be getting so much attention if it wasn't stamped "top secret"? After all, the UK Observer reported essentially the same thing two days before this memo was even written!

Observer Story (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,759158,00.html)

And the New York Times (and later, the LA Times) had already published part of the US war plan 3 weeks prior (July 5, 2002). So there aren't any revelations in the memo that I can see- you would have already heard the same thing if you were reading the newspapers.

All countries prepare war plans. It may surprise you to know that the US had war plans against Europe in the cold war era, in case they were overrun by the Soviets. The existence of war plans for Iraq in 2002 is nothing extraordinary.

The comments about "fixing the intelligence" should be clarified by the author. Does he mean that the intelligence community was actively looking for info on WMD's? If so, there is nothing wrong with that- that's their job.

If he means that intel was being falsified, he should come out with his evidence, since the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence investigated this very question, and found no evidence that:

“administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities” or that “the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.”

One would expect that the Senate Comittee had more access to US intel, and carries more weight than the second-hand impressions of a British foreign service officer.

Incidentally, here is the (now declassified) assessment of the British Government wrt Iraq at the time. I doubt you will actually read it, but maybe someone here is interested:

http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/reps/iraq/contents.htm

The Downing memo notes that the British assumed that Saddam had limited WMD capabilities — and the September 24, 2002, British assessment (above link) spelled out exactly what Whitehall believed to be the facts. Do you really think MI6's assessment was the result of pressure from the vice president or any other American official? Lol, you probably do....

The charge of intelligence fraud (if it is such a charge) has already been investigated and found baseless. And the allegations that the president had already decided to go to war and was thus deceiving the American people are personal opinions based on unsubstantiated impressions from unnamed sources.

Fran Crimi
06-15-2005, 09:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>...Although the U.N. voted to not invade Iraq as a unit, they did not put out a resolution demanding that the U.S. not invade Iraq.<hr /></blockquote>The UN doesn't vote "not to invade" countries. The issue was never put up for a vote in the UN. Wrt the UN, only the SC can authorize military action. France and Russia would have vetoed any resolution for war, and the US would have vetoed any resolution against it. So it was never brought before the SC.

You may be thinking of the final pre-war UNSC resolution on Iraq (1441, IIRC), which threatened "serious consequences", but did not contain a trigger for military actions. Of course by then the US Congress had already authorized war.

<font color="blue">Bad semantics on my part. I should have said U.N. Security Council rather than U.N. </font color>


Incidentally, here is the (now declassified) assessment of the British Government wrt Iraq at the time. I doubt you will actually read it, but maybe someone here is interested:

<font color="blue"> STOP THAT!! </font color>



<font color="blue">I don't have a problem with the memo, highsea. I don't see anything wrong or illegal here. I'm just willing to admit that I don't have all the facts. Good for you if you do. I don't. After reading your post, I still don't. Don't try drawing me into a pissing match. I'm not interested.

Fran</font color>

highsea
06-15-2005, 09:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>...After reading your post, I still don't. Don't try drawing me into a pissing match. I'm not interested.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>The second half of my post was directed at Q, since he was the one who posted the memo and originated the thread. I divided my post and specifically addressed him with the second part. Next time I will use "Qtec" instead of the abbreviation.

Fran Crimi
06-15-2005, 10:11 AM
Sorry, I missed your address to Q. You guys are brutal with the instulting stuff going back and forth. Thank goodness neither one of you are heading up your countries. The U.S. would be 'getting even' with the world and the Netherlands would be hanging out getting stoned with a joint the size of a cigar, saying, "Chill brother, life is beautiful...hey can you spare a couple 'a dollars?" Cripes./ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Fran

highsea
06-15-2005, 10:21 AM
"I doubt you will actually read it" is a brutal insult?

That's a little thin-skinned, imo.

"Bad semantics on my part. I should have said U.N. Security Council rather than U.N."

My comments apply to the Security Council. They never voted "not to go to war". The General Assembly doesn't even address such issues.

SPetty
06-15-2005, 10:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> "I doubt you will actually read it" is a brutal insult? <hr /></blockquote>That's not what she said. Move along.

highsea
06-15-2005, 10:30 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr>That's not what she said. Move along. <hr /></blockquote>Than clarify for me. She accused me of trying to draw her into a pissing contest (a misunderstanding), and then said (in a response to me) that "we are brutal with the insults going back and forth", and added some commentary on what would happen if we "were leading our countries".

Can you point out what remark I made that she is referring to? Are Fran's remarks to me any more or less offensive than what I posted to Q? (I'm not the one getting upset here...)

SPetty
06-15-2005, 10:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> ...then said (in a response to me) that "we are brutal with the insults going back and forth"...<hr /></blockquote>If you're going to quote it, quote it right... (Oh geez, now I'm sounding like eg8r... Ack! Now I'm insulting myself! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif )

"You guys are brutal with the insulting stuff going back and forth."

It was just a comment acknowledging that you and Qtec have a history of not being particularly friendly or congenial when responding to each other. She wasn't referring to any one particular comment that you made.

eg8r
06-15-2005, 11:35 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If you're going to quote it, quote it right... (Oh geez, now I'm sounding like eg8r... Ack! Now I'm insulting myself! ) <hr /></blockquote> I am not sorry that asking someone to be correct makes you "Ack", that is your problem. If it insults you so much, then don't do it, I would hate for you to be insulted by your own actions. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

However, given only the text we have to read and not the thoughts of the author, I believe you are correct but only by a stretch. Reading highsea's reply and then Frans reply, it seems to be implied that she would refer to the "insult" that highsea made and not some other insult in another thread. So, instead of waiting for it to be spelled out, highsea took the liberty to address it up front. I personally don't find anything wrong with it, because facts are facts. Q does not read anything that is posted, he will only reply with some question that has nothing to do with the subject. Highsea's statement might come across as harsh but for those involved I don't feel it is viewed that way. We all know, including, Q, that highsea's statement was not that far off base.

eg8r

Fran Crimi
06-15-2005, 03:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr>That's not what she said. Move along. <hr /></blockquote>Than clarify for me. She accused me of trying to draw her into a pissing contest (a misunderstanding),

<font color="blue"> A misunderstanding? I was being polite. You wrote Q - followed by a question. Doesn't that mean something like "here's a question for you?" If you were responding to Q then shouldn't you post to Q? Maybe you should be the one apologizing for being so misleading. </font color>

and then said (in a response to me) that "we are brutal with the insults going back and forth", and added some commentary on what would happen if we "were leading our countries".

<font color="blue"> Yup. You guys are brutal and you have post after post to back it up. </font color>

Can you point out what remark I made that she is referring to?

<font color="blue"> Gawd. It would take a year to compile it all.</font color>

Are Fran's remarks to me any more or less offensive than what I posted to Q? (I'm not the one getting upset here...) <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Yeah, my remarks were a little off color. I figured you guys wouldn't take offense considering you're so used to treating each other that way. </font color>

Fran

Fran Crimi
06-15-2005, 04:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>
However, given only the text we have to read and not the thoughts of the author, I believe you are correct but only by a stretch. Reading highsea's reply and then Frans reply, it seems to be implied that she would refer to the "insult" that highsea made and not some other insult in another thread.

<font color="blue"> Ed, I believe you are correct, but only by a stretch. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>

So, instead of waiting for it to be spelled out, highsea took the liberty to address it up front. I personally don't find anything wrong with it, because facts are facts. Q does not read anything that is posted, he will only reply with some question that has nothing to do with the subject. Highsea's statement might come across as harsh but for those involved I don't feel it is viewed that way. We all know, including, Q, that highsea's statement was not that far off base. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> That's not true, Ed. Q reads my posts. I can tell by his responses to me. But even if your comment was true, this isn't about what's true or false. Just because you may view something as true, does it negate it as an insult?

BTW, this isn't about the occasional jab that we all do...this is about a continuous barrage.

Fran

</font color>

highsea
06-15-2005, 04:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> <font color="blue"> A misunderstanding? I was being polite. You wrote Q - followed by a question. Doesn't that mean something like "here's a question for you?" If you were responding to Q then shouldn't you post to Q? Maybe you should be the one apologizing for being so misleading. </font color><hr /></blockquote>I thought I already covered that. You think I should apologize to you because I wrote "Q" instead of "Qtec"? Okay. I'm sorry Fran.

Feel better?
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr><font color="blue"> Yup. You guys are brutal and you have post after post to back it up. </font color><hr /></blockquote> Not in this thread. When you post comments in a thread, it is usually assumed you are referring to the topic being discussed.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr><font color="blue"> Gawd. It would take a year to compile it all.</font color><hr /></blockquote> Then why start in? The topic was the Downing Street Memo.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> <font color="blue"> Yeah, my remarks were a little off color. I figured you guys wouldn't take offense considering you're so used to treating each other that way. </font color><hr /></blockquote>I didn't take offense. This board lost all veneer of civility long ago. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

eg8r
06-16-2005, 04:04 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Just because you may view something as true, does it negate it as an insult?
<hr /></blockquote> I guess not, however sometimes facts are sharp.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, this isn't about the occasional jab that we all do...this is about a continuous barrage.
<hr /></blockquote> I understand what you are talking about now, but in the post it appeared that you were referring to the specific post you were replying to when you mentioned the insult.

eg8r

Fran Crimi
06-16-2005, 05:30 AM
One last piece of business on my end....To correct my error in my original post: I would like to replace the word "vote" with 'the process that took place that determined the SC's decision not to vote to support U.S. military action'.

Fran

Fran Crimi
06-16-2005, 05:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Just because you may view something as true, does it negate it as an insult?
<hr /></blockquote> I guess not, however sometimes facts are sharp.

<font color="blue"> Yes, that's true, and it takes a lot of self control to take the higher ground when you'd really rather not. </font color>


&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
BTW, this isn't about the occasional jab that we all do...this is about a continuous barrage.
<hr /></blockquote> I understand what you are talking about now, but in the post it appeared that you were referring to the specific post you were replying to when you mentioned the insult. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">That's true for you and highsea, but SPetty got my intent right away. Who knows...maybe it's a Venus and Mars thing. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>

Fran

Chopstick
06-16-2005, 05:58 AM
Aw, come on Fran. It's only Q. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

But, back to the subject
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>
I doubt you will actually read it,but maybe someone here is interested: <font color="blue">I am. </font color>

http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/reps/iraq/contents.htm
<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">This was in there.</font color>

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iraq had:

* experimented with high explosives to produce implosive shock waves;

* invested significant effort to understand the various options for neutron initiators;

* made significant progress in developing capabilities for the production, casting and machining of uranium metal.

<font color="blue">"Casting and machining of uranium metal" Well, they ain't making flower pots. I don't know about you guys but I feel threatened.

I have a question for HighSea and Q. The Gulf War armistice agreement stated that they would get rid of all WMDs and that it would be verified by inspections. Any action on that violates this process voids the armistice agreement. This section of the agreement was violated repeatedly. Does this not constitute an act of war? Under the terms of the armistice agreement it does.

The 1990 war was approved by the UN. Since this recent war time activity is not a new war but the resumption of the original one, why would the UN need to approve it again? Since the WMD section of the agreement is what was violated, why is it wrong to say the resumption of war is based on this? And the President did say this, I heard him say it myself.

</font color>

highsea
06-16-2005, 06:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Chopstick:</font><hr>The 1990 war was approved by the UN. Since this recent war time activity is not a new war but the resumption of the original one, why would the UN need to approve it again? Since the WMD section of the agreement is what was violated, why is it wrong to say the resumption of war is based on this? And the President did say this, I heard him say it myself.</font color><hr /></blockquote>It's not wrong to say it, it's just that some people refuse to listen. [ QUOTE ]
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

PROFESSOR JOHN CAREY - ADJUNCT PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AT NEW YORK UNIVERSITY

To the Editor:

Christopher Wren's article "U.N. Resolutions Allow Attack on the Likes of Iraq" does not get to the bottom of the question whether the US is authorized to bomb Iraq without further Security Council authorization.

It is correct that resolution 687 of April 3, 1991, brought about a cease-fire upon Iraq's notification that it accepted destruction of its weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's breach of its obligations has already been officially declared by the Security Council on January 12 in its statement finding "a clear violation of the relevant resolutions."

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is of doubtful relevance since what is being interpreted is not a treaty but Security Council texts. Those texts need to be closely examined to determine what they now authorize without any further enactment.

Upon Iraq's breach of its obligation to allow full inspection of its weapons of mass destruction capability, the cease-fire, enacted by resolution 687, ended. That brought back into play resolution 678 of November 29, 1990, which had authorized the Gulf War to remove Iraq from Kuwait. Since Iraq is now out of Kuwait, the question is whether hostilities can be resumed for any other purpose, such as enforcing inspection.

If the only purpose of hostilities contemplated by resolution 678 had been removal of Iraq, then the ending of the cease-fire would not have authorized force to compel inspection. But 678 went further, allowing the US and others "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

Restoration of international peace and security in the area is exactly our purpose in seeking destruction of Iraq's ability to make and use weapons of mass destruction. But besides that, the authorization of 678 to uphold and implement "all subsequent resolutions" applies to 687, which established the system for inspecting and destroying Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

That system, agreed to by Iraq, is being violated by it, and resumption of hostilities to enforce the system is now authorized, without any further Security Council enactment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To the Editor:

In order legally to resume military action against Iraq, the United States needs to be acting (a) consistently with its own Constitution and (b) with authority from the United Nations Security Council. The reason Security Council authority is needed is that the UN Charter, a treaty by which we are bound, forbids the use of force except in self-defence or with Council approval.

Three key Security Council resolutions must be examined to determine what authority exists today for the US to bomb Iraq. Resolution 678 of November 1990 authorized the US and other countries "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." That was the UN's green light for Desert Storm. Resolution 660 had ordered Iraq out of Kuwait.

In April 1991 resolution 687 brought about a cease-fire conditioned on Iraq's notification that it accepted the inspection and destruction of its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons as well as the missiles to deliver them. Iraq is now in "clear violation" of those obligations, as the Security Council declared in January. Iraq's violations voided the US obligation to cease firing and brought back into effect resolution 678.

As indicated in the above quote from 678, force is authorized by it not just to get Iraq out of Kuwait but also to uphold "all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." Peace and security in the area are overall US objectives. But in addition, one of the subsequent relevant resolutions is 687 requiring elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. That is the immediate US objective.

It is therefore clear that the US can, so far as international law is concerned, resume hostilities against Iraq both to restore peace and security in the area and to enforce the destruction of its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and their missiles. Whether US constitutional requirements have been met, and whether hostilities would be effective or proper, are questions beyond the scope of this letter.

http://www.hwcn.org/link/mkg/app_5.html
<hr /></blockquote>The facts remain, we went to war with Saddam Hussein's regime over two years ago, so the Downing Street Memo is not relevant to today's situation. Arguing the merits of the war on that basis is meaningless.

Regardless:

1. Under International Law, the UNSC is the only body that can "legally declare" the war "illegal", and they have not done so, nor will they.
2. We are in Iraq now under a UNSC resloution.
3. The Iraqi government has asked the UN to extend our mandate to remain in Iraq.

I will add, there is precedent for a war to be considered legitimate without UNSC approval. For example, the Korean War, peace keeping/enforcement operations in Liberia and Sierra Leone by West African nations such as Nigeria and Ghana, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. In the first example, the UN General Assembly was used since the USSR would have vetoed any resolution in the Security Council. In the later two examples, regional organizations were used to legitimize the operation. And of course, the Kosovo War and subsequent bombing by NATO was all done without UN sanction. There are too many other examples to list.

Qtec
06-16-2005, 06:53 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Vice President Dick Cheney once said, "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." And that President Bush once said there is "no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." And especially that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once said, "We know where they are."
<hr /></blockquote>

How could they have been so sure and so wrong. They had not one single piece of evidence that proved beyond doubt that Saddam had WMDs, but they were still willing to make claims that they couldnt prove in order to present Saddam as a threat to the US.
The plan to attack Iraq had been lying on a shelf for some time. 9/11 provided the opportunity, all they then needed was an excuse.

Q

eg8r
06-16-2005, 07:32 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, that's true, and it takes a lot of self control to take the higher ground when you'd really rather not. <hr /></blockquote> Probably more than most are willing.

[ QUOTE ]
That's true for you and highsea <hr /></blockquote> It appears you are limiting the audience to only those who are replying. I don't agree that is the case.

eg8r

Qtec
06-16-2005, 08:26 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Q- Do you think this memo would be getting so much attention if it wasn't stamped "top secret"? After all, the UK Observer reported essentially the same thing two days before this memo was even written!
<hr /></blockquote>
You cant beat info from the horses mouth!

[ QUOTE ]
All countries prepare war plans. It may surprise you to know that the US had war plans against Europe in the cold war era, in case they were overrun by the Soviets. The existence of war plans for Iraq in 2002 is nothing extraordinary. <font color="blue"> There is a difference between 'preparing for war' and 'being committed to war'. </font color>

The comments about "fixing the intelligence" should be clarified by the author. Does he mean that the intelligence community was actively looking for info on WMD's? If so, there is nothing wrong with that- that's their job.
<hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue">The fixing was in the use of the intelligence.
One example; The admin tried desperately to link saddam with Al Q. They used evidence that an Al Q guy was in Iraq. " No smoke without fire", right?
What they failed to mention was that he had been spotted in Northern Iraq. A part of the country that was in the hands of the Kurds! Nothing to do with Saddam at all. </font color>


[ QUOTE ]
In fact, the Senate Intelligence Committee has yet to investigate the issue of whether Bush and senior administration officials misrepresented the intelligence they received from the U.S. intelligence community, as administration critics have charged (pdf). The 30-page summary (pdf) of the report's conclusions does not mention Bush. That's because, as MSNBC reported, the committee decided at the outset not to investigate the Bush administration's use of intelligence in the first phase of its investigation -- to the consternation of many Democrats. Instead, the committee's 521-page report (long pdf) focused on the intelligence agencies themselves <hr /></blockquote>

Phase 2 should be fun. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Q

Fran Crimi
06-16-2005, 07:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> It appears you are limiting the audience to only those who are replying. I don't agree that is the case.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Here's the problem: Your quote:

"I understand what you are talking about now, but in the post it appeared that you were referring to the specific post you were replying to when you mentioned the insult."

Are you posting the part starting, "but in the post..." as one man's opinion or as a universal fact? If you posted it as a fact, then it's already been proven wrong. If you posted it as your opinion, then how about keeping it in the perspective as being just your opinion?

Is that too much to ask?

Fran

Qtec
06-17-2005, 01:29 AM
WH Press Briefing.

[ QUOTE ]
Q Scott, senior administration officials for the last several weeks -- the last week, anyway -- have been saying that any wiggling by Saddam Hussein on the resolution is -- would be considered a material breach, in and of itself. Therefore, if he does not meet the Friday deadline, are we going to immediately demand a reconvening of the Security Council to discuss the serious consequences?

MR. MCCLELLAN: I think I've pretty much addressed this question fully. But --

Q We're not getting a straight answer out of you.

MR. MCCLELLAN: The resolution -- and look back at the resolution; it spells out that Iraq continues to be in material breach and it spells out what constitutes further material breach. And a violation is a further material breach.

Q Will we demand a reconvening of the Security Council?

MR. MCCLELLAN: Again, this is getting into "ifs" and everything, all hypotheticals. It's very clear what he needs to do. This is about disarmament and this is a final opportunity for Saddam Hussein to disarm. If he chooses not to do so peacefully, then the United States is prepared to act, with our friends, to do so by force. And we will do so forcefully and swiftly and decisively, as the President has outlined. But the President continues to seek a peaceful resolution. War is a last resort.

<hr /></blockquote>

Going into Iraq just to change the regime would be illegal. The reason publicly given was disarmament, but it must be pretty obvious now that this was all about getting rid of Saddam and nothing to do with WMDs.
The US was going into Iraq, 'no matter what'. Anyway, how could Saddam disarm when he didnt have any weapons? /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif If that was the only way to stop the invasion then war was inevitable.


I think if the US had come to the UN with a proposal and not an ultimatum, the same objectives could have been achieved with the help of the UN and the situation in Iraq would be better today than it is.

Q

eg8r
06-17-2005, 02:59 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Here's the problem: Your quote:

"I understand what you are talking about now, but in the post it appeared that you were referring to the specific post you were replying to when you mentioned the insult."

Are you posting the part starting, "but in the post..." as one man's opinion or as a universal fact? If you posted it as a fact, then it's already been proven wrong. If you posted it as your opinion, then how about keeping it in the perspective as being just your opinion?

Is that too much to ask?
<hr /></blockquote> Your reply does not match the quote above it. I was stating there might be others that viewed your post the same as highsea and myself. That is a fact whether you like it or not. You have not proven it as false all that you proved was that it was misread, which certainly is not what this discussion is about.

eg8r

Fran Crimi
06-17-2005, 07:50 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Your reply does not match the quote above it. I was stating there might be others that viewed your post the same as highsea and myself. That is a fact whether you like it or not. You have not proven it as false all that you proved was that it was misread, which certainly is not what this discussion is about.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Ed, if you confuse the sequence of posts and responses you can come to just about any conclusion you want because none of it will make sense.

Starting with your post pointing out that others may have read my post: That was in direct response to my listing three names, correct? Is it not correct that the reason you wrote that was because by naming only three names, it appeared to you that I was focusing only on those people and possibly disregarding anyone else who may have read the post and not responded?

My response to you was to show you why I wrote those three names and that your assumption as to why I wrote them was wrong.

Now c'mon...how stupid would that be for me to act as if no one else read the post and may have interpreted it either your way or SPetty's way? Give me a little more credit than that.

Fran

Chopstick
06-17-2005, 08:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
How could they have been so sure and so wrong.
Q <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Politicians do say dumb things. They always will. The fact remains that if there was nothing there then why were the inspectors stopped. People are so busy reveling in the embarrassment of the arrogant Americans that they overlook something obvious. If we did not find them that means they are still out there and they are in the hands of people who will use them.

</font color>

eg8r
06-17-2005, 08:36 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Starting with your post pointing out that others may have read my post: That was in direct response to my listing three names, correct? Is it not correct that the reason you wrote that was because by naming only three names, it appeared to you that I was focusing only on those people and possibly disregarding anyone else who may have read the post and not responded?
<hr /></blockquote> Certainly. That is why I said you were limiting the scope.

[ QUOTE ]
Now c'mon...how stupid would that be for me to act as if no one else read the post and may have interpreted it either your way or SPetty's way? Give me a little more credit than that. <hr /></blockquote> I give you all the credit, this really is not so much about you as it would be for anyone reading the thread. I have found in the past it is best to be clear so that people are not left on their own to figure out what is meant. Things get twisted quite often when the post is not clear, which was the case in this thread when I mis-interpreted a reply of yours to highsea.

eg8r

Qtec
06-17-2005, 09:07 AM
[ QUOTE ]
"You guys are brutal with the insulting stuff going back and forth."

It was just a comment acknowledging that you and Qtec have a history of not being particularly friendly or congenial when responding to each other. She wasn't referring to any one particular comment that you made.<hr /></blockquote>

Firstly, although it can get 'brutal' at times[ the truth hurts /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif] I am not in the habit of insulting my fellow posters. I,m no angel , but I am sure if ever I did insult someone, I apologized for it, because that is never my intention.
Highsea and I have our different points of view[ thats all they are] but we also produce facts to back up our arguments. Thats called a debate not a slanging match. There is a difference.

In this case, [ F and H], the problem stems from a misunderstanding. Two people replying to each other but not talking about the same thing. Then of course another poster will jump in and make an issue out of a non-issue and off we go.

I certainly take no offence, ever. Its all good fun, right?

Qtec

Fran Crimi
06-17-2005, 09:28 AM
LOL! At what point during our exchange were you giving me all the credit? I must have missed that part.

Oh well...I think I'll end it on my end on that note. Thanks for the debate, or whatever it was that we just did. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fran

Chopstick
06-17-2005, 10:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
Firstly, although it can get 'brutal' at times[ the truth hurts /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif] I am not in the habit of insulting my fellow posters. I,m no angel , <font color="blue">Good, what this place needs is more evil IMO. </font color> but I am sure if ever I did insult someone, I apologized for it, because that is never my intention. <font color="blue">When I insult someone I always do it on purpose. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif </font color>

Highsea and I have our different points of view[ thats all they are] but we also produce facts to back up our arguments. Thats called a debate not a slanging match. There is a difference. <font color="blue">Is that slanging like slanging rocks at SPetty's chicken trees? </font color>

Then of course another poster will jump in and make an issue out of a non-issue and off we go. <font color="blue">That's our job, right? /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif </font color>

I certainly take no offence, ever. Its all good fun, right?

Qtec
<hr /></blockquote>

highsea
06-17-2005, 01:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>Highsea and I have our different points of view[ thats all they are] but we also produce facts to back up our arguments. Thats called a debate not a slanging match. There is a difference.<hr /></blockquote>I second that Q. While the discussions get heated from time to time, there is no personal animosity between us. When I have a point to make, I support it with facts, and when I post an opinion, I say it's my opinion. (example: Qtec, you are a left-wing moonbat, imo) Lol. The people commenting on this here don't realize that we have exchanged emails and pictures offline, etc, and if you ever get to Seattle, we will most certainly get together and tip a few back and play a couple sets. BTW, hope your head is better today. /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Anyway, back to the Downing Street Memo. You commented about "phase two". You should enjoy this, it's just about as silly as the Reps dragging Galloway in front of the Congress. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif [ QUOTE ]
Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War

By Dana Milbank

Friday, June 17, 2005; Page A06

In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe.

They pretended a small conference room was the Judiciary Committee hearing room, draping white linens over folding tables to make them look like witness tables and bringing in cardboard name tags and extra flags to make the whole thing look official.

Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) banged a large wooden gavel and got the other lawmakers to call him "Mr. Chairman." He liked that so much that he started calling himself "the chairman" and spouted other chairmanly phrases, such as "unanimous consent" and "without objection so ordered." The dress-up game looked realistic enough on C-SPAN, so two dozen more Democrats came downstairs to play along.

The session was a mock impeachment inquiry over the Iraq war. As luck would have it, all four of the witnesses agreed that President Bush lied to the nation and was guilty of high crimes -- and that a British memo on "fixed" intelligence that surfaced last month was the smoking gun equivalent to the Watergate tapes. Conyers was having so much fun that he ignored aides' entreaties to end the session.

"At the next hearing," he told his colleagues, "we could use a little subpoena power." That brought the house down.

As Conyers and his hearty band of playmates know, subpoena power and other perks of a real committee are but a fantasy unless Democrats can regain the majority in the House. But that's only one of the obstacles they're up against as they try to convince America that the "Downing Street Memo" is important.

A search of the congressional record yesterday found that of the 535 members of Congress, only one -- Conyers -- had mentioned the memo on the floor of either chamber. House Democratic leaders did not join in Conyers's session, and Senate Democrats, who have the power to hold such events in real committee rooms, have not troubled themselves.

The rest of the article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601570.html)
<hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
06-20-2005, 08:00 AM
IIRC, the inspections were on-going. Bush has stated so many times that S. H. threw the inspectors out, that it seems like a fact. It isn't. Inspections were underway. Inspectors were askiing for another month or so, but Bush wouldn't wait. Inspectors had addressed the U.N., and their opinion was that there were no WMD's. US intelligence information, of many fractions, was that there were no WMD's. Many from the C.I.A. resigned, or were forced out, because they either refused to fix intelligence, or were career men and women who were outraged over constant coercion from the President and his appointees to fix intelligence.

Many many books were written on this subject.

The Memo proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that George Bush intentionally mislead the Congress, the Senate, and the American people.

He was hellbent on going to war with Iraq, before 9/11. He then used 9/11 as a reason to invade, muddying up the waters with his Mushroom Cloud scare tactics and false intelligence, which he himself through pressure of advisors, and employees, fixed.

The truth is that he tried to stop the 9/11 investigation, even tried to stop money for the investigation.

It is illegal to do what he did. He did exactly what Nixon did only for different reasons. A president, is not above the law. It is a felony to intentionally lie or mislead the Senate and the Congress. This is the reason why some who originally voted for the war, then learned of the deceit, and voted against funding the war. They were then labeled as flip floppers.

The impact of the memo has much greater significance when one goes back and reads the statements which were made during those months by Bush, Rice, Cheney and Powell and Rumsfeld.

For a more thorough recollection of events, the documentary, Uncovered, The Truth About The War In Iraq

S.H. was evil. Something had to be done eventually about him. That doesn't make it right for a President to fix intelligence, and intentionally lie to the Senat and the Congress. Regardless of how he got us into this war, the handling of the Iraq invasion by HIS appointees, has been a disgrace. Many many of our young men and women have lost their lives or been maimed for life because of George Bush and the ineffective, disorganized, incomplete plan for invasion. It continues to this day,.... lies, disorganization, missuse of funds, war profiteering, mainly by Dick Cheney's Halliburton, and lack of proper strategy. This administration has blood on its hands.

Why don't the Bush twins enlist?

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
06-20-2005, 08:09 AM
It was proven that the Yellow Cake that S. H. was supposed to have gotten from Africa, was never aquired. Also, the aluminum tubes were not of the right weight to be used for WMD's. Any left over substances used for nerve gas, and other types of similar warfare, would have been long past their shelf date, 3 months. Powell knew this when he held up the famous vile at the U.N.

Gayle in Md.

Qtec
06-20-2005, 09:15 AM
G your posts are too long and you make too many points. If you want to pin the GOPs down you have to keep it simple. Otherwise , they will just wriggle out! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

For example, [I,m going to be eg8r.] /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

G
[ QUOTE ]
IIRC, the inspections were on-going. <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r; "What do you mean by on-going? Didnt Clinton..............................etc /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif"

Q

Gayle in MD
06-20-2005, 12:39 PM
Q, You are absolutely right!

Gayle

Gayle in MD
06-20-2005, 12:51 PM
Q,
You are absolutely right, again, LOL. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
06-21-2005, 04:19 AM
The Vienna Convention does not allow for regime change as a reason for Occupying a country. Regime change, is precisely why Bush invaded Iraq. The British were uneasy about defying the rules of the convention. Blair told Bush on his first visit to Texas, that he would support the war, but that Bush would have to find a way to make it legal to invade Iraq. This is why, Bush didn't want S.H. to let the inspectors back in. It is also why the Bush administration denies having pressured any C.I.A. or N.S.A. employees to fix intelligence regarding WMD's, and take it all back to the UN, in spite of the fact that no less than twenty books have been written which give evidence of the contrary, many by the actual employees who were pressured, and others by journalists, such as Bob Woodward, who have found the reverse to be true.

Gayle in Md.

Chopstick
06-21-2005, 05:25 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> G your posts are too long and you make too many points. If you want to pin the GOPs down you have to keep it simple. Otherwise , they will just wriggle out! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

For example, [I,m going to be eg8r.] /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

G
&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
IIRC, the inspections were on-going. <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r; "What do you mean by on-going? Didnt Clinton..............................etc /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif"

Q

<hr /></blockquote>

I can't really find the point. It seems to refer to a "Memo". I don't know what that is. If you show me where to research it I will go look it up.

Hey Q, here's something for ya. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v478/richardcranium/bush_borg.jpg

Chopstick
06-21-2005, 06:07 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> It was proven that the Yellow Cake that S. H. was supposed to have gotten from Africa, was never aquired. Also, the aluminum tubes were not of the right weight to be used for WMD's. Any left over substances used for nerve gas, and other types of similar warfare, would have been long past their shelf date, 3 months. Powell knew this when he held up the famous vile at the U.N.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue">
Well, I don't know about that, but I did read some of the inspectors reports. This is signed by Hans Blix dated 8 October 1997, document ID A/1997/779. This is an excerpt from page 15.</font color>

54. As a result of the IAEA's inspection activities, a technically coherent picture of Iraq's clandestine nuclear programme has evolved revealing a programme aimed at the production of an arsenal of nuclear weapons, based on
implosion technology, which had involved:

- Acquisition of non-weapon-usable nuclear material through indigenous production and through overt and covert foreign procurement.

- Research and development programmes into the full range of uranium enrichment technologies culminating in the industrialisation of EMIS and the demonstration of a proven prototype gas centrifuge.

- Development of metallurgical technologies necessary for the fabrication of the uranium components of a nuclear weapon.

- Research and development activities related to the production of plutonium, including laboratory-scale reprocessing of irradiated nuclear material and
reactor design studies.

- Development of nuclear weapon designs and weaponisation technologies for implosion devices and the establishment of industrial-scale facilities for their further development and production.

- Research and development activities related to the integration of a nuclear weapon with a missile delivery system.


<font color="blue">This is seven years after they were supposed to be disarmed and it was still going on. It is a clear cut and blantant violation of the Gulf War Armistice agreement. You have to wonder how this kind of thing was allowed to continue. Oh yea, we had a democrat for president.

</font color> International Atomic Energy Agency (http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/SV/Invo/factsheet.html)