Just remember! Neither Bush nor Blair addressed the "CONTENT" of DSM!

[KoKo]

They fluffed it off as "old news" going back and repeating the lie that UN Res #1441 made it clear they had the authority. But they NEVER ADDRESSED the DSM. They didn't say it was a lie that Dearlove isn't credible or that what went on at the meetings was false.

They stuck by their original story of "We Went to War Because Saddam was a Bad Man and the World is Safer Without Him." Ignoring that Saddam had NO WMD to DISARM himself from...and why was that Tony and Georgie Poo?

WaPo today has this:

The Downing Street Memo Story Won't Die

By Jefferson Morley
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 7, 2005; 9:18 AM

More than a month after its publication, the so-called Downing Street Memo remains among the top 10 most viewed articles on The Times of London site.

It's not hard to see why this remarkable document, published in The Times on May 1 (and reported in this column on May 3), continues to attract reader interest around the world, especially with British Prime Minister Tony Blair visiting Washington Tuesday.

The July 2002 memo, labeled "SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY," reports the views of "C," code name for Richard Dearlove, the chief of British intelligence. Dearlove had just retuned from a visit with Bush administration officials eight months before the war in Iraq began.

"Military action was now seen as inevitable," Dearlove told Blair and his senior defense policy advisers. "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."

A separate secret briefing paper for the meeting said Britain and the United States had to "create" conditions to justify a war.

The story attracted some news coverage in the United States, but not much. Last month, the Chicago Tribune concluded that "the Downing Street memo story has proven to be something of a dud in the United States.

"The White House has denied the premise of the memo, the American media have reacted slowly to it and the public generally seems indifferent to the issue or unwilling to rehash the bitter prewar debate over the reasons for the war," wrote reporters Stephen J. Hedges and Mark Silva.

[htuttle]

1. They did verify it's authenticity, however

Since they stated that 'it was before the UN resolution', that would seem to verify that it is an authentic record of the meeting.

[sniffa]

2. but the worLd is better off without saddam

:sarcasm:

[cthrumatrix]

3. that is getting quite old...and not true anymore

[FormerOstrich]

4. I didn't watch the press conference but I just read this...

Standing alongside Blair, Bush also for the first time addressed a 2002 memo to the prime minister from a top British intelligence official suggesting that the United States had bent intelligence to justify a decision to invade Iraq and had sought British cooperation.

“There’s nothing farther from the truth,” Bush said. “Both of us didn’t want to use our military. It was our last option.”

Said Blair: “The facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all.”

I suppose the plagiarized report that was 10 years old wasn't fixing facts either. :eyes:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8123802/

[City Lights]

8. That qualifies as addressing the content in my book.

I don't understand why so many call their statements non-denial denials. :shrug:

[Demit]

5. If somebody in MSM will point out that this confirms the Clarke & O'Neill

accounts, if somebody in MSM will be the first to make that observation, I think this'll start to take hold. There will be a little mound of evidence that all is saying the same thing.

At the very least, there will be some commentary on the B boys' non-denial denial today. That should get it going.

[Dr Fate]

6. But will Top Democrats tell the rest of the country that????

WE know it, but will Top DEMs have the courage to go on TV and say what you just said?

[KoKo]

12. I don't think so....it's probably easier to repeat "the lie" for them, but

we do need to have hope, Dr. Fate, much as I might think what you say has merit.

[MasonJar]

7. I doubt those dead babies think so. Iraq is much worse off now.

The US is worse off, hated by the world and with good reason, broke and with an ever-increasing number of deaths on our 1og.

[Career Prole]

9. They say the DSM is old news and fell back on "the world is safer"?!

Maybe they both should read today's news!!

Perhaps most ominously, 52 percent said the war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States, while 47 percent said it did. It was the first time a majority of Americans disagreed with the central notion President Bush has offered to build support for war: that the fight there will make Americans safer from terrorists at home. In late 2003, 62 percent thought the Iraq war aided U.S. security, and just three months ago 52 percent thought so.

Now who's using old news, shrub?

[merbex]

10. I was screaming at the TV - ask a followup!!

I'm surprised my neighbor didn't hear me

They never addressed the content of the memo/minutes

Spin, spin, spin

[KoKo]

13. lol's, Bush talked so long that reporters only got about 4 questions in...

Remember he's a "Master of Disinfo/"Disassembling." :D

[Imagevision]

11. Bush - Blair Content? they defensive thru-out - Now we know why

Blair came over to visit Bush and I'll tell ya'll, Africa had nothing to do with it!

[KoKo]

14. Their "defensivness" "dog ate my homework and my mom is an abused

homeless person, who should get a job so I don't have to go after "folks like Saddam" who are "supporting terraists" and causing our oil and gas to increase" is kinda wearing thin. :shrug:

[PurityOfEssence]

15. Fifi the smart poodle

Junior is an asshole moron. To be stupid is an accident of birth (although somewhat aided by noxious substances). That's not one's fault, although cramming one's system with hard liquor and cocaine that messes up the already simplistic circuitry IS a personal failing, and in his case, one of privileged self-indulgence.

To USE other people to sustain unfair advantages is deeply ugly.

Blair's responses were incoherent. Who the fuck cares how this nasty backroom witches' incantation relates to the timeline of a U.N. vote? There's not a whiff of logic to that.

Junior's such a dreadful mouthpiece that he has to rely on anyone around to cover for him. Does he ever respond directly?

The good news is that they gave ample face today, and did so by deflecting any questions to which they should have answered. This is just more fodder to show them as liars of the soul.

How can anyone look at or listen to either of them without cringing in the face of the lies?

[KoKo]

16. you know...I was most disappointed with Blair than with Bush whom I know

to be a major "belly up to the bar so I can tell you what I think" ASSHOLE.

I thought Blair looked very "subservient to Bush" in this press conference. Like the "Guilty covering for the More Guilty."

I think both of them are much "lesser men" than those who came before them in the British Alliance. Roosevelt and Churchill were very educated men who came from a time where one could read and do some "reflective thinking."'

Bush and Blair are like the WORST of the YUPPIE Generation...GIMMME...GIMME...I GOT MINE...YOU GO TRY TO GET YOURS!"

They are kindo of like "kids" who need to get some reading in...to me.

But, then I might be totally "out to lunch." :-(