What is this "Downing Street Memo"? I’ve only ever heard of it in the context of US politics.. no one over this side of the pond seems to be talking about it (unless they did and we called it something else). If that’s the case it certainly says something about its veracity..
Either way, enlighten me someone... |
| |
Written By:
Chez
URL:
http://www.ucfro.org
|
|
It’s a memo from a British official describing the lead-up to war, and indicating that the intelligence was being "fixed around the policy". Some take that to mean that we were making stuff up to fit the desire for regime change, some take it to mean that we were gathering the intelligence necessary to pursue the policy of regime change in Iraq. (though, whether that was by military, diplomatic or other means was unclear) I think the latter is the case. Critics differ. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
|
Many thanks to internet denizens for pointing out this factoid called Godwin’s Law. In many social environments it has enabled me to get away quickly from a potentially explosive situation in favor of a visit with my old friend from Glenlivet, Scotland. :-) |
| |
Written By:
D
URL:
http://
|
Rangle’s comments point up exactly what I’ve been saying all along: Howard Dean is where he is because he represents the Democrats perfectly. What this slime is mouthing is at the exact root of the Democratic party today.
And very their public complaints about him are all for show.
|
| |
Written By:
Bithead
URL:
http://bitheads.blogspot.com
|
It’s coming, we all see it coming down the pike so can the Dems just skip the next increments on the escalating lunacy scale and just do what they really want to do: publically call for the asassinations of Bush and the evil GOP?
You think I’m nuts on this one? You tell me, what’s the next logical step to the rhetoric? Bush and the GOP are liars, evil, HITLERIAN, murderers, torturers, criminals who never worked an honest day in their lives, racists gulag jailers, oligarchs, immoral, committing crimes on a par with the holocaust, knew about 9/11 in advance, uber-religious zealots, dangerous extermists, don’t care about the country, are corrupt etc etc etc. according to rhetoric from MAINSTREAM DEM PARTY LEADERS. You tell me, where does the rhetoric go from here? GOP campaign offices were already broken into, vandalized, shot up and rioted in during the last election cycle. Bush is regularly depicted in leftist "art" with guns at his head or wearning Nazi regalia. Air fucking America ran a GWB asassination skit (but they apologized for it later on how big of them)
Not going to be very long until someone takes a potshot...
|
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
McQ - On the one hand, good call here mocking Oliver Willis, who of course is beyond parody as far as partisan Kool-Aid drinking.
On the other hand, there’s a lot of merit to taking the pledge. |
| |
Written By:
Crank
URL:
http://www.baseballcrank.com
|
|
Actually, I wrote the part about Willis. I’ve seen the pledge, but I get pleasure out of pointing out his rather obvious hypocrisy. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
On the serious side, if you want to join Rangel’s campaign
http://www.moveonpac.org/tellthetruth/ |
| |
Written By:
Turner
URL:
http://
|
Sorry Jon, I was switching back between the comments and the post too quickly.
I went over to his site to check it out - man, he’s gone way further off the deep end even than he had the last time I was there back in December or so. |
| |
Written By:
Crank
URL:
http://www.baseballcrank.com
|
Yes, Rangel compares the silence of the masses in two situations and its the end of the world. Santorum calls the Democratic party a bunch of Nazis.
Yep, same thing. |
| |
Written By:
Oliver
URL:
http://www.oliverwillis.com
|
You know full well he didn’t "call the Democratic Party a bunch of Nazi’s". Santorum simply said that the Democrats were doing something as improper and audacious as Hitler telling the Allies not to bomb Paris. It’s a hell of a long way from that to "you guys are Nazi’s".
Of course, lots of us on the Right condemned Santorum. How many people on the left condemned Byrd? Rangel? Even you, after bitching about Instapundit taking 24 hours to criticize Santorum, have just taken the fucking year off with regards to criticizing Democrats. You’re the clown fucking prince of "my side, right or wrong". |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
|
Amazing how much rhetoric Mr.Rangel’s comments have stirred up, when the real issue that should be debated is the contents of the Downing Street Memo and its implications. The blog elite swarm to condem Rangel’s remarks yet seem reluctant to fully examine a document that may well burst the bubble about the validity of their war. I’m not saying his comments were appropriate, what I am saying is that what is important and should be of interest to all is usually put on the backburner in favor of the inflamatory statement or issue. If we held our politicians just as accountable for what they do instead of what they say we would be in a lot better shape as a country today. |
| |
Written By:
JR
URL:
http://
|
I made this comment on Dean’s World about the memo.
I read the Downing Street Memo and thought, "What smoking gun?" It reads like a summary of the discussion going on in the blogosphere. It’s tone is uncertain, and every single point it makes on both sides were points that were being made in public on news shows, talk radio and in the blogosphere at the time.
Where’s the smoke in a memo by someone who clearly hasn’t made up his mind?
In fact, the Downing Street Memo makes it clear that British defense analysts were very concerned about Saddam’s WMD’s: For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary. I will describe some actual smoking gun memos:
1. One which details the steps taken to deceive us.
2. One which details the conclusions desired, and directs a subordinate to find facts to back them up.
3. One which details the conclusions not desired, and directs a subordinate to suppress facts that back them up.
It does not include memos which disagree with a subordinate’s facts or a subordinate’s conclusions. Those should be common.
I haven’t seen any memos like that. In fact, the Bipartisan Intelligence report explicitly said that the intelligence was neither cooked nor coerced.
The Downing Street Memo proves that Tony Blair was taking his responsibilities seriously and considering all the facts and all the arguments, including the anti-war arguments. It proves that anti-war voices in the British government were not silenced, that their concerns were heard and that a lively debate was underway.
What’s not to like about that memo?
Yours,
Wince |
| |
Written By:
Wince and Nod
URL:
http://winceandnod.blogspot.com/
|
