Blog Feed

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 

New Sunday Times Summary

Michael Smith has written a handy summary of the whole DSM story to date, and The Sunday Times has collected articles by him and others on the subject together. You can see the article here, and the link is also on our Media page.

It's worth a bookmark.

 posted by ukiyo1  # 2:09 PM  
Comments:
http://www.dougwallace.com/

Someone finally gets it, and is suing Bush and Cheney for hijacking America (I call it racketeering) because of their implementation of the PNAC "Project for a New American Century"... Mr. Michael Smith, please, if ever we needed your investigative reporting on the inner workings of the Un-Constitutional PNAC shadow government , it's NOW !
 
For the sake of the truth, someone should look into the conservatives insisting on draging this country to wage wars
only to serve lobbyists' interests. The U.N. launched an invesigation of the Darfur violence and concloded it was a catastrophe, but not a genoside.
Why are America's neoconservatives
insisting on the genocide???
Because they are preparing this nation for another war of agression. The rationale is Clinton did it on false premises,
Why can't we????? (When Clinton did it it was to distract the public from his monica Lewinski scandal.....) afterwards the site was found to be an innocent pharmaceutical plant... Unlike the reason which The President gave to authorize the bombing "a biological labortory linked to Al Qaeda" guess what? the media seemed to miss that as well.....
 
So can we change this website to

www.ProjectforaNewAmericanCenturyConspiracyTheory.com

Because that is what it has turned into.
 
I'm so sick of this issue being ignored.. I wish journalists actually captured the news as it was happening.. but god forbid it be the slightest bit controversial. It's about time this story is getting some sort of recognition.
 
Here is a better summary ;)




Since it was first published in the British press in May, the so-called Downing Street memo has generated debate about the Bush administration's intentions of going to war.

Critics of the Iraq war have seized on the document--minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his senior government leadership--as proof that the Bush administration was hell-bent for war even as it publicly sought to bring Saddam Hussein to heel through diplomacy.

War critics have focused on a section of the document in which a British spy agency chief, identified as C, discussed a recent visit to Washington. "Military action was now seen as inevitable," the spy chief reported. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around policy." British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw agreed that it seemed Bush "had made up his mind to take military action."

War was clearly an option at that time, as the British discussed. But remember: This was the British version of the events then forming in Washington. U.S. media outlets at the time were also reporting on the growing possibility of war, a war that would not occur for another eight months as the U.S. and British exhausted diplomatic efforts through the United Nations.

It's hard to find a smoking gun in the Downing Street memo, unless you're intent on finding one. At least two subsequent events argue that, contrary to the spy chief's assessment, Bush in July of 2002 did not see war as inevitable.

Four months later, in November, the United Nations Security Council approved Resolution 1441, sponsored by the U.S., which required Iraq to submit to weapons inspections and disclose any elements of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs. This page has long argued that war could well have been averted if the UN had been willing to enforce its resolution.

Six months after the Downing Street memo, UN weapons inspector Hans Blix reported in detail on Iraq's failure to cooperate with inspectors. If Iraq had cooperated, it would have defused any U.S. intention to go to war. Iraq did not.

The memo, and other documents obtained by Michael Smith, a defense writer in Britain, do show us something. They show us how governments prepare to go to war.

These documents provide some of the words and thoughts of the players involved in the Iraq crisis. The documents show us the strain on policymakers, give us a look backstage as British officials report on meetings with key U.S. officials.

The documents show decisions were not made in a vacuum. They came in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Straw noted in a March 2002 memo that had those attacks not occurred, "it is doubtful that the U.S. would now be considering military action against Iraq."

The documents also laid out the options policymakers faced: whether to proceed with the policy of containing Iraq through economic sanctions or to topple Hussein's regime. In hindsight, from these memos, a careful reader can piece together how and why the U.S. and British governments came together on the decision to go to war. "In sum, despite the considerable difficulties, the use of overriding force in a ground campaign is the only option that we can be confident will remove Saddam and bring Iraq back into the international community," was the conclusion of a 10-page options paper from March 2002--months before the Downing Street memo--prepared by the Overseas and Defense Secretariat of the Cabinet Office.

That paper weighed two possibilities for post-Saddam Iraq: rule by a Sunni military strongman or a representative democratic government. The paper acknowledged that for a democratic government to survive, "it would require the U.S. and others to commit to nation building for many years."

And that's where we are today--building a representative democratic government for Iraq.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0506290028jun29,1,4144833.story?coll=chi-news-hed
 
Before the Third Reich there was Mein Kampf, and before the Bush Administration there was PNAC.
 
Fakes, Phonies and Fools... Democrats all!!!

Why don't you people go out and do something constructive like feed the poor?
 
Imagine all the poor we (the US) could help raise from poverty and hopelessness, and other causes (too many to mention the short time I have to post right now) with all the money we have sunk into this unnecessary war... if you think just a little bit you will see that it all ties together.

Where is the money for education going? For health care? Look at the connections before spouting off next time.
 
Just read your profile, Mike's America... why are you still here instead of over in Iraq putting your boots on the ground to back your oh so clever mouth?

You are prime material for the military, they need you NOW! Spending your time posting on blogs (and not even doing that very well) is not the best way a Young Republican can support the president... You need to enlist, and soon.
 
The decision to drop out of Afghanistan to pursue the war on Iraq and the timing of the debate on the use of force in Iraq was determined by the upcoming mid-term elections. Rove and Bush saw a chance to increase the Republican majority in congress and further enhance their chances for reelection in two years and they took it. This seemed obvious at the time and still does. The timing of the actual invasion was determined by the continuing failure of UNSCOM to find WMDs, which was undermining the case for war every time they reported to the Security Council.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

Archives (open in new window)

June 2005 | July 2005 | August 2005 | September 2005 | November 2005 | December 2005 | February 2006 | March 2006 | April 2006 | May 2006 | June 2006 |

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?  Go here for full-screen view of the Blog