Is EVERYONE familiar with the Downing Street Memo/Minutes?

[chalky]

I ask because I keep seeing these posts--and I won't assume the motivation behind said posts--latching onto the sentence that contains the word "fixed" as if this is the only possible damning word in the document. In those posts, the meaning of the word "fixed" is parsed, dissected, scrutinized--why, it almost reminds me of when someone famously parsed the meaning of the word "is"!
I've been swatting at those posts like flies, but they keep popping up.

So I have to ask--has everybody read the thing? Not just bits and pieces, but the WHOLE THING?
It's only three pages--no heavy lifting involved.

Here's the link to the TEXT OF THE MEMO at wikipedia:

http://wikisource.org/wiki/Downing_Street_Memo


And for those who insist on having the cliff-notes version, go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_street_memo

Then I recommend you PRINT IT OUT, highlight the juicy parts (there are a few) and keep it handy.
I've done just that. When I hear the "define the word 'fixed'" argument, or the even sillier "there's nothing in the document that everyone didn't know" argument, I whip it out and point out those juicy parts, my favorites being:

"The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections."

"The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."

and

"The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change."


It's kind of like holding up a cross to ward off a vampire. Seems to have the same effect, too.
:evilgrin:

[Cleita]

1. Suggestion.

Hide the threads you don't want to see on your monitor. It does wonders.

[chalky]

2. I debated the hiding thing, but then thought "hell, no".

Lots of newbies don't know about hiding them, and if they're not seeing an answer to these idiots, they might get discouraged.
So, yeah, I have to shower more often, but I do respond to some of them.

[MelissaB]

6. Go get 'em chalky, and thanks for doing it!

[Finder]

3. I am one of the few that does not feel this is a "Smoking Gun"

Primary reason is...I do not think we should ever depend on information from any foreign government be it ally or enemy for bringing down our own.

That said, I do believe it is real and important for people to know about but not as evidence in an impeachment or criminal prosecution against our government.

I say this because of the animosity we see here in the US regarding the Civil war...I won't go into details. Many elements in Britain still hold animosity against the US over the Revolutionary war.

M15 and M16 and elements in our governments will always try to make the citizenry "useful idiots" whether they are to the right or left ideologically.

[chalky]

5. The I hope you have signed Conyers' Letter

in which he asks the president to answer these questions:

1)Do you or anyone in your administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?
2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization to go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?
3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?
4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?
5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?

Answer to the first question alone would address your concerns.

[kentuck]

4. It was a war of choice - not necessity...

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin."