Once more, the Bush and Blair bashers want to re-hash Iraq. One more time, the argument is: (1) Bush had some evil secret agenda to take down Hussein, for no reason at all;(2)the only possible reason that could have justified the war was the weapons of mass destruction; and (3) the American and British people would NEVER had approved the war had they known in advance of the hideous lies Bush and Blair were telling. Lets deal with (3) first. We just had elections in both countries. In those elections, the opposition made precisely the arguments you are making here. All of the hideous, evil lying of Bush and Blair was trumpeted to the public. And the public returned Bush and Blair to power. So, get over this nonsense that had the voters only known, they would have opposed. The voters DID know, and they endorsed the war. OK. What was Bush's hideous, evil agenda for war? Lets face it. Hussein was a fantastically evil tyrant, a mass murderer, in fact. Why is it so hard to believe that Bush wanted to get rid of this regime, because it was evil and dangerous? Why is it so hard to believe that Bush had no agenda, except the one he stated, to remove a threat to America and the world? With regard to weapons of mass destruction,here is a thought for you. It was a good thing, not a bad thing, that Hussein appears not to have had them. That means that we took him out in time. If we had waited until he had the weapons, then we would not have been able to take him out. As for Bush lying about the whole thing,fells, every intelligence service in the world thought Hussein had WMD. This was not just some fantasy of Bush's. And, if sanctions had been lifted,Hussein would have had WMD as soon as his billions would have bought them. The WMD question was never if Hussein was going to get them, it was always a question of when. Thank God we have Bush and Blair protecting us,and not you shameless heirs of Neville Chamberlain.

As we saw in America in the election,the Left,both in America and in Europe, never argues. Instead,they simply hand down arrogant put downs. Those who disagree with them are simply uneducated,ill-informed idiots. The Left need not argue, because its superiority is so obvious that it need not soil its hands. What alot of nonsense!! This site calls itself "Open Democracy." Guess what, Brolly, democracy is a system of government -- with which you obviously disagree -- in which -- oh my God,the horror of it all -- the common people get to make decisions. Much of the point of my prior posting was that the majority of both the American people and the British people endorsed the Iraq war, after hearing all of the Left arguments. In short, Brolly, you are not just arrogantly refusing to talk to me,you are arrogantly dismissing the views of the majority of the people of the two oldest democracies in the world. Brolly, it is real simple. You do not believe in democracy. You believe in rule by an elite of well-educated, correctly thinking people. Too bad for you, power is held by democracies of crude,rude uncouth people too ill-educated to see that you are their superior.

It is not a football game. It is deadly serious. As you correctly point out, Americans are dying nearly every day over in Iraq. Why are they dying? According to the Left, they are dying for no reason. According to the Left,they are dying because Bush lied. What the Left never wants to discuss is that America really IS bringing freedom to Iraq. The Left never wants to admit that Hussein was a hideous tyrant, and that throwing him out of power -- no matter what you think about Bush -- was a good thing. In short, our troops are dying to bring freedom to the world, in just the same way they did in World War Two. I think you could show our dead some respect by acknowledging that they died for a noble and virtuous cause: bringing freedom to the Middle East. Let me put this question to you. How is this war different from World War Two? Hussein was certainly a tyrant in the same league as Hitler, albeit in a smaller country. In both wars, America could have stayed out. In both wars,we had a president who used all of his power to get us into the war. Remember, FDR used a great deal of deceit to get America into WWII. He said that America was neutral, while sending arms to Britain. He said we would stay out of the war,and he sent the navy to convey ships half way across the Atlantic. Was FDR honest in his war policy? No. But he is a liberal hero,because he fought Hitler. How is Bush different? Can one of you guys answer this question? Frankly, I think your viewpoint is identical to that of those who wanted us to stay out of WWII. How is it different? The point of stressing that Bush and Blair won is fairly simple. We have had a long argument over Iraq. It was at the center of the American presidential election, and in an odd,indirect way, it was very important to the UK election as well. In the '04 election, everyone knew that the election was basically a referendum on the Iraq War. Bush's opponents certainly raised every issue which the "Downing Street Memorandum" raises. Having seen all of these issues, the majority put Bush back into power. You question Bush's majority. Give me a break. Alot of people voted for Kerry, but the Bush majority nationally was quite solid. The Blair situation is more complex, but if you recall that the Tories supported the war,you see that the Liberal Democrat vote measures the real anti-war vote,or at least the vote of those who saw the Iraq war as the paramount issue.

rickgibsonlaw, Don't be concerned about brolly. I understand the bolly follies have been on this site for 15 month. This site wouldn't be fun without them. They're certainly not serious.

Brolly, if you're out there: I've read another of Pupri's posts, and I now must apologize for repeatedly calling you an idiot. By comparison, you are a prince of perspicacity. HH

henry, wow your just sooo mature!! I know its hard to bear the truth- but as we can see you can not bear it- that is why you have to call me names!! Well I am not going to stoop down to your level by calling you names back. I have read in many posts of yours that you always go back to name calling- don't get emotinal in discussions as they say: "If you can't stand the HEAT get out of the kitchen!!"

The Babylonian Captivity of Washington, P. I Close your eyes for five seconds. Allow the blackness to stare you right back into your eyes: here we find our authentic selves, here is where men commune with their Gods, reason for their existence, or find madness. When the world is shut out and we have only the words of our conscience with which to deal with the day's challenges, we are at the very epicentre of our existence, and it is from here that we live life out, that we live the "truth" of our time. For those of us who choose the truth over madness to inform these internal conversations, and are concerned about the world around them, and especially the people in it, the Downing Street Memoes are important in explaining with plain words our recent past. Its words should now form a part of that internal conversation we all ought to be having regarding the justice of the Iraq Invasion. The documents are not fakes, they are not forgeries. The next salient point is the date: July 23, 2002, predating the leadup to the ultimate invasion by eight months. It declares that in the U.S., "Military action was now seen as inevitable." It does not state "highly probable", or "extremely likely". It states a policy conclusion that war is coming, come what may: Saddam prostrating himself naked on the steps of the Capitol Building for a public spanking would not have avoided the "necessary war". The key phrase that should inform our perception of all the public policy pronouncements and posturings of Bush and Blair is its crucial declaration: "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." It appears by a simple reading of this phrase as a matter of reason, as a matter of logic, that "intelligence" and "facts" were in dire need of "fixing" to jutsify the war. This is an admission produced the very heart of the Bush-Blair nexus. It explains the incredible intelligence "failures", it explains the wild myth-making and scare-mongering that led up to the war. This memo explains all of it as intentionally contrived. The faith-based patriots may dismiss this interpretation of the word "fixed." The linguistic contortions are as plainly obvious and ridiculous as Bill Clinton's with the words "sexual relationship." I'd laugh but for the bodybags. The common meaning of "fixed" as is used commonly when referring to horse races or elections is that somehow, somewhere, by some illegal, unethical and covert manner, a result is predetermined, -in this case: war. In confirmation of fixed, we have a further admission in the Memo, a refreshingly frank and honest appraisal of the state of the case against Sadddam Hussein: "..the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran." What follows is a direct indictment of all of the UN-related gestures put forth by the Bush-Blair "bad cop, good cop" duo: "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." Thus the UN was seen as a means of inducing a legal pretext for the war, not as a cure in and of itself. I need not not bore you with the sad story of Hans Blix, and his fairyland pursuit of WMDs. One can almost see Blair leaning forward with anticipatory glee: "The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors." This is how men are sent off to die.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/15/1345223 This link will take you to an "Democracy Now" interview with Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and former CIA analyst Ray McGovern. [includes rush transcript] --------------------------------------------------------- "Tomorrow in Washington, Congressmember John Conyers of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, will convene a public hearing on the so-called Downing Street Memo and other newly released documents that Conyers says show the administration's "efforts to cook the books on pre-war intelligence." Conyers also says that he plans to raise new documents that back up the accuracy of the Downing Streets memo, which is actually the classified minutes of a July 2002 meeting of Tony Blair and his senior advisers." Interview follows...in the interview Rep. John Conyers really points to what's at stake, or what fuels much of my fears for the future. I have marked this in bold print. In response to Amy Goodman's question: "AMY GOODMAN: In our news headlines today, Wisconsin, the state's Democratic Party, has passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush, as well as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. The resolution called on Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings against the three officials accusing them of misleading the country in the lead up to war. Last year, the Democratic Party in Nevada passed the same resolution. The National Green Party, as well as former presidential candidate, Nader, have -- Ralph Nader, have called on Bush's impeachment. Are you calling for President Bush's impeachment? REP. JOHN CONYERS: At this point, I'm still collecting evidence. There are a lot of other bits of evidence that we have to put together to make it perfectly clear that this isn’t a matter of how you interpret a memo that speaks in the plainest of language, and I, as the senior member on the committee that would be in charge of anything that comes under the rubric of the I-word, I am staying away from that subject until I have completed my investigation. There are others, who -- constitutional scholars, lawyers, professors that are all looking at this question, but I can tell you this: Deceiving the Congress, deceiving the American people, planning a war that is not pre-emptive, cooking the books to create weapons of mass destruction, and then trying to beef up the intelligence to comport to a -- to provoke Iraq to join us in a war, then going to the United Nations, hoping that the United Nations demand to go in and examine for these hidden weapons, all of these pretexts which failed, and now we have the question of whose -- does Article I, Section 8, giving the Congress the power to declare war, is that still in existence or have we slipped into this era where in a never-ending war against terrorism, we may be confronted with presidents who may operate as carelessly and as recklessly as this President that we have at this point?" Accountability now!

One thing is for sure. The overwhelming majority of the people in Europe who are given to thinking about the Iraq war, believe that the Bush administration used 9/11 as the opportunity to depose Saddam and occupy Iraq and that a decision to do so was taken well before 2003,and probably even before the 'memo' says it was taken. Any argument as to whether the war was the 'right' thing or not is besides this particular point - that the US and British people were deliberately misled. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was quite categorical that Bush was preoccupied with taking down Saddam Hussein from the time he became President and we can safely speculate a long time before. The authenticity of the actual memo is neither here nor there.

Mike: I appreciate your clear-(and level-)headedness. Unlike most others here, you rarely let passion impede a sound argument. But watching this exchange is really kind of amazing: You post logic, and get what people "know in their bones" in return. You ask someone to concede that there is no proof of the memo's veracity, and get ever-more detailed lists of internet sites and timelines and second-hand "witnesses" -- none of which accomplish that basic test. And Erin, who at other times seems very level-headed, responds to a post questioning the veracity of the news from an obviously left-leaning organization with insult and hysteria. I understand she doesn't like the Bush administration and its policies, but it's quite incredible that an otherwise seemingly normal person could so quickly accept such a specious document at face value, can so easily swallow the cant of internet sites with glaringly evident political motives -- and so quickly turn to invective when confronted with these basic truths. Mike, as always, keep up the fine work. Johnnie Cochran would be proud. HH

Forgot this one: "Deep Throat did not need to come forward for Watergate's truths to become known." This is true. It was a testament to the loyalty, personal integrity and professionalism of Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein, Ben Bradlee and their peers at the Washington Post that Deep Throat's identity was never revealed. But see, Erin, your reference does harm to your argument. Woodward and Bernstein used Deep Throat's information as the basis for their investigation and reporting; they didn't print what he said verbatim and ask everyone to just believe it. They knew it didn't stand up on its own. It had to be confirmed ... checked ... sourced ... . None of this has been done by the reporter who leaked the memo. Perhaps he's lazy ... or perhaps there's no "there" there. I'll wait for the story in the Post to make up my mind. HH

henry_hart, Some observations on the subject of circumstantial evidence:- Fingerprints are a perfect example of circumstantial evidence. There may be no eyewitness to place an alleged burglar at the scene of a crime, but if the defendant's fingerprints were found at the scene, it can be inferred that he or she was there. Circumstantial evidence is generally admissible in court unless the connection between the fact and the inference is too weak to be of help in deciding the case. Many convictions for various crimes have rested largely on circumstantial evidence." So let's cut to the chase. We have enough fingerprints about the intention of George W.Bush and the neoconservatives in his administration to know that a war with Iraq was planned and decided upon a long time before February or March, 2003. There is no strong argument that there is a disconnection between making the inference of the Bush administration's intention to take the US into a war with Iraq before early 2003 and the facts we already know. You said: [“That's not to say there isn't a real memo or that the meeting did not occur or that Bush & Co. did not trump up the motivations for the war. What I'm saying is that, so far, neither you nor anyone else has proved as much. Mike is quite correct: as the accusers, you and whoever else would use said memo as evidence must first take on the responsibility of proving its accuracy. I don't see how you can refute that.”] On the one hand you admit that the memo might exist, on another you do not deny that the meeting took place and third, that there were motivations for the war. So let’s look at these one at a time. There are reasonable grounds for assuming the memo exists or existed. It is a matter of record that Blair met Bush in April, 2002 and that the agenda focused on Iraq. It isn’t hard to imagine that military action was discussed in detail. One could hardly doubt that Bush would have been coy about his plans and that Blair, who was so determined to be as friendly with Bush as he was with Clinton, would have been keen to go along with the President’s plans. We have seen how far Blair was prepared to go to support Bush by ignoring the voice of millions of Brits who demonstrated against the war and the opinion polls which showed their was scant enthusiasm for it in the UK. He also placed loyalty and support of Bush above his ambition to lead Britain to the heart of the European Union, which his decision to go to war in support of the US, has virtually ruined. It is certain that British intelligence chiefs were meeting their US counterparts in 2002 and that invasion details were discussed. After the intelligence personnel returned from Washington, it isn’t a surprise that a briefing paper was circulated to Ministers. There can be no doubts that Blair had many meetings with his inner circle and also the small group of Ministers that he consulted over Iraq. That minutes were taken of some of these meetings should also be no surprise. After all some were of the Cabinet Committee that was formed to deal with the issue of Iraq. British governments have had a considerable history of leaked secret documents and there are always some in the Civil Service, with access to such documents, who believe that it is their duty to expose members of the government who lie to the public or are misleading them. So it is not a surprise to have a secret document leaked. We know that the neoconservatives that are now prominent in the Bush administration had prepared a policy paper for then Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." It called for removing Hussein from power in Iraq as part of a broad strategy to transform the region and remove radical regimes. ( This is from the Washington Post). So once again there is evidence of several members of the administration having the declared aim of removing Saddam Hussein, several years before 9/11. Another piece of evidence is the interview given by Condoleeza Rice released by the BBC on 15th August, 2002. She said that ‘The threat from Iraq is high and outlined the case for regime change’ There can be little argument from the ‘usual suspects’ that George W. Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein. Paul O’Neill, the ex-Treasury Secretary said that the idea of regime change and invading Iraq was being constantly brought up by Bush from the day O’Neill entered the administration soon after the inauguration. In an interview broadcast by the BBC's On the Record programmein 2002, US Assistant Secretary of State, Beth Jones, admitted that 'nothing was off the table' when it came to Iraq. So given all of the above circumstantial evidence, why are the neocon pair, henry_hart and Iron Mike, playing a silly and pointless game of asking for ‘proof’ that the decision to go to war was taken prior to 2003. Listening to you and Iron Mike ,one can conclude that you believe that there are no legal grounds for allowing circumstantial evidence to decide cases in a court of law. Well the fact is that in the US it can and does.

There is a piece [opinion only, of course] here: http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern06242005.html written by “an ex CIA analyst”, which I think encapsulates the picture regarding DSM. It argues that ignoring it is the only option the Whitehouse has, knowing the memo to be factually accurate. The fact that the British government has not emphatically denied it, is far more significant in the UK than the US participants to OD realise. They would have if they could. It may bring bad news for Blair but I can’t see it giving Bush any serious trouble on top of what he already has because it seems that, to a high proportion of US voters, it doesn't actually matter that he had already decided the policy to invade prior to 9/11. Saddam was a guy whose time was up & the fact that evidence was fitted around existing policy is not important. I’d be curious to hear from Iron Mike & Henry Hart et al whether, if the DSM proved to be an accurate record of minutes taken at government meetings, this would affect their view & support for the war, and also their friends / acquaintances who they discuss this sort of thing with. I suspect that it would be irrelevant. Am I right or would it give them a second thought? I hear that a latest poll in the US on Thursday [not sure who conducted it] shows 51% now think the war was a mistake, though whether the DSM plays a part in this is extremely unlikely..............

Ttrryosborn said: ["Are you really willing to piss on the people of Iraq just to satisfy your peeves? You want the coalition to leave the people of Iraq to possible anarchy, civil war? Mideast could even balkanize as a result. Do your peeves outweigh these consequences? You want to replace a percieved wrong (the invasion of Iraq) with an even bigger wrong (leaving Iraq too soon). Your opinion is extremely short-sighted."] This ludicrously, lachrymosal figure never mentions the Palestinians, who have been 'pissed on' for decades. He never mentions their 'peeves' in being denied the 'freedom and justice' that he claims the US invaded Iraq to restore. He speaks about 'perceived wrongs' but this does not apply to Palestinians, who for him do not even exist. And this pathetically foolish character has the gall to criticise others for 'short-sightedness'. Whatever next? Message was edited by: brolly3

Now before I get pummeled ... I caught some of the posts on page 6 in respects of the memo, its legality, authenticity and whether or not you would bring it to court or not. Could someone please show me authentic, legal documentation that shows that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction? After all, in a court of law, that is how I would counter. Ok, have fun with it, Joeanna

You hardly win, let alone pummel. The Kurds were gassed over 12 years ago. Since then it has been shown, and proved, many times that Hussein did not have the weapons attributed to him by the american right. Stick to the facts. the US and it's puppet UK attacked Iraq to get control of the largest reserves of high quality crude oil in the world. They then cancelled all existing contracts with the Irish, french and Russian companies that were developing those fields under the oil for aid program. As explained by the recently ex-Director of exploration of Amerada Hess on the eve of the war, there are ample reserves of oil avaiable to US companies in their existing fields, but the volume remaining reduces the pressure and makes it very much more expensive to acquire. Iraq's oil, along with Russian, is about the best quality in the world, and because the fields are so underdeveloped the pressure is high - ergo, cheap to produce. Make no mistake about it, the US and UK went to war for commercial gain. 19th Century Impewrialism all over again. then the official argument was that we were "civilising" the people, today it's not actually that different. Question to the american right: why do they not apply the same criteria to Israel as the did to Iraq?

Actually, Brolly, any of the gases in the Iraq arsenal at the time -- tabun, VX, hydrogen cyanide -- DO fall under the definition of a weapon of mass destruction, in that they kill indiscriminantly. The number of dead bodies is not the measure of whether the weapon used is a WMD. It's the fact that anyone within range of it at the time of its detonation or dispersal is in danger of being killed by it. HH

Speaking of Saddam's upcoming trial...I just stumbled across this: U.S. trying to delay interrogations of Saddam, Iraqi says Maggie Michael, Associated Press June 21, 2005 SADDAM0622 http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/5468017.html "BRUSSELS, Belgium -- Iraq's justice minister accused the United States on Tuesday of trying to hinder the Iraqi investigation of Saddam Hussein by limiting his access to interrogators, and said "it seems there are lots of secrets they want to hide.'' ...Shandal alleged that U.S. officials are trying to limit access to Saddam because they have their own secrets to protect, including funneling money and support to the Iraqi leader during his rule. "It seems there are lots of secrets they want to hide,'' Shandal said. "There should be transparency and there should be frankness, but there are secrets that if revealed, won't be in the interest of many countries,'' he said. "Who was helping Saddam all those years?'' This really is just a House of Cards for the Bush Administration. Our pre-emptive war which is now being justified because of the crimes Saddam is now going to trial for--well in PR spin circles anyway--may in the end be said was waged on a accomplice of our Iran-Contra adventures. Just a thought. Crazy one, I admit, but not impossible. Maybe nobody in the Bush circle is concerned with what Saddam might have to say...I mean it is common knowledge that we, the US favored Saddam and denied initially that the attacks on the Kurds even happened.

From (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:Weapon+of+mass+destruction) * Any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors, a disease organism, or radiation or radioactivity. (www.csa.com/hottopics/terror/gloss.php) * a weapon that kills or injures civilian as well as military personnel (nuclear and chemical and biological weapons) (www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn2.1) * Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are weapons designed to kill large numbers of people, typically targeting civilians and military personnel alike. Some types of WMDs are considered to have a psychological impact rather than a strictly military usefulness. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction) Granted, carpet bombing and napalm are designed to kill or injure anyone within a certain radius. But entire cities were bombed flat in WWII using high explosive or incendiary bombs, and historians don't make the argument that those were instances of WMD use. That distinction is reserved for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

Actually, my bumberlicious friend, your points are hardly ever clear enough ... And what "crime" are you talking about? Warfare? You are probably not aware of this, having such a tenuous grasp on reality, but in war, defeating an enemy as quickly as possible -- usually by killing his troops and destroying his equipment -- is pretty much the main point. What about that don't you understand? HH