Bush sees no need to respond to Conyers letter

[FreedomAngel82]

Yep, he's guilty all right. If he wasn't guilty he would've responded and took on the alligations, but he can't even do that.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/politics/20weapons.html?
oref=login&pagewanted=print

Snip: <British Memo on U.S. Plans for Iraq War Fuels Critics -- May 20, 2005 By DOUGLAS JEHL
WASHINGTON, May 19 - More than two weeks after its publication in
London, a previously secret British government memorandum that
reported in July 2002 that President Bush had decided to "remove
Saddam, through military action" is still creating a stir among
administration critics. They are portraying it as evidence that Mr.
Bush was intent on war with Iraq earlier than the White House has
acknowledged.

Eighty-nine House Democrats wrote to the White House to ask whether
the memorandum, first disclosed by The Sunday Times on May 1,
accurately reported the administration's thinking at the time, eight
months before the American-led invasion. The letter, drafted by
Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, the top Democrat on the
House Judiciary Committee, said the British memorandum of July 23,
2002, if accurate, "raises troubling new questions regarding the
legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your
own administration."

It has long been known that American military planning for the Iraq
war began as early as Nov. 21, 2001, after President Bush directed
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to begin a review of what would
be required to oust Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi leader. By July 2002,
the war planning was sufficiently advanced that newspaper accounts
that month reported details of some of what was being considered.

On Aug. 26, 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney appeared before the
Veterans of Foreign Wars to warn that "there is no doubt that Saddam
Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction" and that "there is no
doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, our
allies and against us." But Congress did not vote until Oct. 16, 2002, to authorize Mr. Bush
to go to war in Iraq. The White House has always insisted that Mr.
Bush did not finally decide to carry out the invasion of March 2003
until after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented the
administration's case to the United Nations Security Council, in a
speech on Feb. 5, 2003, that relied heavily on claims, now
discredited, that Iraq had illicit weapons and was supporting
terrorism.>

[spooked911]

1. I think, as I just posted elsewhere, the Downing street memo

is the beginning of the beginning for the impeachment of Bush. I think that the tide is really tuning against him.

[FreedomAngel82]

2. One can hope

I hope so. It doesn't seem to be getting anywhere though.

[undeterred]

3. What can he say? He's been caught in a lie and he's still hoping no

one will notice. And so far, the media pays it little attention...

Comparing the magnitude of the disaster he created with this lie to Clinton's lie just boggles the mind. :grr:

[dkofos]

4. They will ignore it,

the media will ignore it, in the hopes it will go away.

I SAY NO FUCKING WAY

Make copies of the memo and hand them out on the street corner if you have to.

:grr: :grr:

[babylonsister]

6. And here's where you can make copies:

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/imagebank.html

[Somawas]

5. Bush and the media are ignoring it

and honestly I think we ought to be in the streets demanding an explanation. The mob in the Ukraine unseated the corrupt and unelected government. The crap that Dim Son has pulled is as bad or worse than the crap Nixon pulled. Its past time to take to the streets, to engage in general strikes and otherwise to take extraordinary means to repel this invader from our soil.

[JDPriestly]

7. The Downing Street

memo, whatever else it indicates, states that Blair was made aware before committing British troops to go into Iraq that the evidence on the WMDs was doubtful and that Iraq's ties to 9/11 were tenuous. He was advised that the reasons being given for going into Iraq were insufficient and that the war would be illegal if based on them. According to the May 2005 Vanity Fair article on The Path to War, Blair, therefore, insisted that Bush go to the UN. Blair went through the motions of trying to go through the UN and insisting on free access to potential WMD storage sites including Hussein's palaces, but Hussein foiled that plan. How? As Blix reported in late February 2003 to early March 2003, Hussein gave the UN inspectors free entry even into his palaces and acquiesced to all the demands of the inspection team. Therefore, violation of the UN resolutions was not a legitimate basis for going in, yet Blair in agreement sent British troops into Iraq.

I'm wondering if these facts (and the evidence supporting them) would support a case against Blair for violating international law by going into Iraq without cause based on these facts? The UK, I believe, is a member of the international criminal court system. A claim brought against Blair and his government would result in the disclosure of documents that would finally shed a light on what really happened. I'm wondering whether anyone is working on bringing a claim against Blair?

[jarnocan]

8. Please sign and then do more.....

We the people demand our right to know the facts.
(To NOT my president)(and copies will go to media and senators etc.)
<http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/591048046>
"Dear Mr. Bush;

We the people, have a right to know the truth.

We want you to answer the questions by the Hon. Rep. Conyers and 89 other members of congress, concerning the Blair/ Downing Street memo, your plans for the invasion of Iraq, and the actions you took to distort information, in order to advance your preconceived agenda.

We want to know why Scott McClellan your press secretary, blamed Newsweek magazine, for the actions of policemen in Iraq shooting and killing 15 protesters. Military officials appear to refute your claims, that a statement in the magazine referring to an investigation, of possible disrespect, and inappropriate behavior of an interrogator resulted in this violence.

We want to know who planned this course of action, apparently to further intimidate our media. As a democracy a free and non-partisan media is critical.

We further implore you to encourage unencumbered, investigations into the anomalies of the 2004 presidential elections. Please allow the investigators to examine the vast amount of documentation by voter's rights groups and University professors.

Please make a public statement encourage the media to explore this documentation and report it, without concern of retribution from your administration. We can not have real voter reform, nor restore faith in our democracy without a free press and fair elections."
(you may upload a photo but absolutely do not have to.)

also Verified Voting Lobby Days are coming a good day to do more....

[Horse with no Name]

9. The irony is

That they are willing to dismantle our country by the vote of 51 people, yet 89 people isn't enough to warrant a response?
When will the insanity end?