The Downing Street Memo

833 Views 14 Replies 7 Participants Last post by The Captain, May 24, 2005

__Xzyx987X

Discussion Starter · May 23, 2005

AKA the proof Bush lied about Iraq.

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

At this point I know that most people have already made up their minds about the Iraq war, and don't really care about what the true motives behind it were. But for those of you who'd like to know, this is the best proof found to date that Bush manufactured evidence to force a war with Iraq.

Just to clarify things, this is not a thread for debate. I really don't want to start a flame war here. I'd just like to hear whether this information has changed anyone's opinion on Bush or the war, and if anyone thinks there should be repercussions for Bush and his administration based on it. If you doubt the authenticity of the document you are free to say so, just don't start any arguments about it.

BTW, I suppose I'm a little late in posting this as it's been out for nearly a month, but here in the US this thing wasn't really big news (<sarcasm>hmm... I wonder why</sarcasm>), so I didn't even find out about it until just recently.

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

xRock

· #2 · May 23, 2005

I thought it must be pretty clear by now that all the reasons given at the start of the war were lies.

(1) Weapons of Mass Destruction ---- None Found
(2) To Capture Saddam Hussein ----- been captured for months
(3) To have democratic voting and establish a govt. ---- done
(4) Secure Oil & resources for US purposes --- ONGOINg

What happened to capturing the REAL threat that is Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.....

And now it is very clear that Iran has the potential to build the bombs and North Korea may already have one. So now what Invade those countries.

__Xzyx987X

Discussion Starter · #3 · May 23, 2005

xRockx said:
What happened to capturing the REAL threat that is Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.....

Well, that threat was fairly exagerated too. From what I heard Al Qaeda was never an organazation so much as a loose affiliation which was born out of desperation to make a last attempt to do something people would notice. Did you know they didn't even call themselves Al Qaeda before the US started calling them that? At this point the only thing that's left of them that's of any consequence is Bin Laden himself, and even he can't do much now with all his assets frozen. Frankly, the reason we never hear about Al Qaeda anymore is because there's nothing left to hear about.

Tulac

· #4 · May 23, 2005

__Xzyx987X said:
Frankly, the reason we never hear about Al Qaeda anymore is because there's nothing left to hear about.

What about the Madrid bombings?

__Xzyx987X

Discussion Starter · #5 · May 23, 2005

Those were a while ago, and it's arguable that "Al Qaeda" was even directly responsible for them rather than some other islamic nationalist group. At any rate, it doesn't take a globally coordinated massive organization to blow up a train. It just takes some ******* who knows how to make a bomb... That's what I would've said if this thread were for debating. But since it isn't, forget the remark I made about Al Qaeda (which in hindsight I really shouldn't have done) and let's get back on topic.

Boltzmann

· #6 · May 23, 2005

Well, it was already quite clear to me that the Iraq war was based on lies.

I'll say no more, since you don't intend to create a debate in this thread (and I agree with you, since these debates usually become ugly, even more than the religious ones).

Player-X

· #7 · May 23, 2005

unfortunately lies and manipualtion is the essence of politics

__Xzyx987X

Discussion Starter · #8 · May 24, 2005 (Edited)

Here's what I don't understand about this. When Clinton lied about Monica Lewinsky (I think that's how you spell her name) he nearly got impeached, but when Bush lied about Iraq nobody gave a damn. I mean, how is it that when one president cheats on his wife it's considered blasphamy, while when another lies about a country to start a war, costing hundreds of innocent lives, people just look the other way? I'm genuinely confused about how this is even possible. Doesn't anyone else think something is seriously wrong here?

Player-X

· #9 · May 24, 2005

costing hundreds of innocent lies

Don't you mean lives?

__Xzyx987X

Discussion Starter · #10 · May 24, 2005

Err... oops. Yes, that's what I meant.

KanedA

· #11 · May 24, 2005

__Xzyx987X said:
Here's what I don't understand about this. When Clinton lied about Monica Lewinsky (I think that's how you spell her name) he nearly got impeached, but when Bush lied about Iraq nobody gave a damn. I mean, how is it that when one president cheats on his wife it's considered blasphamy, while when another lies about a country to start a war, costing hundreds of innocent lives, people just look the other way? I'm genuinely confused about how this is even possible. Doesn't anyone else think something is seriously wrong here?

profits, oil profits... for US...

Boltzmann

· #12 · May 24, 2005

__Xzyx987X said:
Here's what I don't understand about this. When Clinton lied about Monica Lewinsky (I think that's how you spell her name) he nearly got impeached, but when Bush lied about Iraq nobody gave a damn. I mean, how is it that when one president cheats on his wife it's considered blasphamy, while when another lies about a country to start a war, costing hundreds of innocent lives, people just look the other way? I'm genuinely confused about how this is even possible. Doesn't anyone else think something is seriously wrong here?

That's the GOP for you.
They started the witch hunt about Clinton's affair. And they were the ones lying about Iraq.

__Xzyx987X

Discussion Starter · #13 · May 24, 2005

Well, can't the Democrats play dirty too? If they were to launch a smear campaign against Bush right now to try and get him impeached, and cited evidence like this as the cause, they would probobly stand a better chance of getting the job done the the Republicans did with Clinton. Right now Bush's popularity level is pretty low already, so the job is practically half done. But, for some reason, it seems no one is interested in trying. I swear, now is not the time for the Democrats to be taking the high road...

Tulac

· #14 · May 24, 2005

It's not easy to stop Huge Capital + Primitive fanatics, which are run by the before mentioned capital...
I'm not saying every Republican is a primitive fanatic, but there are many of them, and another interesting fact is that most of the votes for Republicans come from rural areas...

The Captain

· #15 · May 24, 2005

It's all about the media and public opinion. With Clinton, every newspaper, news show, radio program, etc, talked about how bad it was. It was overly publicized so that EVERY American knew about it. Now look at the American media about the whole Iraq incident. For every 1 claim against the war, there are at least 5 republicans praising Bush or talking about the "war on terror." Hell, I hadn't even heard about this Downing Street Memo before (thanks goes to __Xzyx987X). That's the American media for you. Control the media, and you control public opinion.

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.