AP Excerpts From the Downing Street Memos

[IChing]

Jun 18, 1:43 PM EDT
Excerpts From the Downing Street Memos

Rice

"We spent a long time at dinner on Iraq. It is clear that Bush is grateful for your (Blair) support and has registered that you are getting flak. I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was very different than anything in the States. And you would not budge either in your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the right result. Failure was not an option.

"Condi's enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed. But there were some signs, since we last spoke, of greater awareness of the practical difficulties and political risks. ... From what she said, Bush has yet to find the answers to the big questions: How to persuade international opinion that military action against Iraq is necessary and justified; What value to put on the exiled Iraqi opposition; How to coordinate a U.S./allied military campaign with internal opposition; (assuming there is any); What happens on the morning after?
Jack Straw
"US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing. To get public and Parliamentary support for military operations, we have to be convincing that the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending out troops to die for; it is qualitatively different from the threat posed by other proliferators who are closer to achieving nuclear capability (including Iran)."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MEMOS_EXCERPTS?SITE=MNMAN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-06-18-13-43-06

[tmooses]

1. These are quotes I have not seen before. Are they new excerpts from

the same memo's coming out this morning or new memos?

[IChing]

3. these are from the 6 new memos

[bettyellen]

2. we have to be convincing that the threat is so serious/imminent that it is

worth sending out troops to die for.....

[adnelson60087]

4. My God...

This is simply the most damning thing I have ever read. Even the most loathsome Republican cannot read that and feel like a $2 whore. I never believed a word of the story back in 2002 about WMD and now...I simply feel sick. All these deaths. All these maimings. All the Hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars spent and yet to be spent. C'mon Republicans...this is a moment of Truth. Do you guys love America, or only your party??

[yorkiemommie1]

9. the repugs i know

love only their party and refuse to read and absorb the evidence.

*'s base, indeed!

[pacalo]

17. As the mother of two draft-age sons, it enfuriates me.

It not only "sounded" like a grudge against Saddam, as suggested by Jack Straw, it was all about a grudge against Saddam.

The intrusive video footage of Saddam's medical examination following his "capture", the intrusive photograph of him in his underwear...it was a grudge.

[adnelson60087]

26. I feel you...

I am watching the Conyers committee on Cspan now, and I fear you are right. I am hopeful you'll never be a draft-mom.

[pacalo]

27. TY, adnelson.

[mom cat]

5. Excerpts From the Downing Street Memos (AP excerpts)

MODS... the information is not new but the fact that the Associated Press is presenting these excerpts is very nice news. If you choose to move this, I won't have my feelings hurt, but I hope these can stay here because what news outlets are doing now is news in and of itself.

Excerpts From the Downing Street Memos
The Associated Press
Published: Jun 18, 2005

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB587B44AE.html




Excerpts from material in secret Downing Street memos written in 2002. The information, authenticated by a senior British government official, was transcribed from the original documents.
In a memo dated March 14, 2002, Tony Blair's chief foreign policy adviser, David Manning, tells the prime minister about a dinner he had with then-U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who's now secretary of state. Manning is now the British ambassador to the United States.

"We spent a long time at dinner on Iraq. It is clear that Bush is grateful for your (Blair) support and has registered that you are getting flak. I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was very different than anything in the States. And you would not budge either in your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the right result. Failure was not an option."

----

"Condi's enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed. But there were some signs, since we last spoke, of greater awareness of the practical difficulties and political risks. ... From what she said, Bush has yet to find the answers to the big questions: How to persuade international opinion that military action against Iraq is necessary and justified; What value to put on the exiled Iraqi opposition; How to coordinate a U.S./allied military campaign with internal opposition; (assuming there is any); What happens on the morning after?"

----

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

6. NVU?

http://www.nvu.com/

[tmooses]

7. I agree that it's good the MSM is putting this out, but what is the

definition on "news" when it's info that comes out, is ignored and then
presented at a later time as "news"?

[Laughing Mirror]

15. Because these are official secret documents being leaked to the press

which, among other reasons, is why they are newsworthy now, today. The facts were there all along, for those who cared to look for them, but until they were assembled and presented in such a way as they are being today the official propaganda rags that call themselves newspapers chose to look the other way. And they are trying very hard to avert that gaze to these damning revelations.

[IChing]

25. Thanks alot, that is how I felt about this

some have posted from the 6 new memos
I have also, it is important that the raw read is there.
thanks mod's and mom cat


MODS... the information is not new but the fact that the Associated Press is presenting these excerpts is very nice news. If you choose to move this, I won't have my feelings hurt, but I hope these can stay here because what news outlets are doing now is news in and of itself.

[IChing]

8. more excerts from the AP feed

"US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing. To get public and Parliamentary support for military operations, we have to be convincing that the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending out troops to die for; it is qualitatively different from the threat posed by other proliferators who are closer to achieving nuclear capability (including Iran)."

----

"We can make the case on qualitative difference (only Iraq has attacked a neighbour, used CW and fired missiles against Israel). The overall strategy needs to include re-doubled effort to tackle other proliferators, including Iran, in other ways (the UK/French ideas on greater IAEA activity are helpful here). But we are still left with a problem of bringing public opinion to accept the imminence of a threat from Iraq. This is something the Prime Minister and President need to have a frank discussion about."

----

"The second problem is the END STATE. Military operations need clear and compelling military objectives. For Kosovo, it was: Serbs out, Kosovars back, peace-keepers in. For Afghanistan, destroying the Taleban and Al Qaida military capability. For Iraq, "regime change" does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."

[Coexist]

10. kick

[evermind]

11. They don't quote some of the most damning material

(imho) - that which shows the US/UK team were intent on playing the UN to provide a legal and political pretext for war.

That is, rather than there being (as repeatedly claimed) any genuine attempt at a peaceful resolution via the UN inspection process and resolutions, the documents that AP quotes from also contain clear, but unquoted, indications that the US and UK were deliberately manipulating the UN processes in order to make war a legal and politically viable option.

They could have quoted David Manning to Tony Blair (March, 2002) :

"I told Condi that [...] The issue of the weapons inspectors must be handled in a way that would persuade European and wider opinion that the US was conscious of the international framework, and the insistence of many countries on the need for a legal base. Renewed refusal by Saddam to accept unfettered inspections would be a powerful argument"

And they could have quoted Christopher Meyer to David Manning (March, 2002), explaining how he had told Paul Wolfowitz:

"The US could go it alone if it wanted to. But if it wanted to act with partners, there had to be a strategy for building support for military action against Saddam. I then went through the need to wrongfoot Saddam on the inspectors and the UN SCRs" (SCRs are Security Council Resolutions).

They could also have quoted from the July 21 briefing paper, which suggests (about the weapons inspection process) :

"It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject (because he is unwilling to accept unfettered access) and which would not be regarded as unreasonable by the international community. However, failing that (or an Iraqi attack) we would be most unlikely to achieve a legal base for military action by January 2003."

Clearly, I think, they are actually hoping they can pass a UN resolution which will be rejected by Saddam Hussein.

This is NOT "seeking a peaceful solution" in any way shape or form, and shows quite clearly that rather than as a possible alternative to war, the UN was regarded as an element essential to the task of making war happen.

[IChing]

12. I know I have the downloaded pdf

This is for the Sunday paper .....

IT'S DAMNING AS HELL if you read all the PDF s
they are between 2-6 pages. easy read for all

[UpInArms]

16. Criminal Intent is shown in this statement:

"Of course, REGIME CHANGE has no basis in international law."

complete knowledge of the illegality of their "regime change" mantra.

[evermind]

19. ... which is why they wanted to create the legal basis by

"wrongfooting Saddam on the inspectors and SCRs", of course.

[UpInArms]

22. it was like the Salem witch trials -

if you drowned you were innocent (but dead)

if you floated, you were guilty (and then put to death)

[la la]

13. Thank you, IChing-

I passed your words on to a message board I read and contribute to - I hope that is okay with you- some bushfans there that continually deny that the DSM exists.

Thank you for your posting.

[IChing]

24. Your welcome, we must do what we can

to activate change and education

[UpInArms]

14. " F___ Saddam. we're taking him out."

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1101030331-435968,00.html

Mar. 31, 2003

" F___ Saddam. we're taking him out." Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase. The Senators laughed uncomfortably; Rice flashed a knowing smile. The President left the room. A...

[Roland99]

18. Remember what our own Declaration of Independence said about tyrants?

:)

[UpInArms]

20. thanks for that Roland99!

I just had a great re-read of this wonderous document:

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h977.html

here were a few of the paragraphs that most caught my eye:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

and

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

and

<snip>For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury

and

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

and

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

:toast:

[Roland99]

21. Brings a tear to the eye, eh?

[Freedomfried]

23. Iraq was more important that the countrys close to having the Bomb?

"it is qualitatively different from the threat posed by other proliferators who are closer to achieving nuclear capability"



WHOA!