Tuesday, July 26, 2005

The Downing Street Memo

Back when Clinton was still in office his Administration developed a “Policy Statement” of “Regime Change.” This was based upon the dangers of Iraq turning over Nuclear Material to the terrorists.

Saddam was a known sympathizer with the most notorious terrorist prior to Ben Laden. Abu Abbas was the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking and was welcomed by Saddam and given official Iraq sanctuary. So much for no connection with terrorists groups and Saddam.

In order for the U.S. to be pro-active on trying to prevent the destruction of millions of Americans by Saddam giving Nuclear Materials to the terrorists, the Strategic Plan to insure that goal was developed.

Once Bush became President, he too signed on to the same Policy Statement and the same Strategic Plan.

While in London President Bush and Tony Blair were told of some new information that would not affect the Policy Statement but would slightly change the Strategic Plan. In order to fit, (fix), the new intelligence to the plan, a few adjustments were needed.

This now famous statement “But the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around policy” has become the rallying cry of the left and their frenzied hatred of the Bush Administration and the Policy and Plan. It means the facts were being aligned or fitted with the policy and plan.

They will twist the words, but the statement does not mean “Invent Intelligence” as some on the left are asserting. It also doesn’t mean that Bush had already made up his mind to use military action. What it meant was that military action seemed to be pointed to from the new intelligence. And the policy was being changed to take into account that possibility.

Boy, they are left to grasp at straws. Too bad, they lost and they can’t stand it.

I guess it is all right to ask, “It all depends upon what your definition of is is”, and expect us to believe their understanding of what “fixed” means.

Here is an article in the Chicago Tribune, (not your garden variety conservative MSM), about the memo where they agree “It's hard to find a smoking gun in the Downing Street memo.”

It’s just amazing that the libs are having parties all over the world in celebration of the Memo. Wake up Libs, you lost! There is no smoking gun, just ask the Chicago Tribune.


At 3:59 PM, Blogger jj said...

Where to start well here is the PNAC Letter to Clinton 1998 since you brought it up. Look at the names of the signatories at the bottom of the letter fromm1998. Many in Bushes administration signed it. The neo-cons have planned on getting Iraq for many years and not because he was a threat.

While the Neo-cons wanted to over throw Saddam militarily Clinton was not that stupid. Bush 41 was not so foolish in the first Gulf War.

The Downing Street Memo highlights read
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

Remember just before the midterm elections the vote to authorize war?

Bush also had no worries about what would happen after the fall of Saddam. Any semi intelligent person who bothered to educate themselves would have known what would happen. Many people warned the administration about an insurgency and civil war.

As for the smoking gun no it is just one more straw on the camels back. When we go to war with Iran will you blindly support it?

At 10:10 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


The reason "Military action was now seen as inevitable" was because Blair and Bush knew that Saddam would not adhere to the U.N. Resolution because he hadn't adhered to any of the, what was it 14?, resolutions before so why should we have expected him to this time. After a while you stop bluffing.

There was a reason why Saddam kept resisting the inspectors. Ever wonder why? Either Saddam was stupid to think he could continue to hinder the inspectors forever or he actually had something to hide.

The key is these terrorists are still obsessed with getting nukes and Iraq was their best hope. With Iraq being a bee in their bonnet, they now have to try to stop Democracy in their own back yard instead of having another safe haven to wait for their nukes.

We would have continued to get attacked regardless of Iraq because these guys are fanatics that want nothing less than world domination or death.

No negotiations are possible, they have said so. This is not about politics or land, it is about Religious Rule in a world of Islamic Theoracy. Nothing less.

Being in Iraq or not does not change that, only the hope that we can delay them getting nukes.



Post a Comment

<< Home