Downing Street Minutes

[Aljah]

Below is a link to where you can read for yourself what is stated in "The Downing Street Minutes"

http://downingstreetmemo.com/

Have fun and good gaming...

Aljah

[Ciel]

I read it a while ago, and I can't say I was suprised. I'm glad that the truth has finally been brought out intothe open.

[Nelsieus]

Bah, it's mere garbage, in my opinion at least. People buy into that "We were misled! We demand truth!", so I'm not surprised at these claims at all.

Everyone seems to be so focussed on proving that there's information that us, the U.S. public, are not being told, so they are digging further and further, and beginning to make something out of nothing.

I'm not saying that it's fine, or that it's acceptable to be shady or deceitful, because it's not. But when it comes to the war, people try to sidetrack and exagerate the fact of not finding out certain things. They interpret not being given a piece of information as being "misleading," and they assume that they were misled to hide or cover something up. As a result, they get the impression that we are in Iraq for the wrong reasons.

But what are wrong reasons and right reasons? That boundary seems to be very vague, atleast it does to me anyways. In my opinion, total chaos, unfair dictatorship, people suffering and dying, constant war, and unsafe cities seem to be the right reason to be there.

But apparently, many others disagree. They simply cannot overlook the fact that yes, finding weapons of mass destruction was the intial cause of invading the country. But to me, that seems cold and very uncivil. To say "Their was no weapons of mass destruction, so leave all the people there to fend for themselves!!"

As for the claim that the government did not believe Iraq was a greater threat than other nations.....uh duh! Iraq is just one chaotic country in an entire chaotic continent. Are you expecting the U.S to invade Asia?! I mean, I'm no professional war analyist, but it doesn't take one to realize our involvment in Iraq is a message to all other surrounding countries.

I sincerely hope I'm not offending anyone. I am simply posting my comments and opinions, and I would love to hear more regarding this.

[Aljah]

I appreciate your oppinion. But the severity of this memo lies in the date it was issued in Tony Blairs office...Date: 23 July 2002 this is 5 months prior to President Bush having been given any authority to enter into any war plans by the US Congress. According to this memo he had already decided to ....

"remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD”

seems plain enough but the minutes have a caveat

“But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”

If you didn't read this last part it means that President Bush's policy was... we were going to WAR. More than that he was fixing (You can replace this word with lieing if you want or another euphamism would be ...rigging) intelligence and facts to suit that policy, which in translation means he was contrieving a reason to go to war, which he presented to Congress as fact. According to constitutional law if this is true....then this is conspiracy of the President, his cabinet and possibly other major governmental officials and is technically treason. For a President to lie to Congress is an impeachable offense.

After 9-11 and having been in the World Trade Center that day I was originally for the war with Iraq. I supported Bush in that endeavor because of WMD's argument and that our intelligence community said they were so sure he had them. I was confused when Bush prematurely refused to believe the UN weapons inspector reports and went ahead preparing for war. That was when I first started to feel something wasn't quite right.

So in light of the "Downing Street Minutes" I as an American feel that perhaps I have been lied too... and my president is accountable to me for his actions...and the actions of his cabinet. I mean after all we conducted impeachment proceeding against President Clinton for lieing to a judge about getting a Blow-job in the oval office...I think 1708 servicemens lives, 10,800 maimed servicemen and their families that have suffered loss deserve the same consideration.

IMO To discount this and marginalize something of this potential magnitude is to be quite frankly...un-democratic and filled with "Imperial hubris."

btw "Imperial Hubris" is an excellent book on why we are losing the war on terrorism.

Aljah

[Aljah]

In my opinion, total chaos, unfair dictatorship, people suffering and dying, constant war, and unsafe cities seem to be the right reason to be there...
"Their was no weapons of mass destruction, so leave all the people there to fend for themselves!!"

This is what we have done with every African country in the last 5 years that is undergoing civil war...why enter into Iraq if we are not going to enter every country with a dictator that kills his own people?...why there and not other places?....Why don't we take on the Chinese governemnt for the torture of of hundreds of thousands of falun gong followers? One of which is a teacher of mine who is currently still in a reacclimation camp in China for talking to a foriegn correspondent about the falun gong oppression in China. She has been repeatedly raped and has since denounced falun gong. Such is the brutality of the communist chinese government. BTW she is a US resident and her husband an American citizen living in New York. The US government did little to help her.

We can't help everyone and nor should my tax dolars be used to do so...

nation building as a part of Foriegn policy of the United States has a history and track record of failure. We should learn from that history and alter our future accordingly.

Organizations such as the "Project for the New American Century" that state in their mission staements that they are for nation building of democratic nations throughout the middle east by use of strategic military application (politic way of saying military force). Are nothing more than organizations that are trying to imperialize America. If we aren't already there in the first place.

Aljah

[Aljah]

BTW... not flaming you Ath... discussion seems cool..I hope I have not said anything so far that you take as a slight or as a personal attck ..I am not intending that.. we all will have various oppinions on the subject... hence our yahoo in the US is not yet censored ....(yahoo in China is censored so that the word democracy cannot be yahooed)....what a funny world...:D

Aljah

[Formless]

Regardless of whether this is true or not, I think Blair and Bush wereperfectly justified, in removing Saddam from the picture. A friend of mine is Iraqi and two members of his family were apparently arrested by Saddam, but fled to England. On what charges? Absolutely Nothing, other than speaking their mind.

[Nelsieus]

Ajah, I completely value your thoughts and opinions, and I do understand your feelings. As an American, I too, consider the fact that somehow in the past few years, our president - the person who is supposed to lead our country and be the greatest citizen of all - has kept certain things from me, and the rest of the country. So I do understand your concerns regarding the issue.

More than that he was fixing (You can replace this word with lieing if you want or another euphamism would be ...rigging) intelligence and facts to suit that policy, which in translation means he was contrieving a reason to go to war, which he presented to Congress as fact. According to constitutional law if this is true....then this is conspiracy of the President, his cabinet and possibly other major governmental officials and is technically treason. For a President to lie to Congress is an impeachable offense.
I don't necissarily believe that the president *lied* to congress. First off, Congress isn't stupid. If they had been lied to, I'm sure they would have impeached him. But since the President has not been impeached, as of now, then I think this shows that maybe what some people are considering "lies" really aren't lies at all.
Next off, why would Bush *want* to go to war, and go so far as to *lie*, and tamper with intelligence to convince Congress to agree. Knowing now what I do about Iraq, if I was presented with facts about the country, I would consider invading it, as well, and it wouldn't take lies to convince me. So why would Bush even have to lie? Well, in my opinion, he wouldn't; just a mere explanation of the chaos and tyranny residing in the country, and I would be interested in its threat, just as Bush and Congress had appeared to be, as well.

After 9-11 and having been in the World Trade Center that day I was originally for the war with Iraq. I supported Bush in that endeavor because of WMD's argument and that our intelligence community said they were so sure he had them. I was confused when Bush prematurely refused to believe the UN weapons inspector reports and went ahead preparing for war. That was when I first started to feel something wasn't quite right.
Bush obviously didn't feel like the UN Inspector was 100% accurate. And rather than being sorry than safe, he decided to take matters in his own hand, to better ensure the safety of our country.

So in light of the "Downing Street Minutes" I as an American feel that perhaps I have been lied too... and my president is accountable to me for his actions...and the actions of his cabinet. I mean after all we conducted impeachment proceeding against President Clinton for lieing to a judge about getting a Blow-job in the oval office...I think 1708 servicemens lives, 10,800 maimed servicemen and their families that have suffered loss deserve the same consideration.
So many people forget why we are fighting! Why impeach a president who is ensuring the safety of out country by eliminating the tyranny and chaos that had affected us on 9-11.
The reason we impeached President Clinton wasn't because he had sex with another woman; it was because that other woman happened to be an intern. That was an actual, concrete rule that Clinton had vowed to never commit when he was inaugurated.
But there are no rules that claim you cannot try to defend your counrty, or invade another counrty if it raises continual threat.

why enter into Iraq if we are not going to enter every country with a dictator that kills his own people?...why there and not other places?.
We're in Afghanitstan, too! But you won't here about it because it makes sense, whereas Iraq causes much more controversy (for the same reason we're discussing). And we all know how the media likes controversy. But we are, indeed, in Afghanistan, doing the same work we are doing in Iraq.

It is not our intention to invade all of Asia, because how bad would that look? But by doing one small country at a time, we are guaranteed a more successful result in the end. Not to mention, how could we invade all of Asia? By doing one country at a time, not only are we showing the rest of the area the possibilities of democracy and the consequences for unfair justice, but in the future, when we do invade another dictatorship country, Iraq may be so completly fixed that they will be an ally, thus making it easier to handle other parts of Asia.

Why don't we take on the Chinese governemnt for the torture of of hundreds of thousands of falun gong followers? One of which is a teacher of mine who is currently still in a reacclimation camp in China for talking to a foriegn correspondent about the falun gong oppression in China. She has been repeatedly raped and has since denounced falun gong. Such is the brutality of the communist chinese government.
Because that is for China to handle. We cannot be there for every country, holding their hand everytime they have a civil war. We have our own problems. Also, not to sound cold and harsh, but Falun Gong followers aren't a threat to me or my nation, atleast in my opinion. That problem is strictly associated with China, and so it is up to China to deal with it effectively.

We can't help everyone and nor should my tax dolars be used to do so...
I totally agree. It is up to the countries' governement to handle their own problems. But Iraq didn't even have a government, and they were a threat to mine. That's when I decide to start being concerned with them to prevent another 9/11.

BTW... not flaming you Ath... discussion seems cool..I hope I have not said anything so far that you take as a slight or as a personal attck ..I am not intending that.. we all will have various oppinions on the subject... hence our yahoo in the US is not yet censored
Definately, this is a friendly debate. It's nice to share our thoughts and concerns, and it the words of some guy in a commercial ad to Tennesee, "It's all good." lol :p

[MaTT2011]

I totally agree. It is up to the countries' governement to handle their own problems. But Iraq didn't even have a government, and they were a threat to mine. That's when I decide to start being concerned with them to prevent another 9/11.

Iraq did have a Gov, a very badly ran and evil one. But how were they a threat to america if you claim they didnt have a government or if it was a very badly ran gov? There has been no justifiable link with the government of IraQ and the terrorists responsible for 9/11, if there had been we would all know and that would be the #1 reason for such an invasion and we would also know the details and the evidence for this link, sadly it is not there. Now IraQ is brimming with terrorists because they know that thats were they can do the most damage as of right now, we set up a scenario in which terrorism can and has flourished.

Iraq was not a threat to the U.S. No WMD's and No 9/11 links. I still have yet to see the reason why we are in Iraq, at this point it doesnt really matter because we keep making things up after the fact, such as that we are spreading democracy.......by force.

so what is the reason we are there....im still searching. I want to believe we are there for a good reason but sadly no one has given me such a reason.

[Nelsieus]

Iraq did have a Gov, a very badly ran and evil one.
Exactly. And what kind of influence do you think this had on the surrounding countries?

But how were they a threat to america if you claim they didnt have a government or if it was a very badly ran gov?
With no government, they have no order. And with no order prevails chaos. Individual citizens able to make their own weapons or explosives...and you know how much Iraq hates America. It would be a matter of time before another 9/11 happened, and you can't deny that.

There has been no justifiable link with the government of IraQ and the terrorists responsible for 9/11
Correct, but I'm not saying it was the country of Iraq who is responsible for 9/11. The country of Iraq is capable of 9/11, though, and I wouldn't want them to be ignored simply because we have no hard evidence it was them who in fact commited the terrorist actions against us, the United States.

Now IraQ is brimming with terrorists because they know that thats were they can do the most damage as of right now, we set up a scenario in which terrorism can and has flourished.
After hearing from my cousin who was in Iraq a few months ago with the army, I can say that your statement is indeed correct. But I would hope the U.S. wouldn't give up and immediatly leave the country because of this. You have to realize, this is a war; you can't expect the other side to not put up a fight.

Iraq was not a threat to the U.S. No WMD's and No 9/11 links.
Again, we may have no proof that they were responsible back on 9/11, but we were positive that Iraq was capable of creating another devastating blow to the U.S., and we weren't going to sit back and wait for their unwanted arrival before we began deciding how to deal with it.

such as that we are spreading democracy.......by force.
Personally, I'd rather have democracy than another World War 2, even if democracy be forced upon.

so what is the reason we are there....im still searching. I want to believe we are there for a good reason but sadly no one has given me such a reason.
Well, if you could go back in time and see how things were, and then look to see how things appear in about a couple years, there is no doubt in my mind you will see a significant difference...a difference for the better.

[Formless]

Ok I am pondering over whether to close this or not. Because Bush flame wars are endless. Trust me I know from wow.strat ;)

[Aljah]

ath,

I believe I diverted this conversation a slight bit so in order to stay on point I want to clarify....the issue is the Downing Street minutes and the possibility that they point to a premeditated choice on the part of the president to use his executive power to deliberately misrepresent facts.

As the 9-11 commision has stated repeatedly in their investigation ....Saddam had no hand in the 9-11 attacks. As the UN weapons inspectors stated multiple times again and again... They had no weapons of mass destruction. What you have stated is that is the President wasn't 100% sure then he had a right to pre-emptively use force and invade another country....that is like saying I can invade your house and double check even though I have been told by authorities that you did not have a bomb in your house....So I believe your logic is faulty here.

As far the Iraq being ruled by a despot... well America refuses to enter other countries because they are run by despots. Why did we enter Iraq? Why them over North Korea who does have Weapons of Mass destruction and is actively producing more and launching test missiles into korean waters? Seems to me they pose a far greater threat to the stability of this world than did Iraq. The Chinese even agree with this.

In conjunction with the fact that Iraq was and had been contained via the NO-FLY zone at astronomically less cost than the current Iraq wars 4-8 Billion dolars per week. (This coming week US congrees is being asked to approve another 80 Billion dollars)... An increase that is in excess of last years budgetary allowance for the war...and ask your self for what...?

not 1 single weapon of mass destruction.

I do think the Downing Street Minutes are in need of being investigated thouroughly. That President Bush needs to acknowledge the issue and answrer the querstions that are being asked. Not dismiss the issue through Scott McClellan press conferences as Mr. McClellan did yesterday.

If it is the case that this document shows he had fix intelligence data to authorize the Iraq was then yes he lied to congress .... again... an impeachable offense ... and by constitutional law ...treason.

it was because that other woman happened to be an intern. That was an actual, concrete rule that Clinton had vowed to never commit when he was inaugurated.

As for President Clinton's impeachment ....the issue was not that he had sex with an intern and the immorality of that issue...the impeachable offense was whetrher he lied to a federal judge about having had sex with the intern... on this issue you are dead wrong.

So if his lieing results in a impeachment then so I maintain the implication of President Bush having altered intelligence facts to suit his policy of going to war to sway Congress via the Downing Street Minutes deserve as close a scrutiny as does gizz on a dress in the oval office. :D

Anyway...I must say Ath... I appreciate your defense and steadfastness and would not want to be in a fox hole with no other than someone that holds steadfastly to loyalty as you do...I admire it...My alliegance is not to a president nor to a party... I have sworn my alliegience to no man... I have only sworn alliegience to uphold the US Constitution on several occaiosions that is the difference between our loyalties...Men are all with faults. But so far I have found few in that document that makes this country the greatest country in the world. In fact everytime i read the US Constitution which is a fairly regular event for me ....even more these days... I find the founding fathers were amazing individuals to have pulled it off.

nonetheless ...good debate.. :D

Aljah

[Aljah]

Ok I am pondering over whether to close this or not. Because Bush flame wars are endless. Trust me I know from wow.strat ;)

Yeah I can see your reservation but it seems all parties have kept it respectful, civil, polite... even complmentary on occaision.

I don't think any of us are under any illusions of granduer either...Perhaps we should just let it subside on its own...

Aljah

[Nelsieus]

As the 9-11 commision has stated repeatedly in their investigation ....Saddam had no hand in the 9-11 attacks.
Let's look at the big picture. No, Saddam may have had no hand in the 9/11 attacks, *but* let's take a moment to see what other reason we would be interested in his capture. Could it be his unfair dictatorship? Could it be the fact that he was an evil leader and possessed enough power to create a devastating world event? Could it be he was closely being compared to Adolf Hittler during Nazi Germany, and shared many simmilarities to him, as well? Could it be he was an evil man, who spread evil and torture to his innocent people? Could it be his infamous hate towards America and its citizens? Could it be the intentions he may have had regarding Amercia and U.S citizens? But that doesn't matter, right? Because the 9-11 commision didn't claim this. But why would they if he had no involvement with 9-11? The 9-11 commision isn't supposed to track down all of the dangerous threats that face our country.

As the UN weapons inspectors stated multiple times again and again... They had no weapons of mass destruction. What you have stated is that is the President wasn't 100% sure then he had a right to pre-emptively use force and invade another country
There was no weapons of mass destruction? Then why is their mass destruction in the country every day? Car bombings, people bombs, explosives, etc... If there was no war, I fear to think that all of that destruction going on in Iraq would happen here, in our home U.S, instead. And why wouldn't it?! Iraqi people hate our country. In my opinion, it's the intent the evil Iraqi's had, not what they commited in the past, as to why we are even there.

I'm positive, and the president has even stated he was positive that invading Iraq was the right choice. I can keep saying without invading Iraq, our country would greatly be threatnened by its tyranny and terrorism, but as I said before, it means nothing because we're being misled, right?

that is like saying I can invade your house and double check even though I have been told by authorities that you did not have a bomb in your house....So I believe your logic is faulty here.
No, it's more like I'm torturing, let's say your family, and I am threatning to kill you and blow up your house because I dislike you so much. On top of that, I'm evil and capable of killing you and blowing up your house. Now, don't you think you deserve for the issue to be resolved, even it be by force? Or would you simply like to sit back and say, "oh, well, atleast they found no weapons." I would sure hope the president didn't say that about our country.

Why them over North Korea who does have Weapons of Mass destruction and is actively producing more and launching test missiles into korean waters? Seems to me they pose a far greater threat to the stability of this world than did Iraq
Yes, I totally agree with you. But if we're going to play that game, then why doesn't the United States just take over every country to best ensure we never have any problems with them?

I do think the Downing Street Minutes are in need of being investigated thouroughly. That President Bush needs to acknowledge the issue and answrer the querstions that are being asked. Not dismiss the issue through Scott McClellan press conferences as Mr. McClellan did yesterday.
I agree.

As for President Clinton's impeachment ....the issue was not that he had sex with an intern and the immorality of that issue...
I said nothing about the immorality if it, because like you said, that's not an impeachable offense. However because she was an intern is part of the reason he was impeached. If she wasn't an intern, he would have never been questioned by a judge in the first place, and he wouldn't have had to lie. So I'm sorry, but I don't feel I was "dead" wrong.

So if his lieing results in a impeachment then so I maintain the implication of President Bush having altered intelligence facts to suit his policy of going to war to sway Congress via the Downing Street Minutes deserve as close a scrutiny as does gizz on a dress in the oval office.
I can assure you, the president didn't *lie* to congress. He may have over-embellished some aspects of the situation, as well as exagerated a bit, but to say he "lied" is just dead wrong. Saying Iraq is dangerous isn't a lie. Saying Iraq causes a threat to the U.S isn't a lie. Saying Iraq is capable of causing damage to the U.S. isn't a lie. So with that being said, why wouldn't we pose an interest in the country?

My alliegance is not to a president nor to a party... I have sworn my alliegience to no man... I have only sworn alliegience to uphold the US Constitution on several occaiosions that is the difference between our loyalties...Men are all with faults. But so far I have found few in that document that makes this country the greatest country in the world. In fact everytime i read the US Constitution which is a fairly regular event for me ....even more these days... I find the founding fathers were amazing individuals to have pulled it off.
Again, I agree. It's phenomenal to think how successfull our country has become, and to consider how young we still are. :)

Ok I am pondering over whether to close this or not. Because Bush flame wars are endless. Trust me I know from wow.strat
I'm sorry, but we are posting our opinions in a mature manner, and I have seen no flamming of the president. If you want to see flaming, go to the official WoW boards...lol. :p

[Aljah]

I can assure you, no you can't...unless you have sat on his cabinet for the past 4 years and a couple months you can't assure me of anything. And if you are on his cabinet and are volunteering for Azzor.com well I am honored but...shouldn't you be doing something more important?

the president didn't *lie* to congress. He may have over-embellished some aspects of the situation, as well as exagerated a bit, but to say he "lied" is just dead wrong.

Embellish from the websters dictionary: "To improve (a Story) by adding details, often of a ficticious kind; to touch up"

Ficticious from Websters= " Counterfeit, False, imaginary , not real"

False from Websters= " untruthful, Deceitful, made or assumed for the purpose of deception," syn= "Dishonorable"

Stop making excsuses for the president let him answer for himself.

President Clinton's Impeachment: was because he lied to a federal Judge. not because he slept with an intern... dude you got to get this fact straight...because no amount of repeating this is gonna make your version truth...

Aljah

[Nelsieus]

no you can't...unless you have sat on his cabinet for the past 4 years and a couple months you can't assure me of anything.
I can assure you there's more to the story than what "Downing Street Minutes" is claiming...but that's just my opinion, atleast.

And why do you try to put all of this blame on the president. I can also assure you there's more going into the invasion on Iraq than just the what the president issues.

And you say the president lied to congress and that is why we are at war? Well then dude, quite frankly you need to be blaming congress for not further investigating the president's so called "lies" and claims...I mean it is there job. If they had done so and found out the president was lying, we wouldn't be in Iraq in the first place at all, I can assure you.

President Clinton's Impeachment: was because he lied to a federal Judge. not because he slept with an intern...
Okay, then tell me why the federal judge even brought up the subject of Clinton sleeping with an intern if it wasn't an impeachable offense?...Do you get what I'm saying? It's like the topic on what came first; the chicken or the egg?

[Aljah]

People sleep with interns all the time mate...sleeping with a intern isn't considered in itself a federal offense..lieing to a federal judge is..the lie is what the impeachment in clintons case was about. ...the lie.

As for the rest of the matter: I can see that by the previous post you are getting a bit annoyed and this is not where I want to go.. so this is my last post on this topic.

Aljah

[Nelsieus]

People sleep with interns all the time mate...sleeping with a intern isn't considered in itself a federal offense..lieing to a federal judge is..the lie is what the impeachment in clintons case was about. ...the lie.
Heh, let's just say he made a mistake. ;)


As for the rest of the matter: I can see that by the previous post you are getting a bit annoyed and this is not where I want to go.. so this is my last post on this topic.
Hmm, I'm sorry if you mis-interpreted my thoughts and opinions. To be honest, this really isn't a topic I'm that deeply passionate about. I just do it for the fun of getting to have a friendly discussion and debate where I can talk to other intelligent people about issues that are of interest. And why should I get annoyed; you're entitled to your opinion as much as I am.

Lol, dude, it would take a lot to get me annoyed on a message board. Maybe in real life, but this is just the internet. :cool:

[Tunari_The_predator]

The middle eastern party is here.

Ever asked yourself why america is being attacked by "terrorism"? its because they butt in other people's family matters. Iraq was powerful on the middle eastern scale, but never even showed offensive actions towards the US. But Iraq has always been a threat to Israel, and a major one too.

the thing I totally support america doing is removing saddam, given that he is not america's ally(if he was, then that is another matter), because he is the most terrible man ever to exist, also the smartest and dumbest ever. i have countless iraqi friends, and they all support my oppinion, but nonetheless don't like america's bieng in iraq.

Why would any iraqi be loyal to saddam after his fall? that means that the insurgents are not loyal to saddam, its irrational to be so.

As for the muslim terrorists that attack civilians(9/11), these guys have probably bieng supported by some intellegence agency. because it is written in the Quran and in the prophet's sunnah, that anyone that attacks unarmed civilians is considered murder, and therefore labeled Murtad/kaffer(infidel).

so, ever thought what will happen if america won't go to any other country? or support the enemy of anyone(israel). why can't america be neutral and let the UN do its job?

Also note that I admire ath and aljah, i wish i can be concerned about my country like you are. I have lived in UAE all my life, and therefore i have no reason to feel nationalistic towards neither syria or UAE. I am a, uh, freelancer.