You are herecontent / Bush and Blair Questioned on Downing Street Minutes

Bush and Blair Questioned on Downing Street Minutes


Moments ago, Bush and Blair answered a question about the Downing Street Minutes.

At a press conference in Washington, the Prime Minister and President both answered a question as to the accuracy of the statement in the Downing Street Minutes that in July 2002 they were fixing the facts to suit their determined policy to go to war.

Blair said that was false, while seeming to acknowledge (and certainly not disputing) the authenticity of the minutes. Then he asserted that the meeting recorded in the minutes had taken place prior to approaching the United Nations.

Yes, that is part of the problem. It was also prior to approaching the US Congress or the public. Blair did not say the minutes were an inaccurate recording of the meeting, but said that he had not been fixing facts around policy.

Bush also seemed to acknowledge (and certainly did not dispute) that these were the minutes of a meeting that occured in the time and place recorded. He claimed that he and Blair had been trying to find a peaceful solution, and he parroted Blair's remark about the UN meeting coming later.

Neither Bush nor Blair presented any evidence to call into doubt the minutes or to demonstrate that they, Bush and Blair, had not at that time decided on war and decided to lie about the reasons for it.

AfterDowningStreet.org, a coalition of veterans groups, peace groups, and public interest organizations around the country, renewed its call today for a full congressional investigation into whether the President has committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war, in light of the new evidence revealed by the Downing Street Minutes.

QUESTION: On Iraq, the so-called Downing Street Memo from July, 2002, says

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

From Bloomberg:

In response to a question, both men dismissed the idea that the so-called Downing Street memo from July 2002 showed that intelligence and facts were focused on elements that supported the idea of removing Saddam Hussein through military action.

``The facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all,'' Blair said. ``All the way through that period of time, we were trying to look for a way of managing to resolve this without conflict.''

Bush said neither country wanted to use its military to resolve their conflict with Hussein. The U.S. contended that Hussein's government was stockpiling chemical and biological weapons and sought nuclear arms. No evidence of Iraq chemical weapons has been found since the March 2003 invasion.

From Reuters' Steve Holland (who asked the question) and Mike Peacock:

The two leaders, close allies on the Iraq war, were united in rejecting the so-called Downing Street memo of July 2002 in which a British intelligence official said "intelligence and facts" were being fixed by Washington and London to make the case for war in Iraq, eight months before the U.S.-led invasion.

"No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all," said Blair, who noted the memo was written before the United States and Britain went to the United Nations seeking support for action against Saddam Hussein.

Both leaders have suffered politically at home for the decision to go to war against Iraq without broader international support and with the absence of weapons of mass destruction.

From the AP:

WHITE HOUSE President Bush and Britain's Tony Blair are denying a controversial memo's assertion that pre-war intelligence on Iraq was "fixed" to justify invasion.

At a joint White House news conference, the president declared, "There's nothing farther from the truth."

And Blair told reporters, "The facts were not being fixed in any shape or form."

The 2002 memo from a top British intelligence official reported that a decision had already been made in Washington to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

But Bush says he and Blair never wanted to use force in Iraq. He says it was the "last option."

The comment was Bush's first on the so-called "Downing Street Memo", which surfaced during the British election campaign. Blair won a third term as prime minister, but thanks in part to Iraq, his parliamentary majority was sharply reduced.

Point by point by point these lies can be countered by incontrovertable truth and fact. There's enough doctored intelligence to fill a footlocker. And enough intel ops who complained and even threatened Blair with spilling the beans. Hold on, sports fans. This stuff is all going to come out.

Fixing the Facts I

Going to the UN is not inconsistent with intelligence and facts being fixed. I would argue that going to the UN, as well as bush's going to the Congress, was part of the fixing.


Polls at the time indicated that a majority of the American people did not support invading Iraq without the involvement of the UN (that didn't change until after Powell's spin at the UN on Feb. 5, 2003).


The majority in Congress were also against bush's invasion without his receiving authorization from the Congress.


The trips to Congress and the UN were just part of the ruse to legitimize the plan.


Fixing the Facts II

MSNBC reported: White House kills Pentagon plans to strike Zarqawi's camp in Northern Iraq in order to maintain the White House's claim that Iraq has ties to terrorists. ABC also had a similar report about the Ansar al-Islam camps in August of 2002 (although I do not have the link readily available). How would Iraq look today if Bush took action against Zarqawi in August 2002 (or any of the other times mentioned in the MSNBC report) instead of killing the plans in order to keep the al Qaeda connection in tact? How many people would be alive today if just this one "fixing of the facts" were not done?



Fixing the Facts III

The Minority Staff Report on Illegal Surcharges on Oil-For-Food Contracts and Illegal Oil Shipments from
Kohr al-Amaya
, Page 5 and Page 65, talk at great length about the Administration allowing 14 tankers out of Iraq (also see this), without inspection, in the month before the public ground war began. This is not the action of an administration so threatened by a sovereign (supposedly WMD laden) nation that it was about to invade it, nor is it the action of a nation that was concerned about the spread of WMD.


If there were ever a case of the administration fixing the facts, these stories seem to confirm the charge. These actions were not just cases where a little creative writing was done but actions where the chance of risking lives was taken in order to promote their policies.

I was happy to hear the reporter ask the question- it's too bad that there wasn't a follow-up because it was obvious that the two had concocted their responses. Of course Bush hadn't approached the U.N. at the time of the Downing Street meeting- because he was still "fixing the facts" to present to the U.N.! I hold Bush more accountable than Blair because Blair wasn't the one who was actually forcing his intel officers to write false reports.

Also, they both ignored the WMDs issue- they focused solely on Sadaam Hussein- he needed to go- and that is what is blinding a lot of people- I haven't forgotten about the propaganda of WMDs that we were pummeled with day after day just so Bush would have our support!

Let's not let Sadaam's trial overshadow this issue. The American people were lied to- it is proven by the words of the chief Britiish intel officer- the language is crystal clear. We deserve a truthful government- I don't trust anything Bush says anymore!

It is simply that they won't admit to any wrong. First check on the connection with Marvin Bush, Jonathan Bush, Neil Bush, Prescott Bush and John Ellis Bush.. Jeb ..and Orlando Bosch and Otto Reich.
This Family has a long history of not telling the truth. Do the Google on these guys if you want motive and google IG Farben and Prescott Bush before you read Uncle Jonathan, who is considered a historian... said THEY WERE BUSSINESSMEN. Well it seems that we have heard that before. And yet there are many who treat him as something Great, NO NO NO. He is just following the family line, that's why Jeb's, I mean John Ellis Bush's son's name is George Prescott Bush, that's why they continue to push for another one in there, somewhere. The truth is there.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Informed Activist

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.