Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

CNN late edition Transcript:Wolf brings up Downing Street Memo

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
cal04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-05 03:14 PM
Original message
CNN late edition Transcript:Wolf brings up Downing Street Memo
Edited on Sun Nov-06-05 03:30 PM by cal04
BLITZER: Mr. Secretary, with all due respect, you say there was no debate about that going into the war, but there was what has now famously been called the Downing Street Memo, which came out on July 23, 2002, almost a year before the war, in which your government was told this, "There was a perceptible shift in attitude, referring to what's going on in the Bush administration in Washington. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence of facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." Your government was told, almost a year before the war, that this intelligence was being concocted.

REID: No, they weren't, with great respect. You can produce one out of a thousand of memos that were flying about, which represented one person's view about one particular issue. I don't quite know what is the point that you're making. Let me just repeat again, Wolf, with great respect, every intelligence agency in the world knew that Saddam Hussein had the intention and capability over a period of years to develop a threat to the region, as well as to the world.
History had illustrated that, both in intention and capability. The only disagreement was not about the measure of the threat, Resolution 1441 specifically referred to his breaches of the United Nations' regulations, said that he was guilty, said that in order to get any relief from that guilt, he had to give immediate, unconditional compliance with the United Nations itself.
There was no question about the degree of the guilt. The only question at the time was whether or not he should be given more time with the inspectors, or whether a military intervention should take place.

BLITZER: And there a serious debate on that.

REID: And there was a very serious debate on that. The point I'm making to you, Wolf, is that several years on from that, even the different sides of that debate are now entirely united through the United Nations under resolution 1546. And on one side of debate about Iraq now stands the terrorists, and on the other side stands the whole international community, including the U.S. and the U.K., helping the Iraqi's to achieve democracy, stability, and a degree of opportunity and security for their own country. That's now the division.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/06/le.01.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-05 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thank you, cal04 -- I was so astonished when I saw Wolf...
put the Downing Street Memo up on the screen, that I missed what was said!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-05 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. We got to push the Downing Street Memo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rose Siding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-05 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
3. Did you notice Allen re-writing history?
"...also recognize the mind-set of this country and our leaders in this country that we got hit on 9/11, 2001 and we didn't want to sit back. We needed to make sure we're proactive in trying to thwart and protect, thwart terrorist attacks and protect Americans."

The "mind-set of" the MAJORITY of this country, was NO to war *unless* the UN approved (which I always read to mean that if there wasn't enough evidence to convince everyone, then there wasn't enough evidence)


http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_mayjun_2004/Poll.html#2


ABC poll: "If Iraq agrees to let United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country, do you think the United States should hold off on attacking Iraq, or not?"

9/14/02

Should Hold Off 77%
Should Not 21%
No Opinion 2%

CBS poll: Which statement do you agree with more? Iraq presents such a clear danger to American interests that the United States needs to act now, even without the support of the United Nations. The U.S. needs to wait for approval of the United Nations before taking any action against Iraq .

March 4 – March 5, 2003

Act now 36%
Wait 59%
Shouldn't act (vol.)
Don't know/No answer





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 07:07 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC