would you : news related : WHY HASN'T THE "DOWNING STREET MEMO" BEEN WIDELY REPORTED BY THE UNITED STATES PRESS? [+] ballot by mojo created Mon May 30, 05 The recent release of the Downing Street Memo provides new and compelling evidence that the President of the United States has been actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq. If true, such conduct constitutes a High Crime under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution: "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." On May 1, 2005, The Sunday Times of London published the Downing Street Memo. The document, marked "Secret and strictly personal UK eyes only," consists of the official minutes of a briefing by Richard Dearlove, then-director of Britain’s CIA equivalent, MI-6, to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top national security officials. Dearlove, having just returned from meetings with high U.S. Government officials in Washington, reported to Blair and members of his Cabinet on the Bush administration’s plans to start a preemptive war against Iraq. The briefing occurred on July 23, 2002, months before President Bush submitted his resolution on Iraq to the United States Congress and months before Bush and Blair asked the United Nations to resume its inspections for alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The document reveals that, by the summer of 2002, President Bush had decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by launching a war which, Dearlove reports, would be "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD ." Dearlove continues: "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Dearlove also states that "here was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw states that "t seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But," he continues, "the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, and Iran." British officials do not dispute the document's authenticity, and, on May 6, 2005, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported that " former senior U.S. official called 'an absolutely accurate description of what transpired' during the senior British intelligence officer’s visit to Washington. "Memo: Bush made intel fit Iraq policy," The State, Knight Ridder Newspapers, May 6, 2005. My question is - why did I have to comb the internet to find information on this subject - something that came out in the British press a month ago? Why did I only know about it through listening to C-SPAN one morning? In light of how Clinton was hounded constantly throughout his entire presidency - for Whitewater, for Travelgate, and then for Monica Lewinsky - how is it that the current president isn't being questioned about a potentially SERIOUS breach of law and ethics? What's going on with the press in this country? Clearly, we don't have a 'liberal press' any more. The White House dictates what we should hear and see (e.g. no caskets from the Iraq war). Corporate-owned press doesn't want the facts out. It is a non starter me thinks Ballot #74329 : SEE RESULTS Comment: show your vote with comment?

v 1.5

© BESTANDWORST.COM

smile bank: