5.28.2005
Downing Street Memo
Today. Today is the 27th day since the Times of London reported the existence of those secret memos, and the minutes of the meetings that we're not supposed to know about...that laid out the Bush plans for starting a war based on ABSOLUTE lies...
Why isn't the "liberal american media" reporting this story on day 27? On the front page of EVERY newspaper, and the lead of EVERY TV newscast? And why isn't the "liberal media" demanding the resignation of both Bush and Cheney?
No one in the British government has denied authenticity of the document. Bush has not answered properly for this.
Today. Today is the 27th day since the Times of London reported the existence of those secret memos, and the minutes of the meetings that we're not supposed to know about...that laid out the Bush plans for starting a war based on ABSOLUTE lies...
Why isn't the "liberal american media" reporting this story on day 27? On the front page of EVERY newspaper, and the lead of EVERY TV newscast? And why isn't the "liberal media" demanding the resignation of both Bush and Cheney?
No one in the British government has denied authenticity of the document. Bush has not answered properly for this.
< 21:03 >< /~ chad >
Comments:
For that matter, why isn't the liberal British media reporting this story or calling for resignations? Are you sure that the memos really are what you think they are?
Something I should have added before... Lack of denial of authenticity in itself is not proof of authenticity or, for that matter, proof of intent. I have read the memos (memo is an incorrect term for these things... minutes would be more accurate, but still leaves a lot to be desired), and even assuming they are authentic in that they are notes from a real meeting of people that actually took place, the text can be taken to mean many things. It is rather vague, and I think that is why you don't see more of an uproar about this (here or in the UK, and both for anti-bushies and pro-bushies) is that the text doesn't really say much and only generally implies things. Pretty shaky ground for any serious accusations.
yes the meeting minutes are not proof "beyond a reasonable doubt". However, if there was a possibility for them to be true, wouldn't you want to know it? When a British emissary returns to London after a meeting with our goverment proceeds to explain to Blair and associates that the US is set on invading Iraq, and fixing the facts to do so....
A YEAR before the invasion.
War Criminals & Bloody War Criminals. Say it with me. w-a-r c-r-i-m-i-n-a-l-s.
Good.
Evidence? Do you need evidence? I haven't needed any evidence since Woodrow Wilson.
www.lpmn.org
:)
chad's comment on war criminals made me think. I have a general knowledge of war criminals and laws of war and whatnot, but I didn't have any specific knowledge of what constitutes "war crime" as such. Interesting reading. The thing that struck me most was the realization that the term "war crime" can almost universally be applied to anyone in any military (and sometimes personal) conflict. Your average pimp? War criminal. Parents spanking their children? War criminals. Suicide bombers? War criminals. People who wave a truce flag and fight when the other side gets close? War criminals. Truman? Definitely a war criminal. Also the same guy who saved millions of lives (ours and our enemies) through his war crime. It is a very vague, subjective accusation. Sometimes it is obviously right (Hussein, Hitler, Milosevic, et al.), but it is far too easily bandied about.
As for the US being set on invading Iraq before the invasion, I think that much is obvious. I just think that they had their information wrong about WMD.
I also thought this was an interesting little factoid.
Please don't misunderstand... I am NOT part of the french-are-a-bunch-of-cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys, freedom-fries and they-would-be-speaking-german-right-now crowd. It is just a funny tidbit in light of that: The french flag was originally white, like a surrender flag, but was later changed to a fleur-de-lys and then to the tricolore. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_truce
Post a Comment
<< Home
< /
j >
j >For that matter, why isn't the liberal British media reporting this story or calling for resignations? Are you sure that the memos really are what you think they are?
< / j >
j >Something I should have added before... Lack of denial of authenticity in itself is not proof of authenticity or, for that matter, proof of intent. I have read the memos (memo is an incorrect term for these things... minutes would be more accurate, but still leaves a lot to be desired), and even assuming they are authentic in that they are notes from a real meeting of people that actually took place, the text can be taken to mean many things. It is rather vague, and I think that is why you don't see more of an uproar about this (here or in the UK, and both for anti-bushies and pro-bushies) is that the text doesn't really say much and only generally implies things. Pretty shaky ground for any serious accusations.
< / ~ chad >
~ chad >yes the meeting minutes are not proof "beyond a reasonable doubt". However, if there was a possibility for them to be true, wouldn't you want to know it? When a British emissary returns to London after a meeting with our goverment proceeds to explain to Blair and associates that the US is set on invading Iraq, and fixing the facts to do so....
A YEAR before the invasion.
War Criminals & Bloody War Criminals. Say it with me. w-a-r c-r-i-m-i-n-a-l-s.
Good.
< / Lee >
Lee >Evidence? Do you need evidence? I haven't needed any evidence since Woodrow Wilson.
www.lpmn.org
:)
< / j >
j >chad's comment on war criminals made me think. I have a general knowledge of war criminals and laws of war and whatnot, but I didn't have any specific knowledge of what constitutes "war crime" as such. Interesting reading. The thing that struck me most was the realization that the term "war crime" can almost universally be applied to anyone in any military (and sometimes personal) conflict. Your average pimp? War criminal. Parents spanking their children? War criminals. Suicide bombers? War criminals. People who wave a truce flag and fight when the other side gets close? War criminals. Truman? Definitely a war criminal. Also the same guy who saved millions of lives (ours and our enemies) through his war crime. It is a very vague, subjective accusation. Sometimes it is obviously right (Hussein, Hitler, Milosevic, et al.), but it is far too easily bandied about.
As for the US being set on invading Iraq before the invasion, I think that much is obvious. I just think that they had their information wrong about WMD.
I also thought this was an interesting little factoid.
Please don't misunderstand... I am NOT part of the french-are-a-bunch-of-cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys, freedom-fries and they-would-be-speaking-german-right-now crowd. It is just a funny tidbit in light of that: The french flag was originally white, like a surrender flag, but was later changed to a fleur-de-lys and then to the tricolore. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_truce
<< Home
