Downing Street Minutes: THE POINT

[berni_mccoy]

The point is, BUSH LIED to get us to go to war. In fact, he not only lied, but

1. FIXED THE INTELLIGENCE,
2. COLLUDED with a foreign power
3. Engaged in a COVERT, ILLEGAL WAR in 2002 to provoke IRAQ into a U.N.S.C. violation
4. AND THEN LIED for why we eventually went to war with Iraq

And THEN he had the nerve to BLAME THE CIA for bad intelligence and use that point AGAINST Kerry, saying Kerry had access to the SAME INTELLIGENCE HE DID! WHAT A SETUP!

No wonder Bush awarded Tenant that medal... if Bush didn't exonerate him, Tenant was going to blow the lid off this whole thing.

Bush's ego is going to be his own downfall.

Now we have 89 Congressmen wanting answers and at least one Senator: John Kerry.

Any questions?

[JohnyCanuck]

1. Do you think Dubya will look better in Orange coveralls,

or the more traditional white with black stripes?

[berni_mccoy]

3. LOL!

He'll look stylish in either. The question is, will the hand-cuffs be chrome or flat-black?

[BlueIris]

14. Orange. I have goooood associations with the color orange

at the moment. Go, Ukraine!

[knowbody0]

2. i see dominos falling

[BigBearJohn]

4. Let's all write Boxer and ask her to join hands with Kerry on this!!!!

[berni_mccoy]

6. Agreed!

You gonna start that thread?

[berni_mccoy]

8. Done, started the thread.

[BigBearJohn]

10. whoops! I started one on GD too. Oh well, it sure bears repeating!

[BigBearJohn]

9. SURE!!!

[Tuesday_Morning]

31. Just wrote Boxer

Beware - on the Senate contact page she's listed as "Barbara Bond"

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

[chicagojoe]

5. This whole affair

MUST be pounded on day after day after day. This must be used to bring an end to the Bush mis-administration. I'm talking about impeachment as well as criminal charges. And when the Dems re-take the White House, if the new President even HINTS at any kind of "amnesty" for Bush, we must then work to remove that President from office as well.

[tridim]

7. And he also charged the American people

$250 billion to fund his illegal and fake war, giving most of that money to the Vice President's former company.

[Supersedeas]

39. taxpayers - the blood and money we spoil is for you and Halliburton maybe

[Internut]

11. Ok, how would you counteract this kind of

Republican response:

"The memo mentions an opinion of an anonymous foreign (British) government official about his meetings in Washington. We disagree with that opinion and maintain that pre-war intelligence was not in any way fixed".

A friend of mine suggested that this would be the response from Bush administration if the memo was proven authentic. I can see how this could get them off the hook.

Edit: I see that the White House has already responded in this manner:

"Claims in a recently uncovered British memo that intelligence was 'being fixed' to support the Iraq war as early as mid-2002 are "flat out wrong," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Monday. "

White House challenges UK Iraq memo, CNN, May 17, 2005

[annabanana]

16. "challeges"?!? lol

This is not a "challenge".. This is just a "did not!"

Well then.... "DID TOO, nyah nyah"

The minutes are not just an "anonymous opinion".

McClellan is just so full of it.

[Karenina]

45. Errrraaaa...

DOWNING STREET MINUTES - OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT MINUTES OF AN OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT MEETING

[berni_mccoy]

18. Ask that republican

If he bothered to READ the minutes.

Scotty McClellan formed his OPINION of official government MINUTES WITHOUT READING them.

Tell any republican friends who bring this up to go READ THE FUCKING MINUTES before formulating their own OPINIONS.

[Internut]

19. He did, and I did,

and I don't see any documents substantiating those statements, no direct quotes, no names of people talked to, etc etc. How is it more than an opinion? That memo was seriously damaging to Blair government because it contained the minutes of the Blair government meeting. It is a lot less damaging to Bush because Bush can just dispute the correctness of the statements that are contained in the memo.

[berni_mccoy]

22. Ok, Here goes another naysayer

According to The Times:

They have the actual document, the official minutes of an official government meeting.

If this is correct (and to no surprise, there is much going on to authenticate, but even so, the British gov't has not denied the authenticity), the document was authored by Matthew Rycroft.

How The Times obtained the document is another story, but if the document is official, there is no need to identify the source.

If you HAD read the document, you should know not only the above information, but also that the document contains objective recordings of peoples statements in official government capacity. It would be outlandish to think that the British government keeps TOP SECRET documents on fabricated meetings and statements. The MOST LIKELY explanation is that the statements recorded in the document are TRUE.

And finally, SO WHAT if this turns out to be another RATHERGATE?!?!? What do we have to lose... credibility of yet another media source? CMON!

[Internut]

35. I didn't say the memo is not authentic

and I don't think the White House would dispute that. What they can easily say, though, is that the contents of the memo reflect opinions of foreign government officials about their trip to Washington, opinions with which the administration does not agree. If they do, how can you pin them down?

[berni_mccoy]

36. The following are statements and professional observations, not 'opinions:

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington."

What he reported were not opinions as you say, but observations of one of the highest ranking intelligence officers of the British Government... I think in any U.S. court that would be considered Expert Testimony via Affidavit given this is an official government recording. Given that the U.S. and Great Britain were working together, it's extremely unlikely that this would be an inaccurate representation of opinion; if it were, there would be big problems between U.S. and Great Britain right now.

What C observed was a decision in 2002 to go to war and a "fixing" of the intelligence to justify the war. If you were one of two conspirators, wouldn't you want them to know what the covering lies you were going to tell were going to be? This is how they communicated those lies.

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

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD." <as reported by CDS; this is CDS's observation, not opinion; see paragraph above>

"The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action." This shows they knew they had to make it all up.

[Internut]

38. Semantics. "Professional observations" are still

an "opinion", not a "fact" - they are still easy to deny as "differences of opinion". And by the way, no, it is not "Expert Testimony", it is, at best, hearsay. If "C" testified in an affidavit as to exactly what he saw and heard to make him think that the intelligence was being "fixed", then it would be "Expert Testimony".

It is just not the "smoking gun" that everyone is making out to be. If it involved a direct quote of some US official making the "fixing it" statement, or had some US document backup, it would carry a lot more weight than "C says the intelligence is being fixed". As it is, it's way too easy for the administration to deny. "C says it was being fixed, but D (on US side) says it was not." You will see it happen, I am sure, if the administration is pressed to respond.

[berni_mccoy]

40. You are the one caught on semantics

The difference between a professional opinion and anyone else's is one is legally recognized in a court of law and the other is not.

And when it comes to hearsay, there are many reasons why hearsay is allowable, and it usually depends on the context the statement was made. In this case, it is allowable when it goes to the state of mind of the person in question and that person's defense has used their statements in their own defense. So the fact that Bush has publicly said he believed Iraq was an imminent (or continuing) threat, had WMDs is enough reason to bring in, what you call, 'hearsay'.

I'm not judge, but given your argument, I take it you are not a lawyer either. This is why Congress needs to investigate.

[Karenina]

46. May I interject...

DOWNING STREET MINUTES - OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT MINUTES OF AN OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT MEETING

[killbotfactory]

12. AND they didn't seriously plan for the occupation

Even if you are an apologist for the invasion, the failure to plan for the occupation is simply inexcusable.

[truthisfreedom]

13. it's impossible for bush to be at the center of the brains behind this

madness.

[tmorelli415]

15. If they lie again in response they just dig themselves deeper

I'm a PR consultant and if they were a client of mine, I'd tell them that the best thing for them to do is keep their mouths shut unless it is in fact totally false (in which case they ought to deny it clearly, unambiguously, and often). Either that, or they could take a big gamble and admit the truth if Dearlove's description is accurate, but spin it as a noble decision and play hard to their base (it could work depending on the general public interest in the matter).

If they deny or otherwise mislead in their response, it just dilutes their credibility when the inevitable truth comes out. Remember, they've got the British Government involved in this and the Brits have to be accountable to their own public. Their problem is that they can't control or intimidate British officials the way they can Americans - if someone is called to testify before an inquiry and corroborates the memo claims, then they are sunk. It puts them in an untenable position: either they create a diplomatic shitfight with our closest and most loyal ally by calling an officer of the British Government a liar (or the Government itself depending on the situation in the U.K. which nails stuff like this to the Government rather than an individual usually), or they say nothing and the public debate already raging in the U.K. becomes our own (not good for BushCo - they play hard and point fingers over there). The British public isn't going sit idly by while BushCo gets away red handed and the Brits are humiliated in the eyes of the world.

And the big question is, who is the person referred to as 'C' in the minutes? Congress will want to know who Dearlove met with and what they said if they actually begin an inquiry. Then they call that person to testify under oath, and the entire brick shithouse starts to cave in on them. Add to this the complexity of a CIA that is not going to take the fall for this lying down since they are an independent agency and BushCo is already on shaking ground with those guys - too many people at the CIA know too many details about this.

This is precisely why they are not saying anything and they will try to say nothing. The only way to force them to talk is Congressional inquiry and/or the press hitting this story so hard that the public imagination is considered more damaging than the actual truth. Watch what Scotty says and what he doesn't say - he will select his words very carefully in such a way that they can be construed to be a denial or refutation of the memo, but the operative language will in fact allow them to technically be saying nothing whatsoever.

The most important factor will be the moderate House Repubs. If they start to feel heat to disassociate themselves with a cause that is going down, they'll turn on Bush and try to persuade him to resolve this within the framework of the Constitution - whatever that means. The Jesus Squad and neocons will probably defend him no matter what and just accuse anyone who doesn't worship at their altar of being a pawn of Satan.

At least those are the scenarios that seem most plausible as I see it. Of course these guys are slime and nothing should surprise us.

[annabanana]

21. Excellent post tmorelli! we NEED some PR professionals here,

if only to cue us into what they're up to..

They've been working the PR side of the fence heavily for, or, 25 - 30 years and subscribe mightily to the "we can 'fix' it in marketing" point of view.

Oh, and
Welcome to DU! :toast:

[tmorelli415]

23. unfortunately, they are masters at the PR game

it is frightening how absolutely skilled Rove and Hughes are at thsi game. Democrats are too often completely inept at conveying our message to the public. We have good messages, but we don't get them out and we allow the narrative to be framed by the otehr side and simply react. I hope this memo/minutes is different because we could use this to achieve some pretty extraordinary goals.But they have the bully pulpit and the attention of the press just by calling a press conference; we can't do that.

So we cannot be fixated on 'getting Bush' with this. We must be understood as fixated only on getting the truth, no matter what it is or where it leads. Just because we have a confirmation of the minutes doesn't mean they cant' deny that Bush didn't know and point the finger at a surrogate just like Reagan did with Ollie North. We have to head them off by setting the stage (with a little help from Flyboy's ego) that says the pres is 'in charge' completely (remember, he is a 'decisive' and 'steady' guy - use it against them); Reagan played stupid from day one, so he could have deniable culpability. Bush can have no deniable culpability. Otherwise, this all blows over with a few sacrificial lambs taking the fall, and we look like a bunch of revengeful losers come next election cycle and that would be very bad news for Democrats.

[bunny planet]

25. I've never fully understood this. So only the Executive branch can call a

press conference. Not Senators, or Congressmen. I've seen sports stars call press conferences, or their lawyers. Why not John Conyers, or Kerry?

[tmorelli415]

29. press

of course anyone can call a press conference, but you've got to get them to show up. press conferences aren't the best way for everyone to get a message out - it also requires one-on-one discussions with specific reporters the press is institutioinalized within the executive branch and it gives them a huge advantage with instant credibility.

this is really not my point, though. it was rather the strategic scenarios that are possible given the question posed, 'what if the white hosue says xyz'. who knows what will happen at this point, but if this thing sticks it could be interesting to watch unfold.

[Im with Rosey]

26. These guys are slime

After reading all of your excellent points, Well Done!, it was a terrific chuckle at the end. Loved it!

[acmejack]

27. Sir Richard Dearlove is C!

The head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, or MI6, who in spy jargon is to be referred to only as "C."

[berni_mccoy]

28. Wow, where did this come from?

[tmorelli415]

30. who told dearlove that the intel was being 'fixed'?

i thought that was who 'c' referred to, but in any case it will make a big difference where he got the infol if it was someone within the NSC that is big, but if it is a CIA grunt then the admin can perhaps craft a story that removes them from culpability.

[seemslikeadream]

17. MINUTES

[Tesla]

20. I heard this song in my head....

STARTHE FIRE - METAL CHURCH!!!
D. Wayne / K. Vanderhoof / C. Wells

Break down the walls of forever.
Pull down hard on the lever.
Let them know that you can turn the key.
Though they try to hold us down.
Turn it up, that chainsaw sound.
I just love to see my parents flee. (change to repugs)

So you see that they're all going nowhere.
Everybody's staring into space.
START THE FIRE.
Bring down the HAMMER.
START THE FIRE.
Burning on forever.

Now I see the storm clouds a coming.
Can you feel the juice, it's a hummin'.
Feed the power cables into me.

Like a ship that's built for destruction.
I'm a metal man of construction.
And I'll fire my cannons, one by one.

So you see that they're all going nowhere.
Everybody's staring into space.
START THE FIRE.
Bring down the HAMMER.
START START THE FIRE.
Burning on forever.



This should be the Dems theme song right now!!!!!!

http://www.metalchurch.com/discography.shtml

[babylonsister]

24. You are too funny!

MINUTES! :woohoo: MINUTES! :woohoo: MINUTES! :woohoo: MINUTES! :woohoo: MINUTES! :woohoo: MINUTES! :woohoo:

[Pryderi]

32. They never said there was an “imminent” threat."

Reviewing the Record on Iraq:
"Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate.

They never said there was an “imminent” threat."


CIA Director George J. Tenet Georgetown University (2/5/2004)

[berni_mccoy]

33. Imminent eh?

How about continuing threat?

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030321-5.html

"protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq"

Guess Tenet didn't get the memo.

[Tuesday_Morning]

34. Here's Thursday's media to contact

from http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/takeaction.html

TARGETS FOR THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 2005

1. ABC News
    email: [e-mail]
    phone: [phone]

2. PBS NewsHour
    email: [e-mail]
    phone: [phone]

A note regarding the next target:
Please note: The Baltimore Sun is a special case for us. Its long history of producing outstanding investigative series and hard-nosed political reporting often has provided a valuable counterweight in D.C. to the bland or indifferent journalism of bigger newspapers. We would like to encourage them to live up to that proud tradition. Though they do not have the same resources as their biggest competitors, The Sun is capable of breaking this story wide open. Our goal is to make them want to do it.

3. Baltimore Sun, Public Editor Paul Moore
    email: [e-mail]
    phone: [phone]

[lthuedk]

37. Fascists in Fall Colours

-sp

[LunaC]

41. The POINT is far more expansive than the DSM

The POINT is that the PNAC had Iraq in their sights in 1998, they staged a coup of the WH, and were complicit in 911 as a pretext to achieve their goals (see link in sig line) and the DSM is but one piece of a larger puzzle.

When the dam breaks with the DSM we MUST push for the WHOLE story to come out if we want to nail the whole cabal.

[Stampy52]

42. the real point

is to break that dam.

please go to "Take Action" at www.downingstreetmemo.com and be a part of our Awaken Mainstream Media campaign, a focused email/call campaign that targets three outlets per day. More information can be found in the recommended diaries section at www.dailykos.com

[tmorelli415]

43. Core Messages: = They engaged in a conspiracy from the very outset

The core messages of our 'elevator pitch':

1. The administration engaged in a conspiracy from their first day in office to lead this country into war.
2.. The administration knew they did not have a moral or legal justification for war so they manipulated intelligence and exploited public fear after 9/11 to build a fradulent case.
3. The administration repeatedly and deliberately lied to and mislead Congress and the American people in order to achieve their goal of war.
4. The administration willingly violated the public trust, and engaged in a deliberate pattern of intimidation and subterfuge to hide their illegal and immoral activities.


This is a scandal of historic proportions really. It is among the most dangerous threats to democracy our Republic has ever seen. This sounds dramatic and it should.

[Karenina]

47. And NO, you are not just being "hypersensitive."

DOWNING STREET MINUTES - OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT MINUTES OF AN OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT MEETING

[Dr Fate]

44. Plus NO exit strategy and NO Bin Laden.

n/t