You are herecontent / Downing Street Denial
Downing Street Denial
"There's nothing farther from the truth." Gorge W. Bush regarding the Downing Street Memo June 7, 2005. New York Times article
It has taken Bush more than a month to make a comment regaring this and then he did so only with Tony Blair in attendance.
If, indeed, there was "no need" to respond to the question of validity over the Downing Street Memo as Scott McClellen stated to the New York Times on 5/19/05, then why did Bush bother to say anything about it at all? If there was no truth to this official British document, why did Bush not speak out before now? Why would Bush need to wait until he could stand with Tony Blair before he would announce this?
"Look, both of us didn't want to use our military," Mr. Bush added. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."
Could it be that we are being lied to again (this time only to save his backside)? This is obvious considering the facts that follow at the end of this same article...
The White House has always insisted that Mr. Bush did not make the decision to invade Iraq until after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented the administration's case to the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, which relied heavily on claims, now discredited, that Iraq had illicit weapons. But as early as Nov. 21, 2001, Mr. Bush directed Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to begin a review of what could be done to oust Mr. Hussein.
There is more contradiction in Bush's statements regarding the Downing Street Memo...
In his comments at the news conference, Mr. Bush noted of the memorandum that "they dropped it out in the middle of his race," indicating that he thought it had been made public last month to hurt Mr. Blair's chances for re-election.
When in fact (in the same article)...
Mr. Blair, who spoke frequently about the memorandum during his campaign, said it was written before the United States and Britain went to the United Nations seeking a resolution to justify military action in Iraq.
Essentially, Blair has stated to his own people that the memo (minutes) was written before the UK and US went to the UN over Saddam. When the memo was released, Blair's Parlaiment responded as saying it was "nothing new" but not until now has anyone claimed that it was not valid. The document (minutes of a high level Parlaiment meeting) was written by Matthew Rycroft, a top aide to Mr. Blair.
Now they say it isn't true?
What about the air raids that the US and UK were doing in and out of the no fly zone in an attempt to provoke Saddam into firing back? These attempts were to goad Saddam into giving us and the UK an excuse to go to war (we could call it self defense). These air raids were witnessed and even documented by UN personnel on the ground at least two months before we went to the UN and as many as six months prior.
There was substantial devastation and loss of life in those air raids. We had no legal right to fire on anything outside the no fly zone but we did. More indiscriminate killing with no validity...more war crimes of the Bush administration.
I have heard people defend Bush over this and it is striking how Nationalism, one of the beginnings of fascism, has replaced patriotism in such a way that some are not concerned that their elected officials might devastate our country and others, cause countless loss of life, corrupt our government and subvert our Constituion while trampling our Bill of Rights into the ground.
The same ones who would accuse those who do not follow the official Republican line of being Un-American are, in fact, the same ones who are in no way patriotic but instead are selfish, inhumane and immoral.
It is not difficult to see that those who push for the American Empire are not interested in America, only their own pettiness...what better examples of Un-American can you get than a blatent traitors to the United Staes of America?
I give you the Bush Administration