Dubious Democracy
Topic: State Of The Union
The American people should be watching. They should want to know if members of the Republican party are capable of dealing with the truth even though it may go against their partisan inclinations. The Downing Street memo raises serious question about a sitting President LYING to the American people about his intentions for war. The Downing memo also raises questions of this President LYING to the United States Congress. If the President can be shown to have lied and had the lie been discovered prior to our engagement in Iraq than this President should have only faced censure. Sadly, this lie has directly led to the deaths of thousands of people. Congress might not have voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq had they been aware that this President already had made up his mind to take this country to war.

Some have chalked up the President's intentions to a simple matter of politics i.e. planning for political contingencies. An objective and non-partisan analysis should reveal that if these allegations are in fact true they would be the most deplorable actions a President could ever take and would be no less than depraved, grotesque and disloyal to the values and laws of this country in using our Congress and our troops in an endeavor which has destoyed thousands of lives based upon false pretenses.

Logic dictates that if this President had already made up his mind to go to war and willing to lie to our nation to do so, the facts used to justify the war were of no importance. It just had to be marketable to the American people. If we can assume that the President knew that Iraq possessed no WMD and had no connections to Al-Queda, like the experts were claiming before the invasion, then the question that we may never find an answer to is what is the real reason or reasons that we went to war? Was it oil? Strategic positioning for a future war against Iran? Payback to campaign contributors? Familial retribution? We may never know but the Downing Street memo raises the issue that this President did not care about the facts so long as the end result was war.

That leaves our soldiers in a incredibly difficult situation. The problem is with the oath that every soldier must make,

"I,____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God"

According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice every soldier must obey LAWFUL orders of their superiors including the Commander-in-Chief. The internal conflict within the soldier that the Downing Street memo could raise is if President George W. Bush did in fact lie us into war violating the constitution and international law. If that did in fact occur our soldiers would be under no obligation to follow his illegal orders. Imagine 150,000 armed troops realizing that not only do they not have to follow the illegal orders of this Commander-in-Chief but that over 1700 of their brothers and sisters have died for a lie.

Is the memo in and of itself reason for impeachment? Absolutely not but it does leave us asking some very serious questions that MUST be resolved. Depending upon the answers to these questions the President of the United States may be impeached. That point is well off. First, questions must be asked of the principals in hearings by the Congress. Questions to Sir Richard Dearlove, Jack Straw and Matthew Rycroft who are responsible for the content of the memo. Questions like do you dispute the minutes contained within the memo? Who did you meet with in the U.S.? When did you meet? What was discussed? Were you told that this President wanted to go to war with Iraq? Was an ultimatum issued to Iraq so that war could be legally justified? Was any other nation brought into the discussions about Iraq prior to the U.N. resolution? Who ordered the escalation of the bombing of Iraq prior to the start of the war and the U.N. resolution, to the point of dropping twice as many bombs as the previous year in a matter of months? How was this legally justified? Was intelligence being presented to the American people, the United Nations and Congress knowingly false or inflated to justify war? Is it known whether or not this administration was intent upon war despite the reality of the situation?

These questions must be asked of the highest members of our government. Failure to ask them goes way beyond partisan control and goes directly the heart of our democracy. If the Republicans cannot rise above what's good for their party for the greater good of the United States of America this experiment known as democracy is frankly headed towards failure.

The Winds Of Change
Topic: Iraq
There has been talk by some members of the mainstream media that the Downing Street memo is a rehash of ancient history. This couldn't be farther from the truth. Bob Woodward, Joseph Wilson, Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill were all targets of this administration after questioning its motivations in its push to an illegal war with Iraq. The Bush administration either attempted to assassinate their characters, claimed that they had an ulterior motive like a book to sell, or that they were just plain wrong, but that's history. The Downing Street memo raises new questions based on new evidence.

Revelations about our President from the upper echelon of the Bush administration itself, in a highly top secret and not politically motivated meeting taking place in another country is a major revelation. And the fact of the matter is that most average citizens aren't even aware of the memo's contents or that it exists because it has been discarded by the perogative of the media before the discussion has been allowed to begin.

I have just one thing to say to the mainstream media that is choosing not to cover this major political event that, if proven out, should lead to the impeachment of this President in an unprecedented way,

UP YOURS!

We're going to do this ourselves, the bloggers that is; the little people. We are going to push these questions whether or not you do it.

You're either with us or against us!

There are millions of examples throughout history of institutions that have failed to understand the power of the will of people for change and in the process the change that ultimately occurred was the destruction of the inflexible institution. So I say to you goodbye if you aren't willing to do your job. This means goodbye to you New York Times, LA Times, USA Today, Newsweek, CNN, CBS, MS-NBC etc. Either get off your ass and do the necessary work or face extinction at the hands of people like me because while me and my friends don't have nearly the resources as your corporations we have the will and your standing rigidly in the winds of change.

Downing Street Memo Hearing
Topic: State Of The Union
On C-Span 3 right now (2:30 P.M. - 4:30 P.M.)(Click Right Hand side under C-Span 3)

Downing Street Memo Hearing

Schiavo: The Final Chapter
Topic: Misc.
I never wanted to weigh in on the Schiavo case at all. I eventually did because the Republican's behavior was so self-righteously horrendous, judgmental, meddling, anti-American and downright scary that I felt compelled. Their behavior demonstrated how the Republican party is now being controlled by extreme religious demagogues who only believe in their strict interpretation of the Bible and who abhor science and forsake facts when and where it suits them.

The autopsy of Terri Schiavo has been finalized and these are the results,

- The autopsy found that her brain was so severely damaged that no amount of therapy would have helped to regenerate it

- "She would not have been able to form any cognitive thought"

- "There was a massive loss of brain tissue."

- Schiavo died of dehydration and did not starve to death

- Any fractures could be attributed to severe osteoporosis Schiavo suffered during the years after her collapse

- Schiavo could not have swallowed if she had been fed by mouth and would have choked

- Removal of her feeding tube would have resulted in her death, whether she was fed and hydrated by mouth or not

- No evidence to support allegations that Schiavo had been given poison by her husband

(Read more here, Schiavo had irreversible brain damage-autopsy)

I'm not going to harp on being right again or shove things like "I told you so" down your throat, after all this is a human tragedy exacerbated by the Republican party and making such comments would make my actions no better than theirs. As for those of you who were politically motivated in trying to deceive people into believing that this was the decision of liberals, when in fact the repeated decisions were made by a Christian conservative judge, the Florida Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court, I have just one thing to say to you:

Had you left this as a personal decision to be made by a loving husband you wouldn't look like the cold-hearted ignorant fools that you do right now.

---

Keep this philosophy in mind the next time you either hear or are about to repeat a rumor.

In ancient Greece, Socrates (469 - 399 BC) was widely lauded for his wisdom.

One day the great philosopher came upon an acquaintance who ran up to him excitedly and said, "Socrates, do you know what I just heard about one of your students?"

"Wait a moment," Socrates replied. "Before you tell me I'd like you to pass a little test. It's called the Test of Three."

"Three?"

"That's right, Socrates continued. "Before you talk to me about my student let's take a moment to test what you're going to say. The first test is Truth. Have you made absolutely sure that what you are about to tell me is true?"

No," the man said, "actually I just heard about it." "All right," said Socrates. "So you don't really know if it's true or not.

Now let's try the second test, the test of Goodness. Is what you are about to tell me about my student something good?"

"No, on the contrary..."

"So," Socrates continued, "you want to tell me something bad about him even though you're not certain it's true?"

The man shrugged, a little embarrassed.

Socrates continued. "You may still pass though, because there is a third test - the filter of Usefulness. Is what you want to tell me about my student going to be useful to me?"

No, not really..."

"Well," concluded Socrates, "if what you want to tell me is neither True nor Good nor even Useful, why tell it to me at all?"

The man was defeated and ashamed.

This is the reason Socrates was a great philosopher and held in such high esteem.

It also explains why he never found out that Plato was banging his wife.

The New Pearl Harbor
Topic: State Of The Union
Check out the first clip on this page, The Project For The New American Century. While you're at it check out all the clips. These clips show the dangerously violent and ignorant men that are shaping our foreign policy.

"Hijacking Catastrophe" demonstrates that the Downing Street Memo isn't a "smoking gun" at all but rather an obvious byproduct of the mental masturbation that these clowns have been fantasizing about well before 9/11 and it's about damn time the American public knew that their government has sold them a deadly bill of goods.

P.S. I watched "Hijacking Catastrophe" on LinkTV and it is one powerful documentary. I not only highly recommend it, I highly recommend LinkTV which is a phenomenal resource for anyone that realizes that the majority of the world is outside of our borders. When you find LinkTV be sure to check out Amy Goodman on "Democracy NOW!"

Takedown
Topic: Bush
The Downing Street Memo is causing Democrats (and some Republicans) to finally wake up. The Downing Memo is going mainstream, creating further revelations and discussions and is forcing pieces of the lie into clear view. Like this, State Dems In Wisconsin, Nevada, Etc.: Impeach Bush

---

Here is a clip from Liberty News that is good but the ending is phenomenal. If you don't have the time, the patience or the focus to watch the whole clip skip to "23:10" entitled "Battle For America." The sentiments uttered in this clip should be the battle cry for liberals the world over.

Remember, we are not victims, we do the hard work of democracy, we have history on our side and we have never surrendered. So put that in your "dove liberal" pipe and smoke it because the battle for America has just begun. I love it!

Comin' Out Amidst The Whitewash
Topic: Iraq
"This is how the takedown of an American President begins..."

More information is leaking out about this administration's plans for "regime change" in Iraq. It's too bad that the mainstream press doesn't get off of it's ass because they could probably dig up a whole slew of evidence before September 11th to show that this administration had violent military action against Iraq at the top of its priority list.

It is good to see that at least the Washington Post decided to start covering the Downing Street Memo on it's front page, Memo: U.S. Lacked Full Postwar Iraq Plan, albeit in a way that demonstrates that they have an excellent ability to miss the greater point. Hey Washington Post, why not try a headline like this,

"NEWSFLASH: Secret British Memo Vindicates Liberals Everywhere: THE PRESIDENT LIED US INTO WAR"

The Sunday Times in Britian reported that Ministers were told of need for Gulf war ‘excuse’. Read the full document that the article references here, "Cabinet Office paper: Conditions for military action," which comes out of a meeting in Crawford between Blair and Bush on April 6, 2002 and is just full of juicy tidbits like,

"Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks. In particular, we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective as set out in paragraph 5 above. A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the US military plans are virtually silent on this point."

And...

"US views of international law vary from that of the UK and the international community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law."

But wait, there's more...

"Agree to engage the US on the need to set military plans within a realistic political strategy, which includes identifying the succession to Saddam Hussein and creating the conditions necessary to justify government military action, which might include an ultimatum for the return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq."

Incidentally, in the press conference during the meeting that lead to the memo, Bush stated unequivocally that his goal in Iraq was "regime change," which is ironic because as I remember it, the "excuse" that this administration gave the world for the Iraq war, at least the one they gave alot more often and alot louder, was WMD (notice the "WAS"). Or was it was because Iraq had ties to Al-Queda? No that's definitely not true. Oh that's right, it was to bring freedom and democracy there. No that's not true either. I don't know it's just so confusing. I wish this administration would make up its mind already. (Press Conference: Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George Bush)

Hopefully the U.S. press realizes that there are volumes of evidence waiting to be found that point to the conclusion that George W. Bush and company lied us into war not over WMD but for yet unreported motivations.

Downing Street Memo
Topic: Iraq
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

Put Downing In The Mainstream
Topic: Iraq
SIGN THE PETITION TO FORCE OUR ELECTED LEADERS TO INVESTIGATE THE VALIDITY OF THE DOWNING STREET MEMO:

TELL OUR LEADERS TO DO THEIR JOBS!

Downing In The Mainstream
Topic: State Of The Union
Look, I know the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power and frankly I'm tired of hearing that as an excuse to allow our President to lie to us. The Downing Street Memo, the authenticity of which hasn't been disputed by the British government, details the minutes of a very high level governmental meeting in which the British were certain that the Bush administration was setting up the intelligence to make a case for war in Iraq and come hell or high water they were assured that we were going to war.

I just want to get a couple of things straight about what went on before the start of the war. First of all, nutcases like myself from all around this nation and the world were screaming that Iraq did not possess WMD. We repeatedly asked the question of how a country with such debilitating sanctions imposed against it by the world community to the point of causing death to untold numbers of people could create sophisticated weapons programs. We asked why the inspectors on the ground were continually unable to find any shred of evidence pointing to Iraq building up its weapons programs. We asked why Hans Blix was so adamant about the non-existence of WMD in Iraq and why George Bush was so impatient with the inspections that were successfully proceeding. We asked how a country that we walked all over in 1991, who wasn't a threat to us when it was at full strength could ever be a threat to us after the sanctions. We questioned the reasoning behind attacking a country that had absolutely no connection to 9/11 or American directed terrorism.

So please don't tell me that it is with hindsight that I am now aware of these things. I said it then, I say it now and I said it all along. We all said it. Me and billions of my closest friends.

I say this not to rehash the past but to point out that we cannot move forward until we address these major issues. The world won't let us, karma won't let us and the insurgents certainly won't let us.

Let's face the facts.

There has been something that I've wanted to get off my chest for quite some time. I AM NOT TRYING TO SELL YOU ANYTHING. I don't want your vote, I'm not peddling a product or service and frankly I don't even care if you like me. So why don't you believe me? I'm really not a kook. I do my homework. Maybe I have facts wrong at times but I ask you who's more likely to lie to you, The Indy Voice or a career politician? What would I have to gain by lying to you? What would a politician have to gain?

The fact is that I was right then and I'm right now. Trust me, I don't derive any satisfaction in telling you that this country went to war based upon false pretenses made up by an adminstration who had an ideology to further, campaign contributors to pay back and a divisive reelection to face. War solved all those problems for George W. Bush and it's about damn time this country was patriotic enough to face the truth.

So why is there just only brief mentionings (like this) of the Downing memo in the mainstream media? Why shouldn't everyday citizens of this country be aware of what poli-geeks like myself have been aware of for a month? Why isn't it front page news? Isn't there something wrong with a media that refuses to inform its citizens and a country that acts like it doesn't want to know about evidence that points to their President lying when he took us to war? If the memo's factual incorrect or a forgery shouldn't we at least have that discussion? Shouldn't we at least investigate the possibility?

Why isn't Downing in the mainstream?

---

This is an absolutely fabulous clip that puts the flag atop the mountain of evidence:

Don't Believe Me? Ask Condi Rice and Colin Powell