Quote :

"Rep. John Conyers: Creating Reasons to Go to War Wednesday, 4 May 2005, 12:22 pm Opinion: US Congressional Representative Creating Reasons to Go to War by Congressman John Conyers Mon May 2nd, 2005 at 13:02:58 PDT http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/2/16258/65970 & http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000076.htm#comments Unfortunately, the mainstream media in the United States was too busy with wall-to-wall coverage of a "runaway bride" to cover a bombshell report out of the British newspapers. The London Times reports that the British government and the United States government had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in 2002, before authorization was sought for such an attack in Congress, and had discussed creating pretextual justifications for doing so. The Times reports, based on a newly discovered document, that in 2002 British Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a meeting in which he expressed his support for "regime change" through the use of force in Iraq and was warned by the nation's top lawyer that such an action would be illegal. Blair also discussed the need for America to "create" conditions to justify the war. :: The document itself is revealing as it indicates that "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." This is the British government proclaiming foreknowledge of the manipulation of intelligence many of us have alleged for some time. It also quotes the British Foreign Secretary as stating about the case for war: "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." This should not be allowed to fall down the memory hole during wall-to-wall coverage of the Michael Jackson trial and a runaway bride. To prevent that from occuring, I am circulating the following letter among my House colleagues and asking them to sign on to it: ********** May ___, 2005 The Honorable George W. Bush President of the United States of America The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear Mr. President: We write because of troubling revelations in the Sunday London Times apparently confirming that the United States and Great Britain had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in the summer of 2002, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority to engage in military action. While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your Administration. However, when this story was divulged last weekend, Prime Minister Blair's representative claimed the document contained "nothing new." If the disclosure is accurate, it raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own Administration. The Sunday Times obtained a leaked document with the minutes of a secret meeting from highly placed sources inside the British Government. Among other things, the document revealed: * Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a July 2002 meeting, at which he discussed military options, having already committed himself to supporting President Bush's plans for invading Iraq. * British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw acknowledged that the case for war was "thin" as "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran." * A separate secret briefing for the meeting said that Britain and America had to "create" conditions to justify a war. * A British official "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." As a result of this recent disclosure, we would like to know the following: 1) Do you or anyone in your Administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document? 2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time? 3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate? 4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq? 5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states? We have of course known for some time that subsequent to the invasion there have been a variety of varying reasons proffered to justify the invasion, particularly since the time it became evident that weapons of mass destruction would not be found. This leaked document - essentially acknowledged by the Blair government - is the first confirmation that the rationales were shifting well before the invasion as well. Given the importance of this matter, we would ask that you respond to this inquiry as promptly as possible. Thank you. Sincerely,"

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0505/S00047.htm

5/4/2005 1:55:42 PM

That's really long... Can I get el cliffo's notes on that?

5/4/2005 1:56:20 PM

Quote :

"Dear Representative Conyers, Eat a dick and die. Sincerely, Dubya"

[Edited on May 4, 2005 at 1:58 PM. Reason : *]

5/4/2005 1:58:12 PM

Prime Minister Tony Blair and George Bush misused intelligence and conspired to go to war with Iraq.

[Edited on May 4, 2005 at 1:59 PM. Reason : rewrite]

5/4/2005 1:58:31 PM

Wait, you mean to tell me that the president PLANNED to go to war BEFORE he asked for congress' approval? Really? Who would have ever thought that you might PLAN to do something BEFORE you see if you CAN do that thing?

5/4/2005 2:14:23 PM

^Lying to Congress is an impeachable offense.

5/4/2005 2:19:09 PM

Aha, but let's pass the buck and say the president was lied to first by the CIA, but he didn't know it.

*waits for a shit storm to develop*

5/4/2005 2:20:41 PM

was President Clinton not impeached? and what happened there?










exactly

5/4/2005 2:21:06 PM

Christ, the President never lied to anyone.

Let's role play:

You're president of the United States. September 11 is still a fresh memory and the towers are still smoldering. It's the summer of 2002 and you are receiving intelligence from the CIA, the Russians, Blair, Israel, and they all say "yep, he's got WMDs." Further, there are still hundreds of thousands of dead Kurds, bones still laced with sarin gas.

Do you wait until the rest of Manhattan is smoldering? Or do you take action.

Someone needs to impeach that idiot congressman.

5/4/2005 2:24:24 PM

IF YOU DONT LIKE THE WAY WE DO THINGS HERE THEN GET THE HELL OUT!!!!!

5/4/2005 2:25:54 PM

It's ironic too that the congressman uses british sources for his justification which is the exact same thing President Bush did too.

5/4/2005 2:26:06 PM

Quote :

"Do you wait until the rest of Manhattan is smoldering? Or do you take action. "

i always laugh when people say something like this.

5/4/2005 2:27:43 PM

Lying and bad intelligence are two totally different things. Lying implies a malice forethought.

5/4/2005 2:28:16 PM

^^ Yeah because it's such a light subject to laugh about.

5/4/2005 2:28:47 PM

hahah...exactly.

5/4/2005 2:30:05 PM

Quote :

"Further, there are still hundreds of thousands of dead Kurds, bones still laced with sarin gas."

no that shit does not hang around very long

5/4/2005 2:31:27 PM

Let's role play:

you are typing on the wolf web. you are trying to get your point across, but its obvious that you are just spitting out words that you heard sean hannity say last week.

IS ANYONE GOING TO TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY!?

5/4/2005 2:33:32 PM

Obviously you watch more sean hannity than I do (since I don't even have fox news at my place), but nonetheless, it is a valid point. The terrorists proved they could hit us and it isn't a far reach to imagine that Saddam Hussein or any of the others in the mid east would pass a weapon or two.

[Edited on May 4, 2005 at 2:37 PM. Reason : .]

5/4/2005 2:35:53 PM

Quote :

"it isn't a far reach to imagine with that Saddam Hussein or any of the others in the mid east would do pass a weapon or two. "

what the hell is that supposed to mean?

5/4/2005 2:37:45 PM

HEY, CHINA IS STILL COOL!

YOU PAY LATA! LATA!!!

5/4/2005 2:40:13 PM

Quote :

"The terrorists proved they could hit us and it isn't a far reach to imagine that Saddam Hussein or any of the others in the mid east would pass a weapon or two. "

It isn't a far reach that some schmuck from the mountains of NC is going to bomb a federal building. Let's gas the whole state! I mean we wouldn't want all of Atlanta smoldering would we.

** also if I knew anything about you I would follow this up with an ad hominem..

[Edited on May 4, 2005 at 3:11 PM. Reason : asv]

5/4/2005 3:08:57 PM

i'm glad to see there are people here that still believe Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11.

5/4/2005 3:15:47 PM

I'm glad you know how to interpret people and make them say what you want them to.

There were several al-qaeda camps in Iraq. For those of you who believe that al-qaeda somehow was mysteriously absent from Iraq when they're in every other country in the middle east ought to have a reality check.

NyM410, the terrorists proved something on 9/11, that they could do something like that. Your analogy doesn't fit.

[Edited on May 4, 2005 at 3:18 PM. Reason : .]

5/4/2005 3:18:17 PM

I suppose the bombing of Centennial Park in Atlanta was nothing? How bout the Oklahoma City bombing (I know that wasn't Rudolph obviously)?

I'm not saying he deliberately lied, because I don't believe that. But your reasons aren't strong.

[Edited on May 4, 2005 at 3:20 PM. Reason : grammah]

5/4/2005 3:19:41 PM

Quote :

"NyM410, the terrorists proved something on 9/11, that they could do something like that. Your analogy doesn't fit. "

i guess youve never heard of timothy mcveigh



[Edited on May 4, 2005 at 3:23 PM. Reason : d]

5/4/2005 3:20:05 PM

The President was in a damned if you do/damned if you don't situation.

Had the president balked on iraq and something happened with an iraqi weapon (which everyone KNOWS saddam HAD them) then he would be in a heap of shit and I would vote for his impeachment for dereliction of duty.

The intelligence was in and it was hard to ignore it, even though it turned out to be wrong. Hindsight is 20/20.

Was Iraq a mistake? probably (this coming from a Bush voter). Would I have made the same decision? probably. Would I have made the same decision knowing what we know now? no.

5/4/2005 3:21:56 PM

I suppose the scariest thing in your post was 'it isn't a far reach'..

It shouldn't be any reach if we are going to retaliate. That implies we went to war 'on a hunch' the way you wrote it.

Anyway, impeachment would be stupid..

Quote :

"which everyone KNOWS saddam HAD them"

I sure don't. I mean I know at one point long ago he had the ones we gave him/helped him with. But I know nothing of the sort at the time the war started. I mean, I suppose I believed what I was told naively, but we all know what happened to that...

[Edited on May 4, 2005 at 3:23 PM. Reason : saf]

5/4/2005 3:22:09 PM

But it wasn't "on a hunch" when all the intelligence (not just ours) was all pointing in the same direction. That's what people fail to realize.

5/4/2005 3:23:36 PM

Quote :

"There were several al-qaeda camps in Iraq. For those of you who believe that al-qaeda somehow was mysteriously absent from Iraq when they're in every other country in the middle east ought to have a reality check."

there is a difference between something being there, and harboring them. there has been NO proof of iraq harboring al-queda. so, according to your reasoning, we should start a war with ourselves since there are al-queda cells all over the US.




[Edited on May 4, 2005 at 3:22 PM. Reason : dfdf]

5/4/2005 3:23:39 PM

Quote :

"Yeah because it's such a light subject to laugh about."

soooo
we can't laugh about it
but we can misuse it to wage war with a nation innocent of the crime?

5/4/2005 3:23:56 PM

Sure he had them, even France says that. Why do you think he was so evasive with the UN inspectors? The inspectors were stopped outside of warehouses and not allowed to go in, trucks would come and load "something" then the inspectors were alowed to go in.

But this is all been said and done before on the soap box. I think this particular conversation is tired.

5/4/2005 3:25:27 PM

i'm glad to see that there are people here who are still in denial about saddam hussein's numerous links to and financial support of terrorists

5/4/2005 3:25:41 PM

Quote :

"But it wasn't "on a hunch" when all the intelligence (not just ours) was all pointing in the same direction."

"all the intelligence"?

no sir....not all the intelligence. there was plenty of intelligence that said that iraq had no weapons.....we just choose to look past that stuff.

5/4/2005 3:26:13 PM

the hybrid war model is what scares me

5/4/2005 3:26:18 PM

There were al qaeda agents meeting with saddam's people in europe shortly before the war which was an aid on our decision to invade.

There were links.

5/4/2005 3:26:48 PM

nm

[Edited on May 4, 2005 at 3:27 PM. Reason : nm]

5/4/2005 3:27:29 PM

Quote :

"i'm glad to see that there are people here who are still in denial about saddam hussein's numerous links to and financial support of terrorists"

so... if its about links and financial support why are we stopping at iraq and afghanistan?

5/4/2005 3:28:26 PM

sober, so what do you do when you have intelligence pointing one way and some that says the opposite, especially when waiting can be disasterous?

5/4/2005 3:29:22 PM

i'd go with the intelligence that is not heavily relying on one person with an agenda

5/4/2005 3:30:30 PM

^ unsubstantiated.

A debate can't be won with conjecture.

5/4/2005 3:31:07 PM

are you denying what they have admitted?

its not conjecture that a lot of our information about iraq came from one guy, and its not conjecture that we found out that a lot of it wasn't true, its not conjecture that there were people saying he had an agenda and probably wasn't a good source

[Edited on May 4, 2005 at 3:35 PM. Reason : .]

5/4/2005 3:34:15 PM

Quote :

"one person with an agenda"

Ok, find me where the President says "oh, you know, I just felt like a war and abused intelligence to get there."

5/4/2005 3:35:13 PM

i'm not talking about the president you dimwit

[Edited on May 4, 2005 at 3:36 PM. Reason : read my edit]

5/4/2005 3:35:55 PM

If you edit your posts after people respond to them to take what they said out of context, it's really easy to call them a dimwit.

5/4/2005 3:36:50 PM

Your "are you denying what they admitted" was extremelly vague.

5/4/2005 3:37:39 PM

Quote :

"sober, so what do you do when you have intelligence pointing one way and some that says the opposite, especially when waiting can be disasterous? "

you wait until you know EXACTLY whats going on. you dont rush into something like war...and thats exactly what we did.

if we acted everytime there was a chance that something bad would happen, we would be in a world of trouble.

5/4/2005 3:38:10 PM

but seriously though

are you really denying that a lot of the information that lead us to war came from an iraqi source that provided information that we have found to be not true, a source that at the time many criticized as not being a good source because of his personal agenda

5/4/2005 3:38:44 PM

*sigh*

5/4/2005 3:38:56 PM

Yes, I agree that some of the intelligence turned out to be illegitimate. And if that Iraqi dude was the only source we used, then yes, I would agree with you. But we had many many many sources. A piece turns out to be illegitimate doesn't spoil the batch that we had. It certainly casts doubts on it. But that was not the only source we used.

5/4/2005 3:40:01 PM

You realize that all of our intelligence was illegitimate?

And don't try to claim that Syria took the weapons either. Because the government just said there is no evidence for that.

5/4/2005 3:45:09 PM