A 2nd damning war memo from the UK gov't - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06-14-2005, 12:08 PM   #1
New Yorker
Sherry Darling's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 01:40 AM
Normal A 2nd damning war memo from the UK gov't


Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 06-14-2005, 01:44 PM   #2
New Yorker
Scarletwine's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 01:40 AM
Funny how our media hasn't mentioned the release of 4 more memos. CNN hasn't even covered the first.

Scarletwine is offline  
Old 06-14-2005, 06:28 PM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
trevster2k's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 02:10 AM
Shhhh, you're disturbing the dust.
trevster2k is offline  
Old 06-14-2005, 06:44 PM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:40 AM
Re: A 2nd damning war memo from the UK gov't

Originally posted by Sherry Darling
and what do you consider to be so "damning" about this war memo?
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-14-2005, 09:19 PM   #5
love, blood, life
A_Wanderer's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:40 PM
I see, shock/horror statements about preparing the Army for possible action by bring in changes quicker, I see statements to go through the UN avenue for a given period including ultimatums that actually occured, I see statements of cooperation for the Israeli / Arab conflict that have since occured, I see that they do not want an accidental cause for war like a no fly zone incursion, I see a long term goal of a law abiding and stable Iraq no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or to international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD, the statement that regime change in itself is not a proper basis in the eyes of the UK, ergo a legitimate other concern (WMD) is required. Statements regarding WMD are made that make it clear that it weapons inspections and full Iraqi cooperation are a factor.

There is nothing damming in there, I see a mirror of what was going on publicly with no smoking gun or lies or deciet. Hell the thing even has the usual British pro-Palistinian sentiments in there The only point raised that raises my mind is statements regarding post-war planning which seems to have been non-existent.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-15-2005, 02:56 AM   #6
New Yorker
Scarletwine's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 01:40 AM
Circle the Wagons
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 06-15-2005, 05:16 PM   #7
New Yorker
Scarletwine's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 01:40 AM
More British memos on prewar concerns
Officials deny intelligence that facts were fixed to invade Iraq
By Andrea Mitchell

WASHINGTON — It started during British Prime Minister Tony Blair's re-election campaign last month, when details leaked about a top-secret memo, written in July 2002 — eight months before the Iraq war. In the memo, British officials just back from Washington reported that prewar "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" to invade Iraq.

Just last week, both President George W. Bush and Blair vigorously denied that war was inevitable.

“No, the facts were not being fixed, in any shape or form at all,” said Blair at a White House news conference with the president on June 7.

But now, war critics have come up with seven more memos, verified by NBC News.

One, also from July 2002, says U.S. military planners had given "little thought" to postwar Iraq.

“The memos are startlingly clear that the British saw that there was inadequate planning, little planning for the aftermath,” says Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

And there's more. To prepare Blair for a meeting at the president's ranch in April 2002, a year before the war, other British memos raised more questions.

After a dinner with Bush’s then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Blair's former national security adviser David Manning, now Britain's ambassador to the U.S., wondered, “What happens on the morning after” the war?

In yet another 2002 memo, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw asked, “What will this action achieve? Can (there) be any certainty that the replacement regime will be better? Iraq has had no history of democracy.”

Rice, now U.S. secretary of state, told Chris Matthews on MSNBC-TV's “Hardball,” “I would never claim that the exact nature of this insurgency was understood at the time that we went to war.”

Vice President Dick Cheney also told a National Press Club luncheon Monday, “Any suggestion that we did not exhaust all alternatives before we got to that point, I think, is inaccurate.”

In fact, current and former diplomats tell NBC News they understood from the beginning the Bush policy to be that Saddam had to be removed — one way or the other. The only question was when and how.

© 2005 MSNBC Interactive

I can put ten more articles up. Investigative hearing tomorrow.
I hope he gets what he deserves for lying to the American People (not that I ever believed him), Congress, and the world. If not he'll get it after the his end.
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 08-24-2005, 12:00 AM   #8
Infinity's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 10:40 PM
george w. bush is a terrorist

Infinity is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com