Rick Santorum responds to Downing Street Memo in detail!

bejammin075

(302 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jul-19-05 06:15 AM
Original message

Rick Santorum responds to Downing Street Memo in detail!

I got a response from Rick Santorum in the (paper) mail yesterday on the Downing Street Memo (DSM). Those following this issue may want to read what his points are. The letter makes it clear that Rick Santorum's office has a detailed understanding of the DSM contents. But the response to the DSM information relies on so much revisionist history and propaganda, it is scary that people like these have the power to start wars that result in the deaths of so mahy people, at the expense of our troops, tax dollars, national reputation, national security, etc. I took great care to proof read the retyping of Santorum's letter for DU consumption. I also posted this at DKos.

I've called Rick Santorum (and Arlen Spector and my local Republican representative) at least once a week since the DSM broke on May 1st. I've urged them to represent the 100% of their constituents who were lied to by Bush about Iraq. I sent my senators and representative a paper letter about the DSM shortly after it was published. My letter included a copy of the DSM, with key sections highlighted with yellow marker, and annotated in the margin to point out what those key sections meant. I sent the letter + DSM package to every office of my senators and representative, which happened to be 21 different offices for the 3 of them.

Now I've got a letter back, and from none other than Rick Santorum. Frankly, I'm surprised anyone on the far right would want to demonstrate detailed knowledge of the DSM. I've rebutted Santorum's points, and tied it in with Rove-Gate.

I got the following letter in the mail yesterday from Rick Santorum:

June 29, 2005

Dear Mr. ___

Thank you for contacting me regarding a memorandum prepared for British Prime Minister Tony Blair, now known as the "Downing Street Memo." I appreciate hearing from you and having the benefit of your views on this important matter.

As you may be aware, a British newspaper released the Downing Street Memo on May 1, 2005. The memo refers to a meeting alleged to have taken place on July 23, 2002 between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his senior national security team. At this alleged meeting, concerns were voiced over the legality of possible options in resolving the conflict with Iraq.

The Downing Street Memo, reportedly written by Blair aide Matthew Rycroft, highlights the minutes from the meeting. The minutes of the memo claim that military action against Iraq seemed to be the decided route favored by the United States long before any effort was made to work with the United Nations (UN) toward a diplomatic resolution. The memo also claims that there was no strong evidence to support military action against Saddam Hussein and his regeme.

Before the invasion of Iraq, the United States and the coalition forces were in the process of reviewing the intelligence information available at the time. At that time, the appropriate course of action was to formulate a range of options to ensure the safety of our citizens and those abroad, especially in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks. Accordig to the world's best intelligence sources, Saddam Hussein posed a serious threat to the United States and the Middle East as a whole.

No consensus position could be reached on Iraqi non-compliance with the UN Security Resolution 1441. Therefore, military action was seen as a viable option to ensure compliance.

Prime Minister Tony Blair has restated his firm belief that the United States, as well as the Coalition forces, acted correctly and justly based on Hussein's resistance to comply with the UN Security Resolution 1441.

As you may know, the Bush Administration has stated that the decision-making process to resolve the Iraq conflict has been made public and that taking military action was only persued after Iraq did not adhere to its international responsibilities. The U.S. did go to the UN in an effort to build international support for mandating Saddam Hussein's compliance with his UN obligation.

As you may be aware, several Democratic Members of Congress have signed letters to President Bush requesting a response to the Downing Street Memo. Please know that I believe the President made the correct decision based on the intelligence that he was given at the time.

The hard work of our men and women of the Armed Forces serving in Iraq, together with Coalition forces, have helped transition the once brutal regime into a country that now embraces democracy. Since military operations begun in Iraq, approximately 33,000 teachers have since been trained, and 2,500 schools have been renovated. Over one hundred health clinics have also been opened, and approximately five million children under the age of five have been immunized.

Please know that I fully support the men and women of our military who put their lives on the line each day to help provide security and stability to the people of Iraq and the Middle East as a whole.

Thank you again for contacting me. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call on me.

Sincerely,
Rick Santorum
United States Senate

RJS:jxs

My response (I haven't actually written or called back yet, but I will!)

Alleged July 23, 2002 meeting?

The July 23, 2002 meeting most certainly took place, and there is no need to label the meeting as "alleged." The minutes of the meeting were published May 1, 2005, several days before the UK election, and this information was very visible in the UK press. The meeting & minutes were even brought up in interviews with Tony Blair. This information was very damaging to Tony Blair's administration. If this meeting had not actually taken place, Tony Blair could have neutralized the memo's negative effect by pointing that out, since he "allegedly" chaired this critical meeting. That's just the best example that I know that proves the meeting took place. I'm sure there is much other proof that the meeting took place.

What was the evidence for the war in Iraq? Let's review, shall we?

Evidence that Saddam had any WMD in the recent years before we invaded? We are seeing the news everywhere today that Karl Rove, Lewis Libby and perhaps other top officials in the White House leaked secret information to the press that actually undermines our efforts to curb WMD proliferation. What was the motive of these Administration officials? They sought to silence, intimidate, and smear Joe Wilson. Joe Wilson correctly pointed out that the claims of yellowcake uranium were false, and that the Administration knew the information was false at the time of the famous 16 words in the State of the Union speech. It is beyond stunning that this was the best WMD information that Bush had to personally showcase for the American people. The traitorous GOP smear campaign is not working. I believe Joe Wilson. The Administration didn't want the truth of Joe Wilson's information to rip a gaping hole out of the poorly constructed rationale for invading Iraq.

What was the other evidence that the Administration chose to give us as WMD info tidbits? Condi Rice's aluminum tubes that she knew could only be used for misiles. Cheney's "fully reconstituted nuclear weapons" claim that never had a shred of evidence. Iraqi defector Curve Ball was the most legitamate source of information for Powell's claim of mobile weapons labs at the UN. Tony Blair's emphasis on unmanned arial vehicles, was based on what, can you remind me? Donald Rumsfled claiming to know exactly where the WMD are, yet nobody could provide the UN weapons inspectors with a location that had WMD while the inspectors were inspecting in the days before the invasion.

Now that the Fitzgerald investigation is turning up info that the White House was very involved in the CIA leak, the White House has all of a sudden become tight lipped, and it stinks like a coverup. Bush and press secretary McClellan don't want to interfere with an "ongoing investigation" by commenting on it. Did this stunning change in policy come about from the failure of Iraq policy? Once upon a time, there was an "ongoing investigation" of UN weapons inspectors, that was interupted by Bush's pre-emtpive war. While the inspectors were on the ground, they asked people like Donald Rumsfeld, if you are so sure where the WMD are, tell us where, and we will go there. After 300 of the best sites were confirmed to not have WMD, once again, the best information the Administration had on Saddam's recent WMD was proving to be invalid. Also don't forget that Saddam was cooperating, and allowing his illegal Al Samud missiles to be destroyed. The inspectors only needed a few more months to finish their "ongoing investigation", but Bush interupted that "ongoing investigation." Not only did Bush comment on this investigation for WMD, but he had the UN inspectors evacuated from Iraq to launch a pre-emptive war based on a hunch that there were WMD in Iraq.

Saddam was not a threat. According to our best intelligence (and who spends more $$ on intelligence than the US?) the case that Saddam was threatening was weak, which is what is also stated in the DSM. Saddam was not threatening to us, and also not believed to be threatening to his neighbors. Bush knew the intelligence was weak. That's why Joe Wilson was smeared.

Bush and Blair went to the UN for peace?

The UN was not at a consensus at the time that Bush determined the war in Iraq should start. Don't forget that even France said they would be willing to use force, but that the ongoing investigation of the weapons inspectors should finish. Tony Blair took Chirac's statements out of context to claim that France would never support using force against Hussein. The United States and Brittain did not go to the UN to resolve things peacefully. Their aim was to "wrongnfoot Saddam on the inspectors" as another mechanism to justify war, according to the information in the March 18, 2002 memo from Cristopher Meyer about his conversations with Paul Wolfowitz on Iraq strategy. How do you overlook the "spikes of activity" that the US and UK launched on Saddam in the months before the invasion?

Recent statements by Bush and Blair

Yes, Tony Blair has recently restated his beliefs on the Iraq policy. But how do you clear a liar by listening to what he has to say and ignoring the vast physical, documentary, and historical evidence that completely contradicts Blair's point of view? Wouldn't a liar just lie some more to protect the original lies? The Bush Administration has stated that the decision to invade Iraq was made publicly. I charge that the decision was made privately, and that what we were told in public was a lie.

Progress in Iraq?

At the end of Santorum's letter, there is some information on our progress in Iraq. We've trained 33,000 teachers, renovated 2,500 schools, opened 100 health clinics and immunized 5,000,000 children. I think our troops have done the best job they can do under the circumstances that the Administration put them in. However, I don't think the results above are much to show for such a deadly policy that has cost almost 2,000 US dead, tens of thousands US maimed, 300 billion dollars and killed 100,000 Iraqis (at a faster rate than Hussein was killing them), while leaving Iraq in worse shape than under Hussein, with child malnutrition double what it was under Hussein. Can we even believe these figures that show progress? Many many months ago, Rumsfeld claimed 210,000 Iraqi troops were trained, and Bush recently claimed 160,000 troops were trained. But we know that the real number of troops trained well enough to "stand up" for our forces to "stand down" is only in the low thousands. The Administration has made it impossible to win the hearts and minds of Iraqi's.

Conclusion

So, contrary to your claims, Senator Santorum, war in Iraq was the first and only choice for Bush, no matter how bad the evidence was that Iraq had WMD, no matter how much Saddam complied with the inspectors.

The Administration's claim that we can fight terrorists in Iraq instead of fighting them on allied soil is false. Madrid was attacked (911 days after 9-11). London was attacked. Are we next? We are creating and training terrorists in Iraq when they did not exist there before.

Our elected officials have a duty to represent the people that elected them. Everyone who voted for Rick Santorum was lied to by Bush about Iraq. Rick Santorum should confront Bush about the lies that have cost us to much.

There is so much reality based information to refute the lies that got us into Iraq, I could go on all day, but I've got to wrap it up somewhere, so how about here?