Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Downing Street Memo **UPDATE**

Sorry, I just don't get all the fuss on the Left about the Downing Street Memo. The memo was written by an aide to British Prime Minister Tony Blair in July of 2002, and describes discussions, meetings, and plans with the United States on Iraq. The Left claims that this is the "smoking gun" they need to show that the Bush Administration 'ginned up' the intelligence on Iraq to justify their desire to oust Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.

Does anyone doubt that after 9/11 that one way or another we would remove the potential threat that Saddam Hussein posed? Moreover, nothing I can read here says anything about anyone deliberately "lying", or covering up anything. To argue that Bush and Blair sought the removal of Saddam earlier than they've admitted publically proves nothing.

No smoke, no gun.

Read the memo yourself and decide. (Hat tip Fox News)

UPDATE: Comments (below) from a reader have prompted this update.

These links are interesting, but still provide us with no new information, just as the DSM does not either. Quoting from the articles of impeachment against Nixon proves nothing; This passage, in fact, has nothing to do at all with how the president handled Iraq. All that the other links provide are more reports about what we already know, to wit:

1. Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussien from power earlier than he announced publicly. So what? Lots of people agreed with that assessment. The removal of Saddam and the freeing of the Iraqi people from his tyrrany was always a stated goal for the war.

2. The intelligence they sought regarding WMD's turned out to be wrong. But prior to the war NO ONE on the Left or Right was debating that point. Sure, the UN inspectors wanted more time to search, but at the time everyone believed that he had WMD's, and that the inspectors would have to conduct a cat and mouse game to find them. The longer it took, the more time the crooks in the UN OFF program had to get rich, along with their friends in France, Germany, and Russia.

3. Despite the intelligence on Iraq's WMD's being wrong (gathered by a CIA whose intelligence gathering capability had been severely restricted by now-disgraced Robert Torrecelli and his Democratic friends in the Congress and Bill Clinton), the Iraq Survey Group clearly identified the threat Saddam posed in it's Duelfer Report as commented on in this space in October of 2004.

Finally, while I know that the Left is desparate to impeach George Bush, I still have yet to see an impeachable offence from anyone in his administration. For sure, the DSM does not prove such a thing, and nothing I have seen before or since has proven to my satisfaction that anyone in the administration is guilty of anything more than publicity errors. Prove "Bush lied" and maybe I'll change my tune. Until then, "no smoke, no gun."


Anonymous said...

"The President must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate. He is to regulate all intercourse with foreign powers, and it is his duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives. If it should appear that he has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them, - in this case, I ask whether, upon an impeachment for a misdemeanor upon such an account, the Senate would probably favor him."

Anonymous said...

notice "has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated" He has done this on many occasions. See, for example:

Anonymous said...

here's another informative article: