fashion editorials blogspot

fashion editorials blogspot

Downing Street Memo

Introduction
The note was first published in The Sunday Times on May 1, 2005, during the last days of the campaign UK election in general.
It went largely unnoticed in the U.S. press at first, but was largely covered in leftist blogs such as Daily Kos, because of a remark attributed to Richard Dearlove (then head of MI6), that "intelligence and facts were being fixed [U.S.] around the policy "of removing Saddam Hussein from power, which was taken to show that U.S. intelligence on Iraq before the war deliberately falsified, rather than simply wrong.
As this issue began to be covered by the media of America (Los Angeles Times on May 12, 2005, The Washington Post on May 13, 2005) two other main claims arising from the note appeared: the weapons inspection process of the UN was manipulated to provide a legal pretext for war, and that attacks before the air war was deliberately ramp to smooth Iraq's infrastructure in preparation for war before the U.S. Senate vote in October allowing invasion.
Some elements of the U.S. media have portrayed the document as a false or fraudulent, and Dana Perino, referred in his daily press briefing the White House on December 4, 2008 for the Bush administration has "discredited" the document above. The British tacitly validated its authenticity (As when Tony Blair said at a press conference question by saying "this note was written before we then went to the United Nations.")
A group of 131 Members of Congress, led by John Conyers, has asked repeatedly that President George W. Bush to respond to the document's contents. A resolution of the investigation was introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee, which would request that the President and the State Department submit all relevant information about U.S. policy into Iraq. The resolution had 70 sponsors.
Scheme
The recipients of the note
Copies of the minutes were sent to:
Secretary of State Defence, Geoff Hoon,
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Jack Straw,
Attorney General of England and Wales, Lord Goldsmith,
Secretary Cabinet, Sir Richard Wilson,
Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, John Scarlett,
Director of Government Communications Headquarters, Francis Richards,
Chief of Defence Staff Sir Michael Boyce,
Chief Richard Dearlove Secret Intelligence Service,
Prime Minister's chief of staff Jonathan Powell,
Downing Street Director of Government Relations Sally Morgan, and
Downing Street Director of Communications and Strategy, Alastair Campbell.
The minutes were meant to be were confidential and headed "This record is extremely sensitive. There should be more copies. must be shown only to those who have a genuine need to know its contents. "This is the stage prior to the Iraq War in 2003, and comes at a time when it appears to the audience, which U.S. President George W. Bush, seeking to overthrow Saddam Hussein from power by force.
The minutes of running through military options and then consider the political strategy in which an action for community support international and domestic opinion would be more likely to be welcomed. It is suggested that an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back UN weapons inspectors issued, so this will help the legal use of force. Tony Blair is quoted as saying the British public support for regime change under right policy.
The most controversial is a report of a recent visit to Washington by the head of the Secret Intelligence Service, Sir Richard Dearlove (known in official terminology as "C"):
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was seen now as inevitable. Bush wants to overthrow Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. But intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the registration scheme Iraq. There was little discussion in Washington of the consequences after the military action.
The British analysis of U.S. policy It is also stated elsewhere in the minutes:
The Defence Secretary said that the U.S. had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decision has been taken, but thought that the most likely in the minds of U.S. for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the U.S. Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made the decision to take military action, although the timing is not decided yet. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and their ability weapons of mass destruction was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We work on a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the arms inspectors UN. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defense, humanitarian intervention or UNSC authorization. The first and second can not be the basis in this case. Based on the Resolution 1205 of three years ago to be difficult. The situation could change course.
The main sections covering the ultimatum are:
The Prime Minister said he would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow UN inspectors. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the destruction mass. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the strategy policy to give the military plan the space to work.
... John Scarlett believes that Saddam would allow inspectors to return in just when you thought that the threat military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the prime minister wanted the military involvement of the United Kingdom, which would have to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the U.S. I do not think worth the ultimatum route. It would be important that the Prime Minister to present the political context to Bush.
The minutes also outlines the possible risks of an invasion of Iraq:
For example, what were the consequences, if you use weapons of mass destruction Saddam the first day, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban war began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. O Israel, added the Secretary of Defense. "
Reaction
Proponents of an investigation
In the United States, proponents of an investigation Congress formally say that the record, along with the testimony of credible witnesses, sufficient to cast doubt on the actions of the Bush administration to justify an investigation formal. In particular, they say that the record indicates that the Administration was determined to go to war with Iraq by considerations of legality and with full knowledge that, in the best "was the slim case." And besides, selected and exaggerated intelligence to confirm its policy and developed a plan to manipulate public opinion public. In addition, the authors say that the content (for example, "Military action was now seen as inevitable.") And the date of the note, July 23 2002, contradicts the official White House that President Bush did not finally decide to carry out the invasion in March 2003 until after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented the case for the administration of United Nations Security Council, in a speech on February 5, 2003. They also say that the minutes are dated at a time when Bush declared that "have not made any decisions on Iraq, but all options are on the table."
Elsewhere has been shown that, Geoff Hoon, believes that the time of the war was intended to influence U.S. elections:
The Defence Secretary said that the U.S. and had begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been made, but thought the most likely time in the minds of U.S. for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the U.S. Congressional elections.
It is said that some of those present at the meeting believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) "capacity." However, the Act explicitly states that the capacity was less than that of Libya, Iran and North Korea and Saddam was not threatening his neighbors.
U.S. Congress
On May 5, 2005, Congressman John Conyers, sent a letter to President Bush signed by 89 of his colleagues call for an explanation of the revelations of the note. No specific White House response to the letter was ever made public. In response to the Bush Administration's refusal to answer the questions congressional delegation, Conyers and others. have given serious consideration to sending a mission research in the UK.
Conyers initially requested 100 000 signatures of citizens (a request) to request that President Bush answer questions on your letter. The letter has been getting between 20,000 and 25,000 signatures a day, which was promoted by MoveOn.org to join the campaign on 9 June. At June 13, 2005, letter received more than 540,000 signatures from citizens, and most congressmen had signed on, bringing the total to 94. As of June 16, 2005, more than 100 congressmen have signed the letter, including then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
On June 16, 2005, Conyers held a hearing or a forum on the Downing Street memo in a basement on Capitol Hill, where Joseph C. Wilson, Ray McGovern and Cindy Sheehan, among others testified. The House Republican leadership did not allow use of a hearing officer Conyers room and forced him to hold the hearing in the basement because the audience was official.
Internet
The importance of the publication of the Sunday Times in the U.S. was first analyzed by smintheus on the Daily Kos and MyDD on the night of April 30, 2005. The next morning the paper had become a major story in the Daily Kos, where Congressman Conyers learned of its existence.
A website www.downingstreetmemo.com was created on May 13 to inform the public about the note and provide context. The website also has a blog dedicated to discussing issues surrounding the note, called downingstreetmemo.blogspot.com.
On May 30, 2005, in a "blogswarm" driven by the note, hundreds of blogs united to form the Big Brass Alliance in support of After Downing Street. On June 1, 2005, a targeted media campaign called "Awakening media "initiated jointly and downingstreetmemo.com Daily Kos. Every day new lists contact details of three news agencies, for so readers can contact to urge them to provide better coverage of the issues surrounding the Downing Street note and other documents published.
Experts
On May 18, conservative commentator and former adviser to the Reagan Administration, Paul Craig Roberts wrote an article calling for impeachment of Bush for lying to Congress on the case for war.
On May 31, liberal consumer advocate and former presidential candidate Ralph Nader, wrote an article in ZNet impeachment calls Bush and Cheney, under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States. Also that day, he and Kevin Zeese author of an editorial in the Boston Globe to support the request of impeachment against Bush, citing the note as part of the evidence that the possibility of deliberate deception of the administration should be investigated.
On January 30, 2006, an article entitled "The Impeachment of George W. Bush, written by Elizabeth Holtzman (D-NY Rep. 1973-1981, Judiciary Committee member House to hold impeachment hearings of President Richard Nixon) was published by the leftist newspaper The Nation. The article makes specific reference to note Downing Street.
Citizens
A coalition of citizens groups known as After Downing Street, co-founded by a group of progressive long time and / or activists of the Democratic Party, urged Congress to provide a resolution of inquiry, the first legal step necessary to determine whether President Bush had committed impeachable offenses. The formal resolution of the investigation request was written by Boston constitutional attorney John C. Bonifaz. The request states the reasons constitutional requirements for impeachment:
[U.S. President] has given [the Senate] all the information, but has concealed important information that should they communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country, and who had not consented to had the true state of affairs is exposed to them.
Democrats.com raised a thousand dollars, offered as a reward to anyone who attempted to get George Bush to answer the following question:
In July 2002, did you and his government to "fix" the intelligence and facts about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction no links to terrorism and which were not contested by U.S. intelligence officials to sell his decision to invade Iraq in Congress, the American people and the world as it appears in the Proceedings of Downing Street?
Besides the grand prize to elicit a clear "yes" or "No" answer, a smaller number of prizes will be offered at least the responses to A reward of $ 100 for video evidence raising the issue clearly to President Bush within his hearing, but received no reply.
A survey Zogby in November 2005 found that 53% of U.S. voters agreed that Congress should impeach President Bush if it appears that Bush not telling the truth about their reasons for going to war with Iraq, while 42% disagreed. 76% of Democrats, 50% of independents, and about 29% of Republicans, according with the sentiment.
News coverage
Minutes of Downing Street was an important story in the British press during the last days of the campaign 2005 general elections and was covered in other countries. The story had limited coverage in the U.S., but has recently received increased attention in the U.S. press. The organization Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting has been one of those who have criticized the U.S. media print, saying "... continue to play down [the] story. "
According to Media Matters for America, there were some early indications in the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle The New York Sun, and The Washington Post, although the coverage is small (first Post article appeared in the "style" section), targeting mainly to the impact it would have on the British elections, instead of how it affected the Bush administration. The news service Knight-Ridder reports produced some at the time, but the separate articles were limited. The Los Angeles Times and the Star Tribune to local journalists in history, and produced the first items May 12 and May 13 respectively.
In the Star Tribune, the initial interest had been aroused after a reader e-mail the information it seen on the Internet for newspaper ombudsman, who informed the other in the news department. Being a good distance from London, the first editors waited for Articles to come through electronic services. No doubt many other newspapers around the country reacted similarly. After a few days no news, however, a local journalist was assigned. The article was originally scheduled to run on May 11 but was delayed so he could have a greater role in a slow news day during the week.
Since then, much of the coverage of the note has discussed the lack of coverage. One of the first reports include this issue was a May 17 article in the Christian Science Monitor. The report was one of the largest in a national publication to date.
The May 20, 2005, Daniel Okrent, Public Editor at the time of The New York Times, the public evaluated the coverage of the proceedings of the paper at a forum on the website of the New York Times. He also stated that due to the constant reader interest, the document is to provide a more complete coverage of the note. Although Okrent retired at the end of In May (the end of his term of office routine) in the June 8 NewsHour suggested some possible explanations for why the U.S. media been so slow to fill what he considered a very important story. Said may have been allocated to the correspondents of "foreign news" and was not seen as a story of George W. Bush, or you can be the U.S. media still working on the investigation of him (but later admitted he had no reason to believe that.)
Also on 8 June, the U.S. Today published an article by their senior assignment editor for foreign media, Jim Cox, saying with respect to the note, "We could not get the memo or a copy of it from a reliable source there was no explicit confirmation of its authenticity from (Blair's office). And was released four days before British elections, raising concerns about the timing. "
The Star Tribune reviewed the records of Downing Street as part of the evidence in an editorial Memorial Day. Explicitly stated,
"President Bush and those around him lied, and the rest of us let them. Duras? Yes it true? Also yes. Maybe it happened because Americans, understandably, do not expect lies from those in power. However, it works better as an explanation of as an excuse ....
"It turns out that former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill were right. Both have been written in the pillory in the summer of 2002 George W. Bush had already decided to invade. "
The New York Times reported on the memorandum of March 27, 2006.
MSNBC reported on the notes on March 28, 2006. MSNBC has an article and a video clip of the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams.
The Colombian daily El Tiempo involved role Prime Minister at the War in Iraq on 9 May, the 2007nd specificallys Downing Street memo, "the main reason for the disappointment in the United Kingdom Tony Blair."
Chilean newspaper La Segunda on May 11, 2007 called Downing Street memo "one of the best kept secrets in ten years of Tony Blair as prime minister.
Veracity of the note
Following the advice of company lawyers, Michael Smith, the journalist who first reported on the Downing Street Memo, has said that protects the identity of its source through the reproduction of all documents and return the 'original' back to the source. In some cases, the document was rewritten from a photocopy, and destroyed the photocopy. This has led some to question the authenticity of the document, but no official source has been questioned, and unofficially confirmed a different news organizations, including the Washington Post, NBC, The Sunday Times and the Los Angeles Times. Several other documents obtained by Smith, and treated similarly (See below) were confirmed as authentic by the British Foreign Office.
One of the articles for the first time in the footnote that appears in the media U.S. quoted "a former senior U.S. official, who, speaking on condition of anonymity, called the Note" a completely accurate description of what happened "during the visit of Britain's top intelligence official in Washington. The British Prime Minister Tony Blair denied that anything bad shown in note conduct and said it added little to what was already known about British policy in Iraq developed, also said "this note was written before going to the United Nations. "
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, USA Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Foreign Jack Straw, has neither confirmed nor denied the authenticity of the note when asked about it. [Citation needed]
George W. Bush has not responded to questions from Congress note accuracy.
When asked about the contents of the note of Plaid Cymru Adam Price in the House of Commons on June 29, 2005, Blair refrained from again questioned the authenticity of documents, saying only "] [that memo and other documents of the period were reviewed Butler. On the other hand, it was before go to the United Nations and secured the second resolution, 1441, which received unanimous support. "
According to CNN, currently classified documents that were dated to the same month as the Downing Street memo, March 2002, were discovered in Iraq, and evidence that Russian intelligence are notified about Iraq "Will of the United States and Britain for launching military action."
U.S. President George W. Bush
On June 7, 2005, at a conference Joint press George W. Bush and Tony Blair at the White House, Reuters correspondent Steve Holland asked: "In Iraq, the so-called Downing Street memo of July 2002, says the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military action. Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond? "President Bush did not address the issue of intelligence and facts were" fixed "around a decision to go to war, although he denied that he had, at the time of the note, decided to use military force against Saddam Hussein, saying: "There is nothing more further from the truth. "Bush also questioned the motives of who leaked the note during the British elections, saying" Well, Iou know, I've read the type of characterizations of the note, especially when left in the middle of his race. I'm not sure that "the left" is not suggesting but'm all left him there. "
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair
When the document is published, the British Prime Minister Tony Blair denied that nothing in the note demonstrated misconduct and said it added little to what was already known about British policy in Iraq developed.
Blair's response Steve Holland in a joint press conference with Bush was "No, the facts were not fixed in any shape or form at all." He also reiterated that he and Bush has continued to try to find a way to avoid war, "what happened, they were unable to do that because, as I think was very clear that there was no way that Saddam Hussein was never going to change the way they worked, or the way he acted, "again without explaining the apparent contradiction with the contents of the note. said as much in a June 7, 2005 interview with Gwen Ifill of the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan
On May 16, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said the statement notes that the intelligence was "fixed" to support the decision to invade Iraq was "flat wrong." No However, McClellan admitted that he had read the note, but has only received reports of its contents.
On May 17, McClellan told reporters that the White House saw "no need" to respond to the letter from Congress.
On May 23, when BTC reporter Eric Brewer asked about his statement of 16 May, McClellan said:
"Let me correct ... let me correct characterization of the quote that you attributed to me. I mean some of the charges referred to a report.
In terms of intelligence, if a person wants to know how intelligence was used by the administration, all they have to do is go back and see all the public comments during the days prior to the war in Iraq, and that is very public information. All that could be see how we use that intelligence. "
The next day, a popular political blog, Think Progress, published in response entitled "Take the challenge McClellan "Comparing what intelligence was with the way it was used by the administration.
U.S. Secretary of State Rice and Straw, Foreign Minister United Kingdom
On May 1, 2005, USA Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw questioned the note, but was unable to give a detailed response. Straw said he had not expected the issue to arrive.
Additional Documents
Main article: Iraq document leak 18 September 2004
Prior to the emergence of the Downing Street Memo, six other British (Blair) documents originating Cabinet around March 2002 were obtained by Michael Smith and used in two Telegraph stories published on September 18, 2004. The documents describe issues relating to meetings held between Bush and Blair in Crawford, Texas, Bush ranch in April 2002. They are:
Iraq options paper prepared by the Foreign and Defence Secretariat in Cabinet Office, dated March 8, 2002, describing the available options for achieving regime change in Iraq
Iraq: Legal Background, prepared by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Legal Department, dated March 8, 2002
a report by David Manning to Tony Blair on his meeting with Condoleezza Rice, dated March 14, 2002
a report by Christopher Meyer David Manning in his meeting with Paul Wolfowitz, dated March 18, 2002
a memo from Peter Ricketts, director political, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, dated March 22, 2002, with background and opinion to the board of Straw Tony Blair before his meeting with George Bush in April
a note from Jack Straw, Tony Blair, on 25 March 2002 containing advice before Blair's meeting with George Bush in April.
Upon receipt of the documents, in September 2004, with the advice of counsel, Smith says they photocopied and originals returned to its source, then, after legal secretary desk Telegraph typed transcripts in an "antique typewriter," the Telegraph destroyed their copies of the originals, in order to thwart any future police investigation of the leak.
The documents were widely quoted in the British press The story immediately following the Telegraph, for example, in The Guardian and The Sunday Herald.
On October 5, 2004, a compressed file (leak-brief.zip) containing facsimiles documents in PDF format, appeared on Cryptome, supplied by Professor Michael Lewis, University of Cambridge, who had also hosted the file on the site Iraq Web Middle East expert Glen Rangwala reference. The file is ultimately derived from the transcription machinery of the documents made by Smith and the Telegraph.
Interest in these documents was rekindled around June 8, 2005, after his appearance in a thread on Democratic Underground and then began to be quoted in U.S. media after NBC Rawstory and verified its authenticity with Smith and British government sources.
The Los Angeles Times an article on June 15, 2005, describing several of the "new" documents, the article says that "Michael Smith, defense writer for the Times revealed that the downing street minutes on a story by May 1, provided the full text of the six new documents to the Los Angeles Times. "
The six documents are available in PDF format from the Web site Think Progress.
A new document, the July 21, 2002, document cabinet office "Terms for Military Action ", a paper for the meeting that the Downing Street Memo is the same, was published (with the last page missing) by the Sunday Times on June 12, 2005.
Another document is email Rycroft, showing the author of the Downing Street Memo actually believed that Saddam should be eliminated due to a threat by Iraq to acquire weapons of mass destruction in terrorist hands.
September 18, 2004, Daily Telegraph article contains the only known copies of the original notes (scanned from a photocopy). This article is called "Failure is not an option, but no means to avoid it."
On Thursday, June 16, 2005 Reuters mislabeled a photo of what he said was "a copy of the Downing Street Memo."
That proved to be actually an image of a document found in an April 28, 2005 Guardian Unlimited story. (In this connection, see this PDF: 07/03/2003: full advice of the Attorney General on Iraq war (pdf)) This detailed PDF file confidential advice Lord Goldsmith on the legality of the Iraq war and does not match the text of any of the events Downing Street memos. It's a totally different document that describes the legal authorization for the invasion of Iraq standing UN resolutions.
Criticism of the Memo
Fred Kaplan argues that this contradicts the supposed "smoking gun" of the issue of weapons of mass destruction being manufactured.
"For example, What were the consequences, if you use weapons of mass destruction from Saddam's first day, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban war began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Secretary of Defense. "
As mentioned above, shortly after the appearance of the note, Tony Blair, was asked: "The so-called Downing Street memo from July 2002 says intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military action. Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? "And he answered," No, the facts were not fixed in any form or manner whatsoever. "It is not clear, however, if this is a critical evaluation of its own head of foreign intelligence (Dearlove) or a critique of a particular interpretation of the phrase Dearlove's "fixed around".
"Fixed"
The correct interpretation the phrase "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." has caused much discussion and debate.
Robin Niblett, a member of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, based in Washington, said it would be easy for Americans not understanding the reference to the understanding that the "fixed around "Iraq policy." 'Fixed around' in English English means 'bolted' and not altered to fit the politics, "he says. This view was seconded by Christopher Hitchens and Fred Kaplan.
Others have suggested various British English uses the phrase "takes to set "(for example, as a colloquial expression meaning" to agree on "), which are different from those of use (both America and Great Britain) derived from criminal slang, meaning "fraudulently altered or changed." The memorandum's author, Matthew Rycroft, uses the ancient use as an e-mail when speaking an appointment, this is now set for 0800. Some critics of note have emerged to make the argument or give the impression that the "tampering" sense of the "solution" is the only American there and not in British English, [citation needed], but this is false.
Other commentators have dismissed, saying that the context makes clear that "fixed around" use "fix" within the meaning of "fraudulently arranging the result," use British common (meaning 12 (b) of the "arrangement" in the form Concise Oxford English Dictionary, as meaning 7, "tortuously influence the result of "the Covenant OED online version). The argument has been that this view is supported by negative feedback involving the presence of word "but" at the beginning of the relevant sentence: "But the intelligence and facts were being (innocently) agreed about politics" it is said, a plausible reading because there is nothing negative, per se, an agreement, while "But the intelligence and facts were being arranged so fraudulent ...", they say, seems to make sense, because it meets negative expectations created by the word "but."
Fred Kaplan noted that around'ush fixed "O way'fixed 'o' and his advisers have decided that the political intelligence of the form, not vice versa; were explicitly politicizing intelligence. "
When asked about the involvement of the note that the Iraq intelligence was being "fixed," White House spokesman, Scott McClellan said: "The suggestion is flatly wrong." It should be noted that McClellan later claim that intelligence is adapted to fit in a book about politics details.
An Iraq "options paper" dated March 8, 2002, states: "Despite sanctions, Iraq continues to develop weapons of mass destruction mass "(although it adds that intelligence on the subject is" bad ").
In a personal message to Blair, dated March 22, 2002, Peter Ricketts, wrote that although Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs "have, for all we know, has intensified," which "are very worrying. "What has changed, he stresses," not so much the pace of the programs of weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein but our tolerance of them post-11 September. "
See also
Bush and Aznar note
Bush and Blair note
Iraq leak September 18, 2004 document
September Dossier UK government report on Iraq threat before the war
Dodgy Dossier Dossier Follow up to September
Peter Goldsmith, Baron Goldsmith - As Attorney General England and Wales, Lord Goldsmith wrote a legal opinion about the war b
Office of Special Plans
Operation Rockingham Iraq intelligence
Plame Case
Yellowcake forgery
United Nations Security Council and the Iraq war
References
^ Bring It Down. Now
Ab ^ "The secret note Downing Street. "The Sunday Times. London. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece. Retrieved March 27, 2007.
^ "Why what "Downing Street memo 'story been a" fiasco "in the U.S.?". Christian Science Monitor. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0517/dailyUpdate.html. Retrieved on March 17, 2007.
^ "Al" Old News "has never been told." FAIR. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2612. Retrieved on June 1 2007.
^ "British Intelligence Warned of Iraq war, Blair was informed of the White House determination to use military action against Hussein." The Washington Post. May 13, 2005. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857.html. Retrieved on March 27, 2007.
^ "Whitehouse.gov". http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050607-2.html. Retrieved on November 4, 2008.
^ "The Thomas refers to the current number." http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HE00375: @ @ @ p. Retrieved on March 11, 2006.
^ Tony Allen-Mills and Tom Pattinson (May 22, 2005). "Blair faces U.S. probe the secret of the invasion plan. "The Sunday Times. London. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ,2087-1622378, 00.html. Retrieved 11 March 2006.
^ "Congressman John Conyers, Jr. Homepage." http://www.house.gov/conyers. Retrieved on March 11, 2006.
^ "The Downing Street Notes:: Information and Documents "http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/related.html Retrieved on March 11, 2006 ...
^ "AfterDowningstreet.org." http://afterdowningstreet.org. Retrieved on March 11, 2006.
smintheus ^ (April 30, 2005). "Iraq: The fix was in in July 2002." Daily Kos. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/30/234527/228. Retrieved on March 11, 2006.
smintheus ^ (May 1, 2005). "Iraq: Fix was in July 2002." MyDD. http://smintheus.mydd.com/story/2005/5/1/12746/88844. Retrieved on March 11, 2006.
smintheus ^ (May 1, 2005). "Bush / Iraq Bombshell This Morning." http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/1/115530/0288. Retrieved on March 11, 2006.
^ "The Downing Street Memo (s)." http://www.downingstreetmemo.com. Retrieved on March 11, 2006.
^ "From Downing Street Memo blog. "Http: / / downingstreetmemo.blogspot.com /. Retrieved March 11, 2006.
^ "Tools Blogpulse trend results." http://www.blogpulse.com/trend?query1 = "+ + Note downing street" and label1 = Downing Street memo + + query2 = "big + brass + alliance" and large brass Label2 = + + Alliance and query3 = "Downing Street + + minutes" and Label3 = downing + street + minutes query4 Label4 afterdowningstreet afterdowningstreet.org = & = & QUERY5 blogswarm = & = Label5 blogswarm and days = 180 & x = 23 & y = 8. Retrieved on March 11, 2006.
smintheus ^ (June 1, 2005). "Wake MSM: Downing Street Memo Alert (01/06). "http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/1/74549/88811. Retrieved March 11, 2006.
^ "Memos Downing Street:: Action! ". http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/takeaction.html. Retrieved March 11, 2006.
^ Roberts, Paul Craig (May 17, 2005). "A reputation in tatters." http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts101.html. Retrieved on March 11, 2006.
^ "FindLaw: Constitution U.S.: Article II: Annotations pg. 18 18 ". FindLaw. Http: / / caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/18.html # 1. Retrieved March 11, 2006.
^ Ralph Nader and Kevin Zeese (May 31, 2005). "The" I "word." The Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/31/the_i_word/. Retrieved on March 11, 2006.
^ "The impeachment of George W. Bush." http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060130/holtzman. Retrieved on September 17, 2006.
^ Afterdowningstreet.org, Co-Founders, retrieved March 28, 2007
^ Alexandrovna, Larisa. Coalition of citizen groups seeking research formal on whether Bush acted illegally in push for war against Iraq. Raw Story. http://rawstory.com/exclusives/alexandrovna/coalition_inquiry_downing_street_memo_526.htm. Retrieved March 11, 2006.
^ "The memo: Boston constitutional lawyer seeks Resolution of Inquiry on Iraq." http://rawstory.com/exclusives/alexandrovna/memo_bush_impeachable_offenses_526.htm. Retrieved on March 11, 2006.
^ Fertik, Bob (May 28, 2005). "How Bush $ 1000 reward before answering the Downing Street Minutes." http://www.democrats.com/bush-question1. Retrieved on March 11, 2006.
^ Fertik, Bob (May 28, 2005). "New Zogby poll shows that most Americans support impeaching Bush by wiretapping. http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2. Retrieved March 11, 2006.
^ "Network Viewers Still in the dark of "Smoking Gun Memo" - The print media continue to downplay the story. "Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. 2005. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2520. Retrieved on March 11, 2006.
^ "The traditional means of concealment: In five weeks after his revelation, Downing Street note struck about something. "June 16, 2005. http://mediamatters.org/items/200506160002. Retrieved March 11, 2006.
^ "Error 404". http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5451062.html. Retrieved on March 11, 2006.
^ Clark, Matthew (May 17, 2005). "Why does history" Downing Street memo was a "fiasco" in the U.S.? ". Christian Science Monitor. Http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0517/dailyUpdate.html. Retrieved March 11, 2006.
^ "You need to register to access." The New York Times. http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/thepubliceditor/danielokrent/index.html?offset=47&fid=.f555e99/47. Accessed 11 March 2006.
^ "NewsHour Transcript, audio and video." http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june05/ombuds_6-8.html. Retrieved on March 11 2006.
^ "Editorial: Memorial Day / Praise bravery, seek forgiveness." Star Tribune. May 30, 2005. http://web.archive.org/web/20050531234547/http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5427823.html. Retrieved March 19, 2007.
^ Van Natta Jr., Don (March 27, 2006). "Bush was set on Path to War, British Memo says." New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin. Retrieved on March 29, 2006.
^ "The author says that war Bush linked from the beginning. "MSNBC. March 28, 2006. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12051310/. Retrieved March 29, 2006.
^ Mitchell, Andrea (June 14 2005). "More notes from British officials on the concerns before the war to deny the understanding that the facts were determined to invade Iraq." NBC News. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8207731/. Retrieved on March 11, 2006.
^ El Tiempo, May 9, 2007
^ The Second May 10, 2007
^ Interview with Michael Smith DowningStreetMemo.com June 27, 2005
^ Ewen MacAskill and Michael White (September 20, 2004). "Leakage reason to question the PM." The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,, 1308223.00. html. Retrieved March 11, 2006.
^ Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott (May 5, 2005). "Downing Street" memo indicates Bush made intelligence as Iraq policy. "Knight Ridder Newspapers. Http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/11574296.htm. Retrieved March 11, 2006.
^ The Associated Press (June 7, 2005). "Text of Bush, Blair Press Conference." SFGate.com. Http: / / www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/06/07/national/w152752D27.DTL. Retrieved on March 11, 2006.
^ "House of Commons Hansard Debates for 29 Jun 2005 (pt 2)." http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm050629/debtext/50629-02.htm # 50629-02_dpthd0. Retrieved March 11, 2006.
^ "Russia spied for Iraq - the role." CNN.com. April 13, 2003. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/13/sprj.irq.russia.spy/index.html. Retrieved March 11, 2006.
^ "President congratulates Blair, British prime minister to the White House." U.S. Department of State. May 7, 2005. http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/47330.htm. Retrieved March 19, 2007.
^ "Tony Blair talks about U.S. aid to Africa, the EU Constitution and the Downing Street memo." Online NewsHour:. June 7, 2005. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june05/blair_6-07.html. Retrieved on March 11, 2006.
^ "From the White House challenges UK note of Iraq. "CNN.com. May 17, 2005. http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/16/iraq.memo/. Retrieved March 11, 2006.
^ Jehl, Douglas (May 20, 2005). "Memo U.S. UK Plans for Iraq War Fuels Critics. "Http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/politics/20weapons.html. Retrieved March 11, 2006.
^ "BTC News White House writer Eric Brewer in which Brad Show." http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/index.php?p=964. Retrieved on March 11, 2006.
^ "The White House did not dispute the substance of Downing Street Memo." http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/index.php?p=953. Retrieved on March 11, 2006.
^ "Take the Challenge McClellan." Http: / / thinkprogress.org / index.php? P = 951. Retrieved on March 6, 2008.
^ "Foreign Minister Comments on Jack Straw, after the meeting. "U.S. Department of State. May 17, 2005. http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/46412.htm. Retrieved March 11, 2006.
Ab ^ Smith, Michael (September 18, 2004). "Failure is not an option, but does not mean he will avoid." Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/18/nwar118.xml . Retrieved on March 11, 2006.
^ Smith, Michael (September 18, 2004). "Secret documents show Blair was warned of chaos in Iraq." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/18/nwar18.xml. Retrieved March 11, 2006.
^ "Confirmation of the Downing Street documents." http://web.archive.org/web/ * / http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Backstory_Confirming_the_Downing_Street_0614.html. Retrieved on September 23, 2007.
^ Ewen MacAskill and Michael White (September 20, 2004). "Leakage reason to question the PM." The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, 2763,1308368,00. html. Retrieved on March 11, 2006.
^ "Bush and Blair: Secrets and lies." Sunday Herald. September 19, 2004. http://www.sundayherald.com/44911. Retrieved on March 11, 2006.
^ "The analysis of the leaked documents from the United Kingdom Cabinet Office." http://cryptome.org/leaks-brief.htm. Retrieved March 11, 2006.
^ "Middle East Reference: chronologies and biographies." http://www.middleeastreference.org.uk. Retrieved on March 11, 2006.
^ "A leaked memo to Downing Street before ...". http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3809302. Accessed 11 March 2006.
^ "Scoop: Another Downing St Memo Wrongfooting Saddam." http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0506/S00116.htm. Retrieved on November 4 2008.
^ Daniszewski, John (June 15, 2005). "New Notes Detail early plans to invade Iraq." Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-britmemos15jun15, 0.7241602, full.story. Retrieved on March 11, 2006.
^ "FULL TEXT OF DOCUMENTS British report revealed: More Evidence Intel has set." Think Progress. http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=1078. Retrieved on March 11, 2006.
^ "Report of the Cabinet Office: Conditions for military action." The Sunday Times. London. June 12, 2005. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ,2089-1648758, 00.html. Retrieved on March 11, 2006.
^ "Matthew Rycroft mail e 11 September 2002 11:59 (JPG). http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/5055/rycroft5br.jpg. Retrieved on March 11, 2006.
^ "Matthew Rycroft mail e September 11, 2002 11:59 "(PDF). http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2003/08/21/DOSSIER_mad.pdf. Retrieved March 11, 2006.
^ "Error 404". http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050616/ids_photos_wl/r876363090.jpg. Retrieved on March 11, 2006.
^ Simon Jeffery and Tom Happold (April 28, 2005). "Full Iraq legal advice released." http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, 2763,1472115,00. html. Retrieved on March 11, 2006.
^ Ab "What's really in the Downing Street memo?". 2007. http://www.slate.com/id/2120886. Retrieved on March 16 2007.
^ "In the text memo Downing Street" (PDF). http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/docs/memotext.pdf. Retrieved on March 16, 2007.
^ "Fixed in Compact Oxford English Dictionary. http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/fixed. Retrieved June 8, 2006.
^ "Fix-7b See Merriam-Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fixed. Retrieved on June 8, 2006.
^ "The email from Matthew Rycroft, September 18, 2002 17 52" (PDF). http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/isc/isc_3_0004.pdf. Retrieved on March 11, 2006.
^ "The Guardian January 2006 party assembly: a history "Webster." http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2006/jan/08/features.sport13. Retrieved on October 21, 2008.
^ "British sources confirm that the meaning of "fixed" as in "manipulated" or "cooked" is the same in Britain and America. "2005. http://mediamatters.org/items/200506170003. Retrieved March 21, 2006.
^ "Set as" fraudulent organization "in British English, because 7 of the verb." http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/fix?view=uk. Retrieved June 8, 2006.
^ "Why" Downing Street memo 'story been a "fiasco" in the U.S.? ". Christian Science Monitor. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0517/dailyUpdate.html. Retrieved on September 22, 2007.
^ "Options Paper" (PDF). 2006. http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/iraqoptionspaper.pdf. Retrieved on 09 February 2007.
^ "Peter Ricketts Memo" (PDF). 2006. http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/rickettsmemo.pdf. Retrieved on 09 February 2007.
Wikisource links
Wikisource: Downing Street note
Encyclopedia: Letter to Congress on the Downing Street note
External Links
Michael Smith
Michael Smith, the British journalist who obtained and published the "Downing Street memos
"Failure is not an option, but does not mean he will avoid" by Michael Smith, September 2004
RAF bombing Saddam tried to incite war in the Michael Smith, May 29, 2005
The ministers were briefed on the need of "excuse" the Gulf War by Michael Smith, 12 June 2005
The Real News in the Downing Street Memos by Michael Smith June 23, 2005
Incorporate coverage media
Iraq, Tony and the truth of the BBC Panorama 21 March 2005
"Why" Downing Street note "story was a" fiasco "U.S.?" WSC 17 May 2005
'Memo: Bush manipulated Iraq Intel' Newsday, May 9, 2005
Decisions, policies and intelligence behind the Iraq war RealCities.com October 29, 2003
Downing Street Memo web
AfterDowningStreet.org - After Downing Street (a campaign coalition for U.S. Congress to investigate formally whether President Bush committed crimes impeachment over the war in Iraq)
Cryptome.org - 'filtering Documents of the Cabinet Office, September 2004: Evidence of false statements made by Tony Blair to Parliament and the media "(summary and links 6 cabinet jobs UK), Michael Lewis, (June 2005)
DowningStreetMemo.com - 'The Downing Street Memo: The search for truth since 13 May 2005 (informational website with articles and other resources to put the documents in context, as well as news and commentary, but it also supports Congress request for investigation)
TheFourReasons.org - 'The four reasons why "We the People" must uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and make violators accountable "(impeachment resources, etc)
Categories: Political scandals in the United Kingdom | Causes and a prelude to the 2003 Iraq conflict | Stances and opinions about the 2003 Iraq conflict | George W. Bush administration controversies | Labour Party (United Kingdom) | documents Rated | 2005 in the United Kingdom | 2005 in U.S. politics | MemorandaHidden categories: All articles with statements without source | Items with statements without power October 2008 | Articles with no source statements since February 2010 About the Author

I am a professional writer from China Products, which contains a great deal of information about glossy roll paper , carbonless carbon paper, welcome to visit!

Editorial Fashion Look using Illamasqua

US Auctions Australian Auctions Austrian Auctions Belgian Auctions Canadian Auctions French Auctions German Auctions Irish Auctions Italian Auctions Dutch Auctions Spanish Auctions Swiss Auctions GB Auctions

Best Match Items Ending First Newly-Listed Items First Price + Shipping: Lowest First Price + Shipping: Highest First