Faux News Was Careful to Leave Out One Crucial Point

[berni_mccoy]

And this is what WE MUST HAMMER HOME (this is my response to Faux News Editor)

What you failed to leave out of your story about the Downing Street Minutes was that the REASON the minutes are a 'smoking gun' is that it show's Bush's prior knowledge and state of mind when he BROKE the LAW in fulfilling his obligation to Congress.

As required, by law for H.R.Res. 114, Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, the administration was required to report to Congress that diplomatic options had been exhausted before or within 48 hours after military action had started.

Within 48 hours after the attack on Iraq, President Bush informed Congress in writing that Iraq posed a serious and imminent threat to national security; obviously, given the recent information revealed in the Downing Street Memo, President Bush knew that was not true at the time he submitted that letter. This is a clear violation of the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, and would result in a premeditated illegal act by our President.

[Fridays Child]

1. Good. I hope you get a response.

:thumbsup:

[Bucky]

2. keep kickin' this

This is a criminal, impeachable, removal-worthy act, if true. It may not be that clear and simple, but an official Congression inquiry is absolutely called for here. Don't think we'll get it, of course, but it is called for.

[Melodybe]

6. Big kick! thanks for posting this!

[Erika]

3. Yeah, Bush lied.

Do you see any republican holding him accountable for the lie?

[knowbody0]

4. good job berni_mccoy

[seriousstan]

5. Again I ask...Could this be another "memogate"? What is their agenda?

What EXACTLY is the traceable origins of this memo? How many of these sources will stand and proclaim they are the direct evidence of authenticity? I really need to know.

I have seen where this is from top Blair aide Matthew Rycroft. Is he acknowledging this?

I also have seen the downingstreetmemo.com site and it's evidence for authenticity. Nobody seems to be standing up.

As in the elections, do we have a willing witness?

[berni_mccoy]

7. The British Gov't has validated the minutes

And don't forget, the British Gov't has admitted to PROVOKING IRAQ by SECRETLY ATTACKING them with the U.S. (see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1632566,00.html)

If that's not enough evidence to impeach Bush, then we may as well call him King George right now.

[seriousstan]

12. Do you have a link to this?

Point me to a link of these "minutes". I read your link before.It is filled with several extracted quotes... “regime change” ... “the US had already begun ‘spikes of activity’ to put pressure on the regime"...“degrade” and “serious consequences”. All of these are disjointed quotes and offer me no direct link of authenticity. Is there someone who is willing to stand up and vouch for this memo?

[berni_mccoy]

16. The BBC covered the official release of the document

WHEN it happened during the election of the Prime Minister:

"the leaked and subsequently publication by Downing Street..." So, when the memo was leaked, Downing Street released the official document.

I don't know how you can get more authentic than that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4506943.stm

[mittenlandgirl]

24. that's not what your link says

from the article "The leaking and subsequent publication by Downing Street of the early advice by Lord Goldsmith"

different leak...just pointing out.

BTW, I do agree the minutes memo is real too.

[The_Casual_Observer]

8. I have wondered about this myself.

Has anybody else asked these questions?

[berni_mccoy]

9. See my post #7 above

[The_Casual_Observer]

10. Yes, this is good news actually.

Actually, with 4 years of bush and the war in Iraq left to go there is plenty of time to crucify him for this. By the end of it I'll bet he will wish he had never been born.

[staticstopper]

11. I just loved The History Channel's piece

about how cool it was that FDR lied about some things...they aired it right before the DS Memo was released. Most likely just a coincidence.

[orleans]

13. good point.

maybe send that to conyers while you're at it.

[berni_mccoy]

14. He knows

That's where I got the point from :-D.

[juajen]

15. I'll kick it, also. Good point!!!

:kick: :kick:

[EnfantTerrible]

17. 3 a.m. kick

Keep it alive.

[bling bling]

18. The Dem's are ALL OVER THIS demanding a full-scale investigation.

Oh wait, that was the Repubs when they thought Clinton had merely lied about getting a blowjob.

Nevermind...back to reality. Sigh.

At least we have Conyers, I guess. Sure would be nice if we had some obnoxious, in-your-face Dem's right now too, though, demanding answers and not taking no for answer (like the Repubs always seem to do).

[rodeodance]

20. well, about 80 of the Dems have signed (not quite all over but it counts)

[bling bling]

21. That's the least they can/should do, though. The very very least.

This memo got out and nobody but us knows anything about it, it seems. I know because I asked around and nobody has even heard about it.

It's a sad day in our country when all my hope is hinged on one man's diligence (Conyers) as well as the diligence of people on political discussion boards/blogs, and FOX news.

You're right of course. Thankfully 80 dems signed the letter. But my anger is getting the best of me at the moment. I want more.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Ok even if they were

(and they may) if the tree falls in the middle of the forest and yuo don't hear it, did it fall?

Point is, the MSM will nto carry them.. PERIOD.

[Pacifist Patriot]

28. Wow....

you had the same dream I did.

[berni_mccoy]

19. Just watched this

http://www.peacecandy.com/gwbush/remindus/

And when Kerry used this CRAP against them during Bush's 2004 campaign, Bush so conveniently blamed the CIA/bad intelligence.

That's the other point the Downing Street Minutes go to: That Bush can NO LONGER POINT THE FINGER AT THE CIA!!!

Nail EVERY Republican you talk to with this POINT!

[berni_mccoy]

23. I just updated the Wikipedia pages regarding the DSM

Check it out (with regard to authenticity and the smoking gun
issues):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Downing_Street_memo#Authenticity_of_the_memo

ON EDIT: Sorry, had to post as plain text to get link to work
:-(... you'll have to cut/paste it into your browser.

[mittenlandgirl]

25. can anyone find

some backup on this? "Within 48 hours after the attack on Iraq, President Bush informed Congress in writing that Iraq posed a serious and imminent threat to national security"

I've been looking and can't find where he used those words. I got a feeling this is being set up so they can knock it down on a technicality. I've seen this posted in alot of places but no reference to where it comes from.
I did find where he wrote something to congress, but it doesn't say this, could it be from something more official?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030321-5.html

[Pacifist Patriot]

29. I think this question warrants its own thread.

I'm in the process of writing a scathing letter to my congressmen and I would like my ducks in a row. You're right. We need to pin this down.

[mittenlandgirl]

30. ok

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1821414

[steve2470]

26. kick nt

[Pacifist Patriot]

27. May I have permission to adapt your text

for a letter I am writing to my congressmen?

[berni_mccoy]

33. Permission granted.

[Pacifist Patriot]

34. Thank you.

Here is the letter.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3763109&mesg_id=3763109

[sabra]

31. kick for the great point made!

[blm]

32. EXCELLENT.......I always said don't blame the IWR for war, blame Bush.

Because if Bush had adhered to the IWR's guidelines, there would have been no need to invade Iraq.

[chomskysright]

35. My letter using your excellent points: Gannet News & Post

I see that there are several Washington Gannett correspondents. Perhaps one of you could speak to the Downing Street Minutes?

As you may know, Fox News (shocking, I know: their ratings have been plummeting however) covered this today or yesterday:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158228,00.html

Per that story:

'In the memo, written by top Blair aide Matthew Rycroft (search), Foreign Secretary Jack Straw indicated in the meeting that it "seemed clear" Bush had already decided to take military action.

"But the case was thin," reads the memo on Straw's impressions. "Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

The memo also paraphrased former head of the British Secret Intelligence Services, Richard Dearlove, fresh from meetings in the United States. The memo said Dearlove believed "military action was now seen as inevitable."

An attorney (presumably; there are many on www.democraticunderground.com) made this point here: (you will have to sign up at DU in order to view some things; that person is not myself) ) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1821106&mesg_id=1821106

' (this is my response to Faux News Editor)

What you failed to leave out of your story about the Downing Street Minutes was that the REASON the minutes are a 'smoking gun' is that it show's Bush's prior knowledge and state of mind when he BROKE the LAW in fulfilling his obligation to Congress.

As required, by law for H.R.Res. 114, Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, the administration was required to report to Congress that diplomatic options had been exhausted before or within 48 hours after military action had started.

Within 48 hours after the attack on Iraq, President Bush informed Congress in writing that Iraq posed a serious and imminent threat to national security; obviously, given the recent information revealed in the Downing Street Memo, President Bush knew that was not true at the time he submitted that letter. This is a clear violation of the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, and would result in a premeditated illegal act by our President."


I'm hoping that someone will cover this story. There are many many facets that could be explored.

Thank you for your hard work and coverage.

Sincerely,

[Rambis]

36. kick

:kick:

[zippy890]

37. Excellent response n/t

[ArkDem]

38. >What you failed to leave out of your story

huh???

[berni_mccoy]

39. Faux News reported on the Downing Street Minutes

My post is my response to them.

It is the main point as to why the DSM is so important to impeaching the current administration. The DSM presents evidence that shows the administration's official justification for war (sent to Congress 48 hours after military operations 'technically' began) were intentionally false and misleading and outside the Congressionially approved reasons for taking us to war. It proves the crime as well as the premeditation of it.

[ArkDem]

40. What you failed to leave out of your story is incorrect wording.

You are complaining about something they failed to report. If they failed to leave it out of the story that means it was (gasp) left in the story.

[berni_mccoy]

42. DOH! Great Guacamole!

OK, so it was late at night!

:blush: :cry: :banghead:

Now I have to send them another email (and it's too damn late to edit the original post)!

[ComerPerro]

41. And, now, maybe its just me, but wasn't Clinton investigated

because he "might" lie under oath, once they got him there?

So, why is Bush immune for this much more direct and far more serious offense?

[cobaindrain]

43. big kick!

[Bethany Rockafella]

44. Big hunk!

Keith, not you. ;-)