Key excerpts from DSM

[scottxyz]

Some excerpts from the Downing Street Memo(s) / Minutes reported by AP:

"U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing," {British Foreign Office political director Peter} Ricketts says in the memo. "For Iraq, `regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."

"The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September," said a typed copy of a March 22, 2002 memo ... written to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

"A postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point."

"If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the U.S. would now be considering military action against Iraq," Straw wrote. "In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with OBL (Osama bin Laden) and al-Qaida."

He also questioned stability in a post-Saddam Iraq: "We have also to answer the big question — what will this action achieve? There seems to be a larger hole in this than on anything. Most of the assessments from the US have assumed regime change as a means of eliminating Iraq's WMD threat. But none has satisfactorily answered how that regime change is to be secured, and how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be better."

"But we are still left with a problem of bringing public opinion to accept the imminence of a threat from Iraq. This is something the Prime Minister and President need to have a frank discussion about."

"The second problem is the END STATE. Military operations need clear and compelling military objectives. For Kosovo, it was: Serbs out, Kosovars back, peace-keepers in. For Afghanistan, destroying the Taleban and Al Qaida military capability. For Iraq, "regime change" does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000964304


= = = = =

And the whopper, the impeachable offence (manipulating intelligence, lying to Congress to get into a war):

"There was a perceptible shift in attitude (about Iraq). Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000964304

= = = =

Ask a Republican today: "Do you favor manipulating intelligence?"

Ask a Republican today: "Do you favor lying to Congress?"

Ask a Republican today: "Do you favor military operations without military objectives?"

Ask a Republican today: "Do you favor killing nearly 2,000 of our soldiers to settle a private grudge?"

[NMDemDist2]

1. "I didn't support Clinton lying about sex, do you support Bush lying

about WMD's and letting 1700 of our guys get killed? And the sex was none of my business, the Marines are my business"

that's the one I use :evilgrin:

[scottxyz]

2. Excellent

That will peel off some honorable Republicans.

[LightningFlash]

3. Peel off more than a few more...

http://www.usalone.com/warlies.htm

:evilgrin:

[goclark]

4. Love your link!

We need to get something more concise for the general public.

This message has got to get to everyone.

[lumpy]

5. Easy enough to read

for those who can't waste time.