Discussion on the Downing Street Memo Public Inquiry: (no lectures no spam please)

[Mcluhan]

"More than thirty members of Congress convened at a public hearing in Washington Thursday to investigate the so-called "Downing Street memo." also present former ambassador Joe Wilson, veteran CIA analyst Ray McGovern, attorney John Bonifaz and Cindy Sheehan whose son Casey was killed in Iraq in 2004. "

Gents, here's some excerpts from the hearing. I have a request, can we please have a polite (try) discussion for a change, WITHOUT the usual SPAM of links to third party sites, and social science lectures from high above on American geopolitics. There's enough debate fodder here that maybe we could skip the political rallying just one time. For instance, there is analysis of unprecedented involvement by top executive politicians in the intelligence service analysis process. Things like that are worth discussing without the usual bombastic sermons on Nazis, Stalin etc. that are distracting and often painful to read. (Thank you.)

Downing Street and Beyond: Hearing Builds Momentum for Full Investigation

 

[happygrump]

Nicely put, Mcluhan. Like you, I tire of the diatribes on both sides.

In a nutshell, it seems pretty clear that the present Administration took a direct and forceful hand in manipulating the intelligence to bolster their decision to invade Iraq. Is it illegal? IMO, yes, because it presented false information to Congress. Is it impeachable? Probably not. From what I have read, it seems to have been Cheney's influence that slanted the intelligence that was eventually presented to the President, Congress and the world at large.

I doubt if Bush was directly involved. Frankly, I don't think he's that smart.

However, the buck must stop with someone, and therefore it must stop with Mr. Bush.

As I said in another thread, the very least he should do now is dismiss Cheney, appoint a new VP, and begin an investigation.

If this sort of thing happened in the private sector, whereby a VP of a company presented skewed information to the President, CEO and Board of Directors of a company, that VP would be tossed out so fast it would make his head spin.

 

[cyrus]

I doubt if Bush was directly involved. Frankly, I don't think he's that smart.

However, the buck must stop with someone, and therefore it must stop with Mr. Bush.

As I said in another thread, the very least he should do now is dismiss Cheney, appoint a new VP, and begin an investigation.

If this sort of thing happened in the private sector, whereby a VP of a company presented skewed information to the President, CEO and Board of Directors of a company, that VP would be tossed out so fast it would make his head spin.

I can guaranty that Mr. Bush will not do such a thing as he will lose face and it is a political suicide for him and his party. In politics it is better to deny than consent to a mistake or you will be eaten alive by the opposing forces!
Now as for this not being an impeachable crime then what is it? getting a blowjob maybe!

 

[WoodPeckr]

I can guaranty that Mr. Bush will not do such a thing as he will lose face and it is a political suicide for him and his party. In politics it is better to deny than consent to a mistake or you will be eaten alive by the opposing forces!

Sounds like the Nixon Watergate Defense all over again.....it did wonders for Nixon.

Cheney has always been considered the 'brains' of the team calling most of the shots for 'W'.

Impeachment is pure politics, always was. Since the GOP in in control there is ZERO chance of that.

Technically Bill's BJ was illegal because he lied about it & the GOP being the majority party at that point in time impeached him on it, because they are sooo 'moral' about these things even though nobody was killed as a result of Bill's BJ.

Technically 'W's war was illegal because W lied about its contrived and doctored evidence beforehand and the GOP being the majority party at that point in time will never impeach 'W' because they are sooo 'moral' about these things even though over a 100,000 people and counting have been killed so far as a result of lies and false intelligence.

So we will most likely see 'W' deny, deny, deny....as he would say ..." you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda.".....

 

[cyrus]

WoodPeckr, let us not forget that GWB, deep down inside wanted to go after Sadam anyway and I think we both, very well know why that was the case, hence it had nothing to do with WMD!

 

[WoodPeckr]

WoodPeckr, let us not forget that GWB, deep down wanted to go after Sadam anyway and I think we both, very well know why that was the case!

Could it be OIL ????

Just my guess.....

 

[Mcluhan]

Impeachment is pure politics, always was. Since the GOP in in control there is ZERO chance of that.

Can we say Nixon's resignation over an inevitable inpeachment was pure politics? Was the leak by Marke Felt purely political? What happens when a president breaks the law and some bureaucrat comes across it. If he belongs to the party in power does he just keep his mouth shut? Probably..

 

[Mcluhan]

Last week several more memos (four) were leaked into the British Press, nothing as potent as the DSM, however this leads to the question, was Blair the real target of DSM leak or was it more to do with targeting Bush, Cheney etc. ( and the pre-election timing just a convenient smoke screen). Does anybody think that maybe the Brits are getting nervous about the US administration widening the conflict into Syria and this was all about clipping Bush’s wings? I personally think that is the case, furthermore, I think it must have been politically sanctioned by some one high in the British Government, all on the QT of course, triggered by one of those 2:00 a.m. clandestine phone calls between trusted parties.

Also, does anyone know much about Mcgovern’s partisanship? The read I get from him is that his main outrage is how the current administration has twisted the Secret Service. He seems to be coming from the same angle as Richard Clarke. I wonder why Clarke wasn’t invited to testify. Maybe they reasoned he has already shot his wad and would have prejudiced the perception as a kangaroo court.

I am very interested in what is going on behind the scenes in London, as I think something is definitely up. I sense a change in the wind direction, the kind you watch for at sea, ‘cause it signals the low pressure area is rolling in.

 

[Pete Graves]

You mean the hearing the devolved into anti-semetism? If it had been held in Canada, several Democrats could have been arrested for hate speech.

 

[Mcluhan]

You mean the hearing the devolved into anti-semetism? If it had been held in Canada, several Democrats could have been arrested for hate speech.

It's very clear which hearing is under discussion. If there was anti-semitism, I am unaware. Why not fill in the blanks?

 

[Pete Graves]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conEven Dean disavows the "hearing"

I don't know if I'd be referring to this hearing to support your radical views.

 

[happygrump]

Sounds like a handful of Rs infiltrated the office. Dirty politics again. Offensive? Yes. Surprising? No.

 

[Mcluhan]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conEven Dean disavows the "hearing"

I don't know if I'd be referring to this hearing to support your radical views.

Ahh I see, so you are playing the anti-semtic race card on the criticism of Israel. Well it happens that I feel (strongly) that Israel is the tail wagging the dog in washington, and drawing them into a war for their own benefit and I am sure there are many Jews that argee with this point of view (my last ex-girlfriend, an Israeli among them). So, is any criticism of Israel anti-semitic? Do you have to be Jewish to criticize Israel...I certainly hope not.

I'm half Irish and I have been known to criticize the IRA on more than one occasion for been murdurous.

 

[Pete Graves]

Haha, key witness says the war was a plot by Israel to dominate the world. No matter how hard libbies try to make an issue of this memo, they keep showing what a farce it is.

 

[Mcluhan]

Okay, so you tried the anti-semitism card, and that flopped. Next you exaggerate and distort what was said, let me help you un-spin it back, with the truth. Here is what was 'actually' said:

Former intelligence analyst Ray McGovern, told Conyers and other House Democrats that the war was part of an effort to allow the United States and Israel to "dominate that part of the world"

I also agree with that statement. It paints both Israel and the US with the same brush.

For your information, Israel already dominates that part of the world militarily because they are the ones with 200 nuclear war heads. No body else has them. Guess where they got them. It sure wasn't Saddam that that build them was it...nor Russia. Made In USA my friend.

Now shall we talk about the NPT and Israel's non-compliance? Or would that be considered too radical for ya?

 

[Pete Graves]

The argument doesn't "flop" when you've got the Democratic Party Chairman condeming anit-semetic testimony and literature. See except to radicals like yourself that believe in jewish conspiracies, it undermines the whole preceeding and takes away from the message.

But maybe we should talk about the memo. You know, talk about how one man's opinion became evidence.

 

[cyrus]

The argument doesn't "flop" when you've got the Democratic Party Chairman condeming anit-semetic testimony and literature. See except to radicals like yourself that believe in jewish conspiracies, it undermines the whole preceeding and takes away from the message.

But maybe we should talk about the memo. You know, talk about how one man's opinion became evidence.

Why not take the "Jewish” word out of the statement so the “antisemitism” won’t be an issue anymore, shall we?!
Is there anyway to criticize Israel’s plans & policies in ME without having to have to apologize for appearing anti-Semitic, but I guess that is another topic!

 

[Mcluhan]

Again, let's un-twist this position of yours. You entered this discussion with the tone of dismissing the hearing because , to use your words 'devolved into antisemitism, then you twisted both what Mcgovern AND what Dean said to support your slant. Both statements are wrong. Here's what actually happened and here's what Dean said. "

WASHINGTON -- A handful of people at Democratic National Headquarters distributed material critical of Israel during a public forum questioning the Bush administration's Iraq policy, drawing an angry response and charges of anti-Semitism from party chairman Howard Dean on Friday.

"We disavow the anti-Semitic literature, and the Democratic National Committee stands in absolute disagreement with and condemns the allegations," Dean said in a statement posted on the DNC Web site.

Notice this was a public form, and somebody (they could have been Israelis) distributed antisemitic material. Dean moved to quash any dem connection with them , and rightly so.. Therefore yes, your attempt to disrupt this discussion, basis of that card, which is just an extension/repeat of what played out at the public meeting has flopped. Please move on...

Thanks for coming.

 

[Pete Graves]

Another interesting article

Yes, this sounds like a legitimate hearing worthy of discussion. Seems like you're the only one taking it seriously.

 

[Mcluhan]

Another interesting article

Yes, this sounds like a legitimate hearing worthy of discussion. Seems like you're the only one taking it seriously.

Ya Graves, I'm likely the only Maverick on the planet interested in the outcome of Conyer’s "Forum", as he now calls it. Here’s what Conyer’s had to say in retort to the Post. It's a litte long winded... but nevertheless has some interesting points. In two parts..

The Washington Post
1150 15th Street, NWÂ
Washington, DC 20071
Dear Sirs:

I write to express my profound disappointment with Dana Milbank's June 17 report, "Democrats Play House to Rally Against the War," which purports to describe a Democratic hearing I chaired in the Capitol yesterday. In sum, the piece cherry-picks some facts, manufactures others out of whole cloth, and does a disservice to some 30 members of Congress who persevered under difficult circumstances, not of our own making, to examine a very serious subject: whether the American people were deliberately misled in the lead up to war. The fact that this was the Post's only coverage of this event makes the journalistic shortcomings in this piece even more egregious.
In an inaccurate piece of reporting that typifies the article, Milbank implies that one of the obstacles the Members in the meeting have is that "only one" member has mentioned the Downing Street Minutes on the floor of either the House or Senate. This is not only incorrect but misleading. In fact, just yesterday, the Senate Democratic Leader, Harry Reid, mentioned it on the Senate floor. Senator Boxer talked at some length about it at the recent confirmation hearing for the Ambassador to Iraq. The House Democratic Leader, Nancy Pelosi, recently signed on to my letter, along with 121 other Democrats asking for answers about the memo. This information is not difficult to find either. For example, the Reid speech was the subject of an AP wire service report posted on the Washington Post website with the headline "Democrats Cite Downing Street Memo in Bolton Fight". Other similar mistakes, mischaracterizations and cheap shots are littered throughout the article.

The article begins with an especially mean and nasty tone, claiming that House Democrats "pretended" a small conference was the Judiciary Committee hearing room and deriding the decor of the room. Milbank fails to share with his readers one essential fact: the reason the hearing was held in that room, an important piece of context. Despite the fact that a number of other suitable rooms were available in the Capitol and House office buildings, Republicans declined my request for each and every one of them. Milbank could have written about the perseverance of many of my colleagues in the face of such adverse circumstances, but declined to do so. Milbank also ignores the critical fact picked up by the AP, CNN and other newsletters that at the very moment the hearing was scheduled to begin, the Republican Leadership scheduled an almost unprecedented number of 11 consecutive floor votes, making it next to impossible for most Members to participate in the first hour and one half of the hearing.

In what can only be described as a deliberate effort to discredit the entire hearing, Milbank quotes one of the witnesses as making an anti-semitic assertion and further describes anti-semitic literature that was being handed out in the overflow room for the event. First, let me be clear: I consider myself to be friend and supporter of Israel and there were a number of other staunchly pro-Israel members who were in attendance at the hearing. I do not agree with, support, or condone any comments asserting Israeli control over U.S. policy, and I find any allegation that Israel is trying to dominate the world or had anything to do with the September 11 tragedy disgusting and offensive.

con't next