Yahoo: The Other Bomb Drops (Downing Street Memo)

[renaissanceguy]

<snip>

Rear Admiral David Gove, former deputy director of global operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on November 20, 2002, that US and British pilots were "essentially flying combat missions." On October 3, 2002, the New York Times reported that US pilots were using southern Iraq for "practice runs, mock strikes and real attacks" against a variety of targets. But the full significance of this dramatic change in policy toward Iraq only became clear last month, with the release of the Downing Street memo. In it, British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon is reported to have said in 2002, after meeting with US officials, that "the US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime," a reference to the stepped-up airstrikes. Now the Sunday Times of London has revealed that these spikes "had become a full air offensive"--in other words, a war.

Michigan Democratic Representative John Conyers (news, bio, voting record) has called the latest revelations about these attacks "the smoking bullet in the smoking gun," irrefutable proof that President Bush misled Congress before the vote on Iraq. When Bush asked Congress to authorize the use of force in Iraq, he also said he would use it only as a last resort, after all other avenues had been exhausted. But the Downing Street memo reveals that the Administration had already decided to topple Saddam by force and was manipulating intelligence to justify the decision. That information puts the increase in unprovoked air attacks in the year prior to the war in an entirely new light: The Bush Administration was not only determined to wage war on Iraq, regardless of the evidence; it had already started that war months before it was put to a vote in Congress.

It only takes one member of Congress to begin an impeachment process, and Conyers is said to be considering the option. The process would certainly be revealing. Congress could subpoena Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Gen. Richard Myers, Gen.Tommy Franks and all of the military commanders and pilots involved with the no-fly zone bombings going back into the late 1990s. What were their orders, both given and received? In those answers might lie a case for impeachment.

<snip>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20050601/cm_thenation/20050613scahill

Recommend this story on Yahoo!!!


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/472476

[Triana]

1. Please fix your link (n/t)

[renaissanceguy]

2. try it now

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20050601/cm_thenation/20050613scahill

[Triana]

4. Excellent. Recommended...on Yahoo and DU Greatest

Ohhhhhhhh how I hope this thing explodes in the Chimperor's face.

[bunny planet]

6. Kerry needs this link. It will add to his presentation on the Senate floor

on Monday.

[cthrumatrix]

3. I guess our media will be all over this by noon today......(NOT)

[warrior1]

7. remember to vote to keep story kicked

[zulchzulu]

5. Excuse me, but was Michael Jackson found guilty?

I just can't wait to find out.

:sarcasm:

[bunny planet]

8. MJ'll be found guilty (or not) on Monday, just when Kerry presents the

Downing Street minutes on the Senate floor.

[tavalon]

26. I hadn't thought about that timing

How perfect! :eyes:

[Enraged_Ape]

42. I'm sure Rove is on the phone with the judge right now

:mad:

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chalky]

11. I don't get it.....

Why would definition 1 engender a different reaction than any of the other definitions like....oh, say 4, for instance?

[Stand and Fight]

12. Nice try...

But that's the same definition for "fix" as we have here in America! Who'd have thunk it seeing as how we speak English? :eyes:

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stand and Fight]

21. So very transparent....

:eyes:

[Frederik]

24. It was a big issue

until the election. Now, the election is over, Labour may have lost some vote over it, but everybody knew they lied even before these minutes were available anyway. If they had voted on Blair directly, Labour would have suffered a much bigger defeat. People are expecting Blair to step down next year.

After the election, it's not been such a big issue, but it hasn't disappeared either.

It is rather obvious what "fixed around the policy" means in the context of justifying the coming war.

[Frederik]

22. Is that the best you could

come up with, Karl?

:rofl:

[spanone]

28. Naw, ain't buyin' that. Sounds like the RW explanation to me.

[Beetwasher]

31. That's Gotta Be The Dumbest, Lamest, Most Pathetic Thing I Ever Saw

:rofl:

How long did it take you to come up with that load of nonsensical crap? Or was it spoon fed to you by some moronic blowhard?

"the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"

Anyone who reads or interprets the above sentence in the way you are suggesting is either an idiot of the highest order, or a troll of the lowest.

[Toots]

44. I wouldn't call the election results being silent on the issue

I suspect we will hear much more about this before all is done. Both in England and in the USA

[Rainscents]

52. sigmund... Welcome to DU!!!

:hi:

[Oreo]

10. "The gun is too hot for either party to touch"

The article talks about Clinton bombing Iraq too. I think it's apples and oranges. Clinton didn't lie us into a war that killed tens of thousands of innocent people.

Let's hope this has the legs we've wished for hundreds of times before!

[tmorelli415]

16. Definition of "fixed'

I don't buy it re: cultural problem. 'fix' as to make firm, or 'fix' as to make right - it is all the same any way I read this. it still says they were deliberately selecting that which supported the reality they desired. "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" - it is unambiguously clear that the policy came *before* the facts/intel requiring a ''fix'. The other points in the memo also refer to a predetermined plan to go to war, a dismissal of the UN, a intel case that was 'thin' and a lack of 'legal and moral justification for war'.

[ChiciB1]

68. Can We HOPE Beyond Hope????

This information has been around for soooooooooo long. I recall hearing things way before the war. Even before the 2000 election!

These idiots ALWAYS wanted to go to War, and it was strategically planned for a very very very long time.

Oh, PLEASE let this be "The Emperor Has No Clothes" chapter and neither does anyone else around him!!

Anyone got STICK-UM???

[Dhalgren]

17. "Clinton didn't lie us into a war that killed tens of thousands of

innocent people." No, but he has said many times that he fully supports Bush's war. Clinton's hands aren't clean on this. We have to focus on Bush's crimes, here, but Clinton has a lot to answer for on Iraq, too.

[Bluzmann57]

54. Clinton wasn't president when Iraq was invaded

So it doesn't really matter what people think about him. The bushgang apparently had the Iraq war planned (sort of) before the actual invasion and that is the issue.

[Bread and Circus]

57. If you read the article, it implies Clinton has blood on his hands too....

[Bread and Circus]

58. If you read the article, it implies Clinton has blood on his hands too....

[Maraya1969]

82. Yea I found that pretty misleading - Actually I don't even know

what they are talking about.

Maybe it's Yahoo's way of being politically correct. :shrug:

[neuvocat]

67. And he didn't lie about yellow cake or wmd's.

[Roland99]

55. Clinton will have to answer to potential war crimes, too

if it's determined he ordered bombings in the no-fly zone that were intended to draw Iraq into war.

[HereSince1628]

62. Amen. All parties to the war should be examined for accountability.

Congress Ok'd resolutions approving the concept that the US support efforts to remove Saddam and the Bathists back in the late 90's.

If that resulted in clandestine illegal airwar let the truth be known.

[bornagainhuman]

70. damn right

i have to say no matter who the president is they will almost always make a couple big screw ups and should be made to answer for them. :dilemma:

[OzarkDem]

66. Vichy Dems strike again

Why are they so afraid of calling Bush out on his lies about Iraq?

Who are they afraid of alienating?

[enough]

13. Jeremy Scahill is to be commended.

Pulls no punches.

snip>

It was a huge air assault: Approximately 100 US and British planes flew from Kuwait into Iraqi airspace. At least seven types of aircraft were part of this massive operation, including US F-15 Strike Eagles and Royal Air Force Tornado ground-attack planes. They dropped precision-guided munitions on Saddam Hussein's major western air-defense facility, clearing the path for Special Forces helicopters that lay in wait in Jordan. Earlier attacks had been carried out against Iraqi command and control centers, radar detection systems, Revolutionary Guard units, communication centers and mobile air-defense systems. The Pentagon's goal was clear: Destroy Iraq's ability to resist. This was war.

snip>

The implications of this information for US lawmakers are profound. It was already well known in Washington and international diplomatic circles that the real aim of the US attacks in the no-fly zones was not to protect Shiites and Kurds. But the new disclosures prove that while Congress debated whether to grant Bush the authority to go to war, while Hans Blix had his UN weapons-inspection teams scrutinizing Iraq and while international diplomats scurried to broker an eleventh-hour peace deal, the Bush Administration was already in full combat mode--not just building the dossier of manipulated intelligence, as the Downing Street memo demonstrated, but acting on it by beginning the war itself. And according to the Sunday Times article, the Administration even hoped the attacks would push Saddam into a response that could be used to justify a war the Administration was struggling to sell.

On the eve of the official invasion, on March 8, 2003, Bush said in his national radio address: "We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force." Bush said this after nearly a year of systematic, aggressive bombings of Iraq, during which Iraq was already being disarmed by force, in preparation for the invasion to come. By the Pentagon's own admission, it carried out seventy-eight individual, offensive airstrikes against Iraq in 2002 alone.

snip>

[DulceDecorum]

23. Next stop: SUDAN

For "humanitarian reasons". Or perhaps "terrorism."
The same crowd is working double overtime
to convince Congress to declare war on Khartoum.

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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

Published on Monday, August 16, 2004 by the Toronto Sun
Inevitably Sudan has become an election-year political football and media frenzy. The White House has been currying favor with Christian militants and blacks by intensifying hostility to the isolated Khartoum regime, which the U.S. has been trying to overthrow for a decade.
<snip>
Darfur is Sudan's poorest, wildest region. One of the Islamic World's first anti-colonial movements, known in the west as the Dervishes, burst from the wastes of Darfur in the 1880s. Led by the fiery "Mahdi," the Dervishes drove the British imperialists from Sudan, an event immortalized in the splendid Victorian novel, Four Feathers. The Dervishes took Khartoum, slaying Britain's proconsul, Sir Charles "Chinese" Gordon.
The "martyred" Gordon's death roused a storm in Britain, resulting in a punitive army sent up the Nile (including the young Winston Churchill) that destroyed the Dervish army at Omdurman. But remote Darfur remained a hotbed of rebellion.
<snip>
Foreign meddling in southern Sudan's civil war, particularly supply of arms and money to Christian and animist separatists by western aid groups and Protestant charities, prolonged that conflict and delayed a peace settlement for decades.
Now western intervention in Darfur could meet strong local resistance from Sudanese, an amiable but tough people, unravel the fragile, painfully achieved north-south peace accords and re-ignite civil and tribal conflicts that could tear Sudan apart and turn it into a second chaotic Congo.
Many westerners imbued with neo-imperialist fervor or a case of white man's burden are calling for another western army to march up the Nile and smite the latter-day Dervishes of Khartoum. Such crusading zeal should be curbed. Sudan is neither a second Rwanda nor a threat to the west.
The worst of Darfur's crisis appears over. Let humanitarian groups do their work. Continuing U.S. attempts to overthrow Sudan's government are only making things worse. Allow Africa to solve its own problems.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0816-13.htm

[deliusmax]

36. I didn't know Sudan had oil?? n/t

[lostnfound]

39. Oil and gas. "Vastly underexplored"...:

http://www.mbendi.co.za/indy/oilg/af/su/p0005.htm

[DulceDecorum]

41. US DoEnergy Report on Sudanese Oil.

OIL
Sudan contains proven reserves of 563 million barrels of oil, more than twice the 262 million barrels estimated in 2001. Because much of Sudanese oil exploration has been limited to the central and south-central regions, Sudanese Energy Ministry representatives estimate proven reserves at 700 million barrels and total reserves at five billion barrels, including potential reserves in northwest Sudan , the Blue Nile Basin , and the Red Sea area in eastern Sudan . Oil production has risen steadily since the completion of an export pipeline in July 1999. Crude oil production averaged 343,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) in 2004, up from 270,000 bbl/d during 2003. In December 2004, Sudanese Energy Minister Awad al-Jaz announced that oil production will likely increase to 500,000 bbl/d in 2005. Sudanese production may reach 750,000 bbl/d by late 2006 if increases in output progress as planned.

More at:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/sudan.html

Sudan Oil and Gas Concessions holders (USAID)
http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-saharan_africa/sudan/map_oil_text.html

Hence all the "concern" for the people of Darfur.

[deliusmax]

46. Oh I see..

In that case, I believe we should invade the country immediately, I'm sure they also have WMDs, terrorists who hate us for our freedom. Better to fight them over there etc...

[wryter2000]

94. Welcome to DU

I hope you'll see this the next day. :hi:

[Laurab]

97. I do believe that was sarcasm

so they should see this the next day!
:)

[Adelante]

43. Yeah, let them die

Let the rapes continue. Let the babies starve. The ones who survived the murderous government of Sudan and its killer forces, let them all die. Who gives a shit? They're black.

:puke:

State-led murder and rape of villagers in Darfur uncovered

GETHIN CHAMBERLAIN
CHIEF NEWS CORRESPONDENT

CONFIDENTIAL African Union (AU) reports have provided damning new evidence of the involvement of Sudanese government forces and their Janjaweed militia allies in the murder and rape of civilians in the Darfur region.

AU monitors have collected photographic evidence of Sudanese helicopter gunships in action attacking villages, and their reports conclude that the Sudanese government has systematically breached the peace deals that it signed to placate the United Nations Security Council.

Reports from Darfur indicate that air attacks on villages have continued amid defiance of UN resolutions calling on the Khartoum regime to disarm the Janjaweed, with the latest helicopter attack in south Darfur reported to have taken place on 13 May as the UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan, was preparing to visit the province.

Pictures taken by AU monitors document attacks by a Sudanese helicopter gunship on the village of Labado in December, a month after the Sudanese government gave an assurance that there would be no more such attacks. The Sudanese government markings are clearly visible on the tailfin of the helicopter.

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1160&id=594012005

Human Rights Watch (Washington, DC)

PRESS RELEASE
May 25, 2005
New York


Gross human rights abuses continue in Darfur, where Sudanese government-sponsored militia known as Janjaweed are attempting to consolidate "ethnic cleansing" by attacking internally displaced persons-mostly farmers-who try to return to their homes. The Sudanese government at the national and state level has taken no serious steps to rein in or prosecute those forces despite several U.N. Security Council resolutions since July demanding such action.

"The security situation remains clearly unsatisfactory for the whole population. Six million people in Darfur are faced with banditry, militia attacks and a devastated economy," said Takirambudde. "Two million Darfurians have already been displaced, and most farmers will not be able to plant for yet another year."

The United Nations has estimated that as many as 3.5 to 4 million people in Darfur will not have enough to eat in the next few months. The Sudanese government has recently stepped up its bureaucratic war on the vast humanitarian relief effort that is attempting to help millions of Darfurians. Since December, the Sudanese government has been trying to intimidate some humanitarian agencies in Darfur through arbitrary arrests, detentions and other more subtle forms of harassment.

Human Rights Watch also called for officials participating in the meeting in Addis Ababa to denounce Sudanese government efforts to backtrack on cooperation with relief agencies.

Khartoum is also refusing to grant visas and travel permits to increasing numbers of international journalists. The government's intimidation and stepped-up denial of access for media to Darfur are part of a recurring effort to reduce international criticism of abuses committed by the Sudanese government and its militia allies in Darfur.

"After being forced to open up Darfur last year, the Sudanese government is now trying to clamp down on access and information," Takirambudde said. "Constant pressure and vigilance are needed to defend and preserve the ability of the U.N. and other relief workers to have full, unrestricted access to meet the needs of the estimated 3.5 million who will require assistance."

http://allafrica.com/stories/200505250340.html

KALMA CAMP, Sudan, May 28 (AFP) -- UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was plunged into the chaos of war-torn Darfur Saturday when he was greeted in a western Sudan refugee camp by accounts of rape and murder and civilians venting their anger at Khartoum.

Annan, who flew to Nyala in South Darfur on the second day of his visit to Sudan, went to the nearby camp of Kalma, which hosts an estimated 110,000 Darfurians displaced by two years of civil war.

"Down, down with the government," chanted angry civilians as Annan toured the over-populated dusty camp, one of the largest in the world for displaced people.

They complained of abuses by the Sudanese authorities inside the sprawling camp and demanded to be resettled in another country.

Annan then met with tribal leaders in the camp, who charged that the Sudanese authorities and their infamous Janjaweed proxy militia were continuing to perpetrate crimes against displaced civilians.

"Since March 1, 56 people were killed in the camp by Janjaweed and policemen. The latest incident happened as recently as yesterday, when two people were shot," said Suleiman Abu Bakr, who spoke in the name of all tribal leaders.

http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=9821

[cthrumatrix]

25. what is profound is that "coprorations run our govt"...we are pawns

[jasmeel]

32. delete

[formercia]

15. Fearless Leader answers to a higher power

Orders from GOD take precedence over Congress.

God speaks directly to him, negating any advice or consent.

[ktowntennesseedem]

18. If this doesn't make home page, I'm going to become a freeper!!!

Just kidding, of course; I'd go shoot myself before I'd spend one minute with that bunch! But seriously, if I had a Diebold machine, I'd cast a couple hundred votes for greatest page. Fantasic!

:woohoo:

[Champion Jack]

19. KICKED

:kick:
:kick:

[vanboggie]

20. Recommended

On both Yahoo and DU. Thanks for posting this.

[SnowGoose]

27. I think Conyers is missing the bigger point

Yea, ok, the US was attacking while it was still "asking permission" for an invasion. But if you read the entire 'minutes' or 'memo', you'll see clearly that one of the chief concerns was how to *justify* a war.

And so, I refer you to the excerpt below, especially the words "casus belli", which is defined in the American Heritage dictionary as "an event used to justify starting a war".

"(b) Running Start. U.S. 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 administration wasn't simply trying to 'soften up' the Iraqi military for an upcoming invasion - they were HOPING that Iraq would respond, presumably by shooting down one of the attacking US aircraft.

If it had worked, it would have been Gulf of Tonkin II. Somehow, I think the American people would be a little more pissed off if they realized that the US was TRYING to start a war.

That's my 2 cents, anyway.

[Karenina]

29. Kick!

:kick:

[sarahlee]

37. I don't think he is missing it

That is whay he sent the letter to Rumsfeld.

If you didn't see it, you can read it here:
http://www.kucinich.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=12127#12127

[AuntiBush]

78. Several FReeper Friends Called Tonight - They've heard about

the "Downing Street Minutes/Memo," and are BIG-TIME upset, fed-up, scared for their sons and "sorry..."

Now they're sorry they voted so blindly for *! Both took the evangelical root and stated * is the Anti-Christ.

My response: Welcome to our Nightmare.

Told them to head over here for relief.

That's 2 ex-Nov 3 friends added to the list of brainwashed FReeper friends awakening and they're sick & tired of NO NEWS, HATEFUL SPINNING TALKING HEADS like BUCHANAN, FALWELL (they're words.

Both swore off Faus/MSNBC/CNN. Neither no one another and live in seperate states.

My 2 cents: For whatever it's worth and that ain't much, after the way they U-turned after Nov 3 for their Savior *, I feel no sympathy for them and that's not like me, as a rule.

[dansolo]

87. Which makes Rumsfeld's comments to the one soldier even more offensive

Remember when the soldier got up and asked Rumsfeld about things like body armor and armored vehicles, and he spewed some crap trying to justify why the army was so ill prepared as if they had no opportunity to properly arm the troops.

[sarahlee]

30. Reccomended on Yahoo

and used the site to email to half a dozen friends and four of my own email addresses - let's make it a "most emailed" story.

[Nothing Without Hope]

33. Wow, this is the real story and it actually got published! Recommended

for Greatest Page and top-rated at Yahool.

Do please call that historic document the Downing Street MINUTES. It's not just a memo, some vague haphazard scribble. It's official minutes, the record of an official government meeting. That's a BIG difference, highly significant. You can bet the Administration will be trying to portray the "memo" aspect as the reason why they are meaningless, an off-hand private opinion only.

I do believe that when the American public begin to see the truth, the criminals who stole our government and used it as a weapon against the rest of the world and us are going to be going down.

And then perhaps more attention will be paid to how they stole the elections and also to the truth behind the 9/11 attacks. How I hope so.

Seeing the truth in a corpoate news venue in this country - it's a hopeful sign. Thanks for posting this!

[Algorem]

34. the memo was brought up in 2nd half of show on npr,amazing weasling

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/05/06/03.php

10:00 News Roundup
A panel of journalists joins Diane for review and analysis of the week’s top national and international news stories.

Guests
Tod Lindberg, editor of "Policy Review" and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution

Susan Page, Washington bureau chief for "USA Today"

Eugene Robinson, Washington Post columnist

Listen to this show
Show archives will be available approximately one hour after the program ends.

[realFedUp]

35. troop and ship movements...

and look to see when contracts were
written and signed in the State Dept.
regarding Iraq.

[Coexist]

38. Interesting paragraph:

<snip>
"But another question looms, particularly for Democrats who voted for the war and now say they were misled: Why weren't these unprovoked and unauthorized attacks investigated when they were happening, when it might have had a real impact on the Administration's drive to war? Perhaps that's why the growing grassroots campaign to use the Downing Street memo to impeach Bush can't get a hearing on Capitol Hill. A real probing of this "smoking gun" would not be uncomfortable only for Republicans. The truth is that Bush, like President Bill Clinton before him, oversaw the longest sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam against a sovereign country with no international or US mandate. That gun is probably too hot for either party to touch."

What are your thoughts on that - do any of you think this is why the Dems aren't pursuing it? I don't think that should matter. If they were being lied to about why it was happening.

[Generator]

40. The Dems need to get over the shame of having been wrong

I know it's not the same as little housewife me(and yes it was a year before I was on DU) being initially for the Iraq war-I was duped. I was wrong. I can admit it. I realize it's a bigger deal for them to say this. But it's what they must do.

And if you want to know who I believed then-it was Colin Powell. I was torn before then and yes, I believed him. I wasn't on the internet everyday back then. I thought he was the anti-hawk guy. And he knew it was a load of bull. How does HE sleep at night?

I was lied to. The congress was lied to. Everyone was lied to. Denial and sweet words won't change it. This president is a danger, he cannot be trusted because he has lied about his most precious duty-protecting the American people.

[bread_and_roses]

71. You are honest. They were -and are- not. And I mean Congress...

...including the Dems who voted for the IRW. Most especially the top-ranking ones. Nothing will ever convince me that they didn't know exactly what was going on, and were too pusillanimous to stand up to the miserable puppet and his Masters.

[calimary]

92. All they have to say is TEN WORDS, kids. And those TEN WORDS are:

ALL they have to say is TEN WORDS: "Because I TRUSTED my president. And he LIED to me."

Two little sentences. Five words per sentence. That's ALL any of them have to say, if they voted for the IWR, if they bought into the fear and loathing and ghost stories being told by bush and his friends to scare people after 9/11, if they thought they were really trying to do what was correct for our country and to be patriotic and to "support our president" and give him every benefit of every doubt. They were being pressured BIGTIME to do this because of the climate at the time - straight after 9/11 - a climate of extreme fear that these lice exploited to achieve the goals they wanted. This is really not that complicated, and it's a very clear-cut and simple way to save face as well - which is important when you consider that vanity and shame may be what's really preventing any of this from moving forward at all. ALL THE DEMOCRATS AND ANYONE ELSE WHO FELL FOR IT HAVE TO SAY IS - "Because I TRUSTED my president. And he LIED to me."

It has the added benefit of being THE TRUTH. For a change.

Really. Could I be so bold as to ask people here on DU - when you call your reps, assuming they voted for the IWR or somehow otherwise enabled all this (or they know, do business with, or try to work with those who did), would you at least consider offering those ten words to their staffers? Offer it as a way out. Offer it as a face-saving statement for when these questions come up. YES, let's be frank here, it's passing the buck. It's an excuse. But it happens to be a legitimate excuse - since it's exactly what happened, AND it's passing the buck to the exact place where the buck is supposed to stop: at the Oval Office.

Perhaps you're represented by someone who really is trying to do good things, but has no face-saving way to step back into the light, and no way around the horrifying shame it means they have to face, in admitting they made such a stupid, grievous, negligent, thoughtless, impulsive, fear-motivated mortal sin of a mistake.

NOBODY likes to admit they've been had. NOBODY likes to admit they were suckered. NOBODY likes to face the fact that they've been played - played for patsies. NOBODY wants that for themselves. It takes bigger men and women than we've got representing us just now - to admit that freely and confess that openly. It's just a suspicion of mine, but it's bolstered by the reactions I've gotten from staffers of various congresspeople and senators (including but not limited to my own) when I present that ten-word solution. They react as though they've never thought of that before, and "...when you stop to think about it, hey - you know something? That actually makes sense. Hmmm... Gee. I never thought of it that way, but it's, well, it's - true... Gee, when you put it THAT way..."

I suspect strongly that if the proper, face-saving, and deftly-worded mea culpa is presented to them, like a talking point, SOME OF 'EM might actually use it, or start getting their minds around it, and maybe actually entertaining the thought. Maybe this might be enough to push some of the wavering ones over - those whose consciences have started to bother them over what's happened, and who would LOVE a face-saving way out, something to say that will tell the truth, explain where they were at that time and what they were trying IN GOOD FAITH to do ('cause - remember back then, when the big drumbeat was that "we HAVE TO support OUR PRESIDENT!!!!!"). And if such a way out, that also happens to be THE TRUTH, is presented to them, it just might be the key domino that starts the whole row falling. It's a tool to use to start getting them out of trouble, and absolving them of some of the blame and the guilt and the shame.

Truly, nobody can be faulted for trying to play along with a pResident who, at the time, many of them didn't have a lot of reasons to distrust. It was still fairly early in the game. We'd just been attacked. We were out-of-our-minds with emotion and fear and anger and outrage and wanting to lash out against somebody, anybody, and make somebody pay. We were in raw-emotion mode, when there hadn't been time enough to gain any perspective, and there was nothing but pure reactive-mode, non-rational, instinct stuff all over the place back then. SOMEBODY HAD TO DO SOMETHING. So this was what was presented to them, and it was presented to them in such a way that it sounded so legit. They were exploited and they gave this schmuck the benefit of the doubt without realizing at the time that he didn't deserve it. They were railroaded. Now, what they need to do is STATE CLEARLY THAT THEY WERE RAILROADED.

I think there are some who would do the proper thing now if only they had one last little nudge: of a really good and useful tool that's being plopped in their lap like a lifeline. For those who might stammer - "Good Lord, I don't even know what to say... I wouldn't even know what to say..." - YOU can say: "HERE! HERE'S what you can say. HERE'S something to say! It explains the state you were in at the time you made these decisions, and why you did so, and it's the truth. It's what happened with EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN MAN, WOMAN, AND CHILD who decided to support this war, even those with misgivings about it, who felt our hand was forced and that, well, we HAD to do something, and these are tough times and as Americans, we HAVE TO support our pResident. If he thinks that's what we have to do, then we have to get behind him and trust him.

So they can say - "Well, we trusted him alright. He gave us every reason to trust him. We believed sincerely that it was our patriotic duty to do so, and he and all his pals told us this. We did it his way. We gave him the benefit of the doubt. And he led us down the garden path. All those reasons were lies. So yes, we fell for it. And it was a lie. And we were screwed." So what they get to say, basically, is that the real offender here is NOT themselves, but the guy who LIED THEM INTO THIS. It allows them to put the blame where it's supposed to be. On bush.

TEN WORDS. All it takes. TEN WORDS.

I'm just trying to think strategically here. Face-saving is EVERYTHING with some people. Yes, it's expedient. Yes, it's not the purest motivation. But if it works, and it helps guide even a few people back into the light, what's the harm? What have we got to lose? It might be JUST the key to push a few of the waverers over, and out of the Dark Side. If only they had the words to say...

Just a thought, anyway...

[Gronk Groks]

100. Sent to Harry Reid

Live in his district, Copied Calimary's post to his web site.
Let's see if the Democratic leadership is listening.:think:

[Bread and Circus]

59. My thoughts are the Dems have a lot to answer for....

I think impeachment of Bush is in order, and I hope Conyers will lead the way. I think our Gov't is corrupt almost thoroughly and the Dems are no saints.

[lyonn]

101. After weapons inspectors were told to leave Iraq by

Saddam in 1998 it seemed the air attacks on Saddams air defense, etc., was stepped up by the Clinton administration. I figured to keep him from committing any more mischief.

[leesa]

45. This is an amazing article...and on Yahoo!

[Jack Rabbit]

47. This one is getting some attention and looks beyond freeping

It's rated 4.5 with over 780 votes.

[orleans]

48. great post

thanks for the story!

(did you sign the letter?
here's the link)

[ailsagirl]

49. Duplicate story

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3767838&mesg_id=3767838

And for some reason, it only got one recommendation.

No matter... full speed ahead!!!

:bounce:

[thereismore]

50. Not only we can ask "Why did you lead the nation to war on lies,

Mr. resident?", we can now ask the question "Why did you start a war before the Congress even gave you the power to do so, Mr. resident?".

And the answer? Clinton also bombed that hotel without declaring war on that country... I can hear the pigman already.

[usregimechange]

51. It is up to us to media blast this. Lets do it!

[On Par]

53. If You Impeach Bush, You Better Include Cheney....

If not, and Bush goes down, we go from bad to worse!

[AceAlmighty82]

60. If you take Cheney..

might as well take Rumsfeld too...cuz if my politics still hold true to the executive order(i could be wrong..it might not be executive order)...rumsfeld will be next in line for president....take all three of them and send them to Gitmo..let them experience their own medicine.....I'm the new guy to this site..you've guys done a great job with this site..and I hope to help however i can :hi:

[bobbieinok]

64. isn't speaker of the House 3rd in line?????

[On Par]

65. Yes, The Speaker Is Next. Hassert would be the President.

[Shipwack]

72. Good point, AceAlmighty...

Fortunately, I think there is enough incriminating goodness to go around!

And Welcome Aboard!

[AceAlmighty82]

73. Thanks Shipwack

I was watching The Daily Show last year..probably after the election..this guy Jim Wallis came on..talked about his new book God's Politics...but I think that this book should almost be a priority for someone that is in office to read. It's great!! If any of you haven't looked into it..you should...if you don't I'll have to bomb you guys :nuke: haha.....knowing the attention span of the American people..two weeks from now..they'll go The Downing Street what??? Then thats when the bombing with Iran will start..if it hasn't already started

[googly]

80. Impeachment is DOA with the repug straglehold in senate & house

[meow2u3]

105. If enough moderate and/or principled Repukes sign a discharge petition

along with the Dems, they can bypass the DeLay stonewall and an impeachment resolution can make it to the floor.

[Maraya1969]

83. I really don't give a shit about who takes control. To me the main

thing is BUSH-HEAD gets revealed for what he is. We have got to knock some sense into a lot of people. Exposing this quasi Christian for the mass murderer he is is worth having Cheney as president for about a year.

[Laurab]

98. EXACTLY!

and if Mr. Halliburton kept his hands clean (which I'm pretty sure he didn't), and is in fact resident of the WH, I am sure that his power would be severely curtailed. Nixon didn't go down alone, and neither will *.

[UCLA Dem]

56. Whoa. Does anyone think impeachment is a real possibility???

[Mistahkleeen]

88. Impeachment sounds like a good start

Clinton was impeached over oral sex. The LEAST congress should do is impeach the Chimp and crashcart. Bush is a liar and a war criminal, and I hope that one day he's put on trial and forced to give an account. No immunity, no deals.

[David Zephyr]

61. Kick.

[sce56]

63. About F'ing time Here Here Mr. Conyers Go for it

The 1650+ Comrades in Arms of mine deserve for the TRUTH to be known why they died! And on a cautionary note please don't fly in any small planes anytime soon I'd hate to see such an honorable Congressmen to join the ranks of those who died in plane crashes after standing up to the Bush Crime Family

http://www.georgewalkerbush.net/bushdeathlist.htm

[Joey Liberal]

69. Bush is far worse than Nixon

The scary thing is that Bush has a fanatical republican Congress to back him up, no matter what he does. These are dark days for America.

[oncall]

74. The last paragraph summarizes

how American administrations (Republican and Democrat) deal with "problems". That paragraph also highligts why a party that participates in wrongful policy has partially itself to blame for the mess in which it finds itself.

[MadisonProgressive]

75. Halli-fricken-lulaah!

[buddysmellgood]

76. He lied to congress.

[ngGale]

77. How much proof does one need before...

throwing out the Kool Aid and hitting up on a little reality.

[Maraya1969]

79. I think I just had an orgasm

":bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

"It only takes one member of Congress to begin an impeachment process, and Conyers is said to be considering the option. The process would certainly be revealing. Congress could subpoena Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Gen. Richard Myers, Gen.Tommy Franks and all of the military commanders and pilots involved with the no-fly zone bombings going back into the late 1990s. What were their orders, both given and received? In those answers might lie a case for impeachment."

[googly]

81. Mine was only a wet dream........

forget impeachment with solid repug majorities in congress

[Maraya1969]

85. Let's try and think positive about this. ANY impeachment trial

or whatever you call it is worth it just to help expose this criminal administration and its mass murderer leader.

And remember many not all Republicans are jerks. There are plenty that are voting against Bush a lot of the time. How could anyone justify not impeaching in the face of such incriminating evidence?

[madrchsod]

84. never ever going to happen

why do you think karl got the troops on the tv spewing haterd over the acient history of the deep throat

[Maraya1969]

86. Yea and what's Karl going to do to interrupt a call for impeachment?

We as a party need to stop being so pessimistic and start believe in ourselves. Remember, in the end the truth will always win.

I don't give a crap about who Karl Rove gets on TV. If an impeachment starts in Congress the MSM will HAVE TO COVER IT!

And there is just not enough Oxycontin in the world to help Rush with this one.

[jmcon007]

89. let's have our own 'deck of cards' for these criminals.....

Bush - Ace of Spades
Cheney
Rumsfeld
Wolfowitz
DeLay
Bolton
Frist
Rice
Lott
Abramoff
Nordquist
Chalalabi (sp?)
Meyer
Hastert,
etc.

[Maraya1969]

95. Good idea, except I think Bush should be the Joker

[marmar]

91. True...

The revelations and fuck-ups are coming so fast and furious right now that even Karl isn't going to be able to counter all of them. I just hope it comes to a head soon - I can't wait to see the evil galactic empire crash and burn!

:nopity:

[Laurab]

99. And if in fact the facts start coming out

and the people start awakening from their slumber, who knows what could happen? Nobody wants a war criminal as their leader (except perhaps the freepers and Faux news watchers). I am somewhat optimistic - Joe six-pack, a/k/a your average voter, WOULD take notice if the facts started coming out.

[liberal N proud]

90. Please John, Oh Please start the proceedings

We need some tool to make this front page news and if Conyers would start the impeachment process, it would no doubt make the news or expose the media for the whores they are.

[mtnsnake]

93. Remember when everyone was calling for Rummie to be fired last year?

And how the media seemed to think it was in Bush's best interest to do so?

Well now we know why the chimp didn't have the balls to fire Rummie or to even call for him to resign.

It's because Bush knows that in the event there ever was an impeachment, Congress could subpoena Rumsfeld to testify, and with what Rumsfeld knows, it wouldn't be in Bush's best interests to have that asshole mad at him.

[Wizard777]

96. Obstruction of Justice in the prosecution of war.

Cassus Belli, anyone? Ad jus bellum (Copulea Domo + Carpa Deim)= Non Cassus Belli = Stand Down.

[Carolab]

102. Impeachment is OUR call. The more people we tell the more support.

Get it? Conyers is trying to spread the word to wake up the rest of America. Once we have critical mass demanding impeachment the rest will follow.

People, keep stepping up the media campaign to get this information out and get Conyers' petition signed.

[Karenina]

106. Kick!

[JRob]

103. Kick!

[digitalhippie]

104. email to my sen and rep

We will have to force this issue, please email your reps and senators today to let them know how you feel about this issue. Here is my email to Schimkus and Durbin -IL

Dear Sir,
With the release of the Downing Street Minutes and the neglect to those minutes by the mainstream meia, I believe it is time for our elected officials to take a closer look at this and any other related documents. I supported our President in the lead up to Iraq, I felt that if Saddam Husssein did have WMD capabilites he needed to be dealt with. I did feel that we could have given the UN inspectors more time, but I trusted our President to make the right decision based on information he was privy to. I now feel that the current administration has led us into a war that we did not need to embark upon. I think that over the last 2 years many things have come to light that place doubt on what the motivation to go to war really was. I feel cheated as a former soldier. Afte 9-11, The US pulled together, and the world did not pity us, they were amazed by our resialliance and out ability to pull together in a time of crisis. I felt like we had the rest of the world behind us in a quest to root out terrorism and make America the shining beacon it had previously been. Now I look at reports from around the world, and Amreica is one of the most despised nations on the planet, all due to the handling of the war in Iraq and how we treat prisoners related to this war. I feel like I have been lied to and cheated out of the opportunity to be a proud American. I feel that the current Administration has led us astray and squandered the good will we received post 9-11. I do not take my duties as citizen lightly. I voluntarily joined the military and served my country honorably for 4 years. If the day comes when my country needs me to defend her from foreign or domestic enemies, I will gladly do so, as long as I belive the cause is just and the motives clear! For now, I ask you to do your duty as my elected official and join Congressman Conyers in his quest to find out the truth about why we are at war with a country that may have not posed an imminent danger to the USA. This goes beyond partisan politics at this point in my mind, please take a courageous stand and help start the investigation. If in the end you conclude that nothing wrong was done, that is fine by me, but I would like you to seek out the truth, whatever it may be, and share it with your constituents. Thank you for your time.

[Supersedeas]

107. we WANT to see subpoenas....this is not a stained DRESS affair

lots of our bravest and brightest died because of this man's lies.