Off Topic Messages

Downing Street Memo => Impeachment?

Wed Jul 27, 2005 11:24 am

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com

Who'll stop the rain?

DJC

Wed Jul 27, 2005 11:40 am

Doc -

It's been obvious for some time that the decision to take out Hussein was made first, and 'legitimate' and 'legal' justifications for doing so were then sought.

I'm just sorry and angry that the UK was dragged into the whole mess, and Tony Blair was shown to be Bush's poodle.

Wed Jul 27, 2005 11:59 am

I was surprised that this memo is the vehicle being used when I can recall Tony Blair going over the details of his first ever meeting with Bush.

On TV he said that there was no agenda planned to discuss before he arrived, so he said to President Bush when they sat down, "Well, what shall we talk about ?" and President Bush replied "The middle east"

There you have it in my book.

Re: Downing Street Memo => Impeachment?

Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:29 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:Who'll stop the rain?


Hillary in 2008? God help us all.

Thu Jul 28, 2005 2:40 am

I dont think so Rob.

Sq

Thu Jul 28, 2005 4:38 am

Neat! More Bush/Blair bashing.

Thu Jul 28, 2005 5:58 am

Blair was making speeches about WMD and international terrorism before 9/11 even. I think it's an insult to call him Bush's poodle. I'm sure there were concerns over whether the evidence available could legitimise any military action in the eyes of international law, but I don't doubt that Blair truly supported the removal of Saddam and believed that WMD would be found - a belief shared by intelligence communities around the world.

Blair was keenly aware that the US were intent on military action and my instincts tell me that he was more in favour of the UN route than Bush. But what happened when the Security Council were called upon to deliver a final ultimatum to Saddam in early 2003? They failed to back up the stance they had taken the previous November. More importantly, the French position was that any ultimatum with the threat of military action attached would be vetoed. This essentially ensured that the US/UK would resort to the military route. The alternative was to leave Saddam in place, but empowered by the obvious limpness of the Security Council. Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I believe that was the intent of the French position - military action was fine, but they didn't want to get their hands dirty.

Incidentally Doc, you'd probably vote for Blair if you lived in the UK :wink: . He is a strong ally of Bush on foreign policy issues, but much more in the Clinton mould at a domestic level.

Thu Jul 28, 2005 7:54 am

TJ......you'll only confuse DJC if you feed him facts. Conspiracies are sooooo much more FUN!!!

Thu Jul 28, 2005 8:07 am

TJ -

You wrote:
Blair was making speeches about WMD and international terrorism before 9/11 even.
I think it's an insult to call him Bush's poodle.


I was referring to public perception rather than the 'actualite'.

The total, unquestioning backing he gave to Bush gave rise to this.

Thu Jul 28, 2005 8:26 am

ColinB wrote:TJ -

You wrote:
Blair was making speeches about WMD and international terrorism before 9/11 even.
I think it's an insult to call him Bush's poodle.


I was referring to public perception rather than the 'actualite'.

The total, unquestioning backing he gave to Bush gave rise to this.


Like it or not - and some certainly don't - the US is Britain's main ally. International affairs are complicated and a wooly 'not sure if I'm with you, let me get back to you' stance wouldn't have cut it. The 9/11 attack was on US soil, but not just an attack on the US, either literally (we lost nearly 70 people) or symbolically (it was a declaration of war against all 'infidels'). It is therefore not surprising that our alliance with the US solidified in the wake of the attack. Having said that, the notion of unquestioning backing should be qualified. Blair did work his backside off trying to get a second UN Resolution and would that really have been firmly on the agenda without him? I'm not so sure. Another point is rarely made. The US would have gone ahead with or without Britain. Without Britain, would there have been less or more loss of innocent life?

Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:45 pm

"US 'War on Terror' is over !!"

Yes, folks, the US 'War On Terror' is now over !

Bush & his officials now refer to it as

"The Global Struggle Against Violent Extremists".

Sounds much better.

Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:38 am

So many take civilization for granted without realizing that it was birthed and maintained at the point of a sword. Someone needs to hold that sword and even on occasion, swing it in order to help stave off chaos.

Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:08 am

Scatter wrote:TJ......you'll only confuse DJC ...

It must be hell to type most of your comments with earmuffs and a blindfold on.

DJC

Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:18 am

Doc.....let's not have me go and drag out your embarrassing history of conspiracy theories before the whole MB. Stick to EP......

Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:22 am

Scatter wrote:Doc.....let's not have me go and drag out your embarrassing history of conspiracy theories before the whole MB. Stick to EP......

It's not my fault you make posts that are willfully ignorant on any subject that threatens your narrow belief system.

The only "embarassing history" on this MB is any post you make not having to do with Elvis Presley. And sometimes, some that do.

Back to your bananas and whiskey.

DJC

Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:28 am

Perhaps we should start with your contention that Bush wore a wire prompter during the Gore debates???

Maybe the posts about how all the voting machines were rigged by Republicans.....in Democrat counties.

Perhaps the ones about the minorities that were kept from voting......that to this date no one can find.

Well......maybe that's enough to start those interested on their own search into the paranoid world of Dr Demento :lol: :roll:

Thanks for the chuckles :D

Fri Jul 29, 2005 11:38 am

=> How predictable. Doc feels he isn't getting the attention he deserves, so, guarantee to see a brand new thread by him in OT about ... yawn, his same ol left-wing reactionary drivvel.

when his self-proclaimed "expertise" is twarted on an Elvis topic - or a beatles topic,
he immediately resorts to making politically-driven Bush-bashing threads,
and he, rather lazily, just links to some one else, or quotes someone else.

Lotta original work put in there dude!

A CCR song title is your statement?
Whew! You must be exhausted after typing all that.

Fri Jul 29, 2005 12:52 pm

Graceland Gardener wrote:A CCR song title is your statement?

Stumpy -

It's actually quite a statement indeed, if you had a clue as to what good old left-winger John Fogerty meant when he wrote that classic.

DJC

Fri Jul 29, 2005 2:50 pm

Misleading a country into a war is not nearly so grievous an offense as sex with an intern. So, I wouldn't expect an impeachment anytime soon. We have to have our priorities straight. Who cares about the war in Iraq when there's men out there having gay sex?

Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:44 pm

LTB -

You wrote:
Who cares about the war in Iraq when there's men out there having gay sex?


Wot - in Iraq ?

I see two teenage boys were recently excecuted in Iran for being homosexual.

Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:03 pm

For some perspective on the memo I suggest this link: http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/r ... 060801.asp

Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:09 pm

ColinB wrote: I see two teenage boys were recently excecuted in Iran for being homosexual.


I guess that's Bush & Blair's fault too.

wouldn't leftwing nut Doc be glad we are in Iran/Iraq region trying to change a gay-executing culture into a tolerant swingin' democracy?!?!?


Ironic.
the decadent porn/gay/lez sexy lifestyles & do-drugs culture that the Muslim World hates about western civilization.... is largely....
liberalism.
They scorn and disapprove of the "liberal way of life"

But a conservative administration keeps getting the blame for problems with the muslim world.

Sat Jul 30, 2005 1:48 am

Gain a point, lose a point. It's true that they hate the tolerant lifestyle advocated by liberals. However, it also pisses them off when conservatives go around spouting that God is on our side. They also don't like when you invade their countries.

Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:15 am

likethebike wrote:Gain a point, lose a point. It's true that they hate the tolerant lifestyle advocated by liberals. However, it also pisses them off when conservatives go around spouting that God is on our side. They also don't like when you invade their countries.


The majority of the Iraqi population certainly did welcome the Coalition's invasion and Saddam's removal from power. How quickly we forget the rejoicing that followed the fall of Baghdad. It's the ongoing violence and need for the Coalition to remain in place that is unwelcome, but who's responsible for that? The fact is, the conflict would be over and the will of the MAJORITY of the Iraqi population realised if the insurgents had laid down their arms. It is not the Coalition, but the radicals with a corrupted view of Islam that are responsible for the ongoing loss of life, including civilians who are ironically Muslims. Why is that point so hard for some to digest? There's only one point addressed less by those who opposed the war, and that's the appalling reality of what it meant to be an Iraqi under Saddam's regime. Just ignore that is was a country where one unfortunate slip of the tongue could lead to your death or torture. Let's forget that one sixth of the nation were in exile. The mass graves? Ah, what's the big deal eh?

This was a just war against an evil regime, which is being prolonged by radical lunatics. Some perspective would be nice, rather than making the US and UK the bad guys.

Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:21 am

I buy into some of that but I still can't get over that it wasn't a war on that regime because Saddam wasn't a very nice man but on a country that we had proof had WMD still.

But that's a point of argument that's more a technicality than anything relevant now. If we were wrong, then we were wrong, can't do much about it now.

But this minority of insurgents, where were they before ? I never saw them Fool yet alone set of bombs or fire a gun in Iraq. Are we sure that these are a minority of Iraqis, or are they from elsewhere and have made their way to a country where they can actually fight in the street against the mighty US and coalition infedels ?