Bush's lack of response is PROOF of Authenticity of the DSM

[berni_mccoy]

Think about it.

Congress is planning on sending delegates to meet with Blair in London (see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1622378,00.html)

In the mean time, Conyers has challenged Bush to explain/verify the memo in an official Congressional forum. If Bush does not answer truthfully about it (that is, he dismisses it as untrue) he will be breaking the law and will become impeachable. If he answers it honestly, then he will admit to breaking the law when he met the Congressional obligations for taking us to war.

Why is Bush taking so long? Not because he feels he does not have to answer (he knows he does). But because the lawyers are very busy crafting an answer that doesn't say anything. I gaurantee when there is a response, it will be completely unresponsive because that is the only answer he can give without incriminating himself.

And if he does lie, Congress will have what they need when they go to London and get Tony to fall over (what does he have to lose anyway... he's already admitted to lying to his own people about going to war).

These will be a very interesting few weeks.

[tuvor]

1. There are so many straws on bush's camel-humped back,

it has to break eventually.

[DBoon]

2. Unresponsive and evasive under oath?

Wasn't a president impeached recently for something like this?

Oh, sorry, that was about bad sex between consenting adults.

You can lie about national security and get away with it if you are a republican.

Different rules apply

[alfredo]

3. Tony will not take the fall alone. If he does, the world will

start asking why just Blair. Blair was just one of the conspirators.

[IndianaGreen]

6. Tony Blair is coming to Washington next week

Gee, I wonder why...

[alfredo]

7. I hope our congressmen/women give him an earful

[FreedomAngel82]

13. Really?

I thought I heard about that but only once. Of course it's not all over MSM. I'm surprised they're not meeting in Texas.

[IndianaGreen]

18. It is being reported today (Friday) that Blair will meet Bush on Monday

What will they do? Deny the Downing Street Memo?

[FreedomAngel82]

12. That's what I believe too

If Blair is under enough pressure about everything he will talk and take down Bush and the gang. I've always felt if one goes down they all do. Why else does Bush promote liars and keep people on like Rumsfeld when the public wants him gone? It's because they know all the secrets and will talk and go down too.

[babylonsister]

4. Interesting indeed! And it was

refreshing to hear from a Brit last week (at the media reform conference) about how their reporters can actually ask questions which must be answered. How refreshing! I so hope that rolls over into the US contingent.

[FreedomAngel82]

14. Have you ever seen

their Congressional/Senate type meetings? It's so great! They can do a debate like forum and get Blair in there too and everything is so fast.

[seriousstan]

5. Did Bush respond to the AWOL memo?

I need more proof than the absence of denial.

I believe that the AWOL document and the lack of comment from the Bush camp was simply giving us enough rope to hang ourselves. I will not give them enough dirt to bury us also.

Who leaked it and will they stand behind it?

[magellan]

9. Ask the London Sunday Times who leaked it

Or wait for the British government to finish its investigation into the leaks. That they're going to investigate should convince anyone the Downing Street memo is genuine, if the lack of denial from Blair since it appeared isn't enough.

Here's why Bush** doesn't answer any of the charges put to him: because with a Republican majority in Congress and a press that's afraid of its own shadow, he doesn't have to. Hitler would be proud of him.

This non-denial/trip wire mentality is EXACTLY what BushCo wants. They play this friggin' mind game to make people paranoid and distrustful of anything that doesn't come directly from them. Anyone who falls for it is an idiot.

There are a lot of idiots out there.

Dayum, I'm surprised no one has questioned the authenticity of the Constitution yet. How will we ever know if it's the actual document our Founding Fathers signed without a witness to attest to it? :sarcasm:

[seriousstan]

10. I will wait for whatever investigation you say is in progress to complete.

Sorry if I gored your sacred cow :sarcasm:

[magellan]

17. That's a fine idea

You've been out here for two nights demanding the same proof in various threads. Maybe now you can move on to something else.

Oh, btw, my "sacred cow" as you call it is intact, until and if the evidence suggests otherwise. I'm under no illusion about how much fallout there's likely to be from the Downing Street memo; but that, like doubting its authenticity without valid reason, has no bearing on the truth.

[berni_mccoy]

15. I already sent a letter to the times for more information

when I get a response, I'll post it.

[bklyncowgirl]

16. They did the same thing to Newsweek.

No denial, Newsweek ran the article, Bushco pounced. It was a setup.

[dchill]

8. If he DOES answer,

I hope he disassembles... or not. Hey, either way he answers, he loses.

Right?

[FreedomAngel82]

11. Very interesting indeed

I can't wait to see what happens with this.