Have you read the Downing Street Minutes (be honest)

[paineinthearse]

Poll question: Have you read the Downing Street Minutes (be honest)

If you vote "no", please state your reason why.

After voting, you can read it at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1826004

[donheld]

1. I did read it

It seemed a bit awkwardly written to me.

[skooooo]

2. do you have a link to them?

I'd like to print them out.

[paineinthearse]

3. See the initial post

ABOVE ^

[impeachthescoundrel]

4. Repeatedly

[whistle]

5. The format of the Downing Street document may be argued....

..endlessly, but it remains the personal recollection of one Matthew Rycroft as dictated and transcribed for the exclusive review of I believe his boss David Manning on July 23, 2002, of a meeting that took place earlier that day. This copy of the document has no title, although the original may in fact have a "Title". In addition to the document's composer, Matthew Rycroft and the person to whom the document was sent, David Manning, there are eleven (11) other persons who were copied onto the document and I presume were all present or represented at the meeting. That is what the document reveals at its beginning.


<snip from your link>
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

<end of snip>

The next four sentences reveal that the document is to be treated as confidential, although it uses the term "sensitive". It makes clear that no copies are to be made or circulated, but does allow recipients to show the document on a "need to know basis". It does identify the document as "(t)his record", which suggests that it is a transcription summary and leads me to think that actual recorded minutes exist, perhaps like a court reporter might take down, where word for word reviews of what was actually said and by whom could be examined.

<snip of next four sentences>
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.

<end of snip>

The remainder of the document reads like a synopsis of what transpired at the meeting being communicated to David Manning by Matthew Rycroft. My conclusion therefore, is that this particular document is in fact a "memo" that may or may not be an accurate portrayal of the actual minutes of the meeting.

This next begs the question, if this is just a memo, are there minutes of the meeting and if so, are these available or restricted?

[katty]

6. yes

[Radical Activist]

7. No

I already know Bush lied about WMD's and is a colossal crook so reading the memo would be redundant.
But I encourage others to read it.

[dhinojosa]

8. I have not....

nor do I comment on it...

Just haven't had the time.

[Gothmog]

9. Yes, a couple of weeks ago

The minutes have been available for a while on a number of different websites.

[KoKo]

10. lol's most DU'er's can't spend the time to actually read a whole post.

:rofl:

[Pryderi]

11. What is the "Butler Report"? Was Bush Telling the Truth?

The Butler Report found claims about Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa to be “well-founded.”

We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that:

The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa was well-founded. (Paragraph 499)

http://www.gop.com/news/read.aspx?ID=4398

http://sadlyno.com/archives/000775.html

[Blue Belle]

12. Sounds like a ploy to me...

I must admit, I didn't read the link - I don't trust anything from gop.com.

[Pryderi]

13. Here's a better source on the "Butler Report"

The Report finds that there is little – if any – significant evidence of stockpiles of readily deployable weapons.

But it also concludes that Saddam Hussein did indeed have:

a. “the strategic intention of resuming the pursuit of prohibited weapons programmes, including if possible its nuclear weapons programme, when United Nations inspection regimes were relaxed and sanctions were eroded or lifted.

b. In support of that goal, was carrying out illicit research and development, and procurement, activities, to seek to sustain its indigenous capabilities.

c. Was developing ballistic missiles with a range longer than permitted under relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions;”

Throughout the last 18 months, throughout the rage and ferment of the debate over Iraq, there have been two questions.

One is an issue of good faith, of integrity.

This is now the fourth exhaustive inquiry that has dealt with this issue. This report, like the Hutton inquiry, like the report of the ISC before it and of the FAC before that, has found the same thing.

No-one lied. No-one made up the intelligence. No-one inserted things into the dossier against the advice of the intelligence services.

Everyone genuinely tried to do their best in good faith for the country in circumstances of acute difficulty. That issue of good faith should now be at an end.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/Nl1/Newsroom/NewsroomArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4014863&chk=0sZTFo

[Blue Belle]

14. Reads like the Dulfer Report...

but also comes to the same conclusions... there weren't any WMD's - which was the bill of goods that they originally sold to us to get us into this war. Plus, the Downing Street minutes basically refute Tony Blair's response that, "No-one lied. No-one made up the intelligence. No-one inserted things into the dossier against the advice of the intelligence services".

From the Downing Street Memo:

"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."

They knew in 2002 that Saddam having stockpiles of WMD's was a pipe dream, but went ahead with their plans anyway.