OT - That secret memo

Here are some excerpts:

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a
perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen
as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through
military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism
and WMD. But the 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
Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in
Washington of the aftermath after military action. "

"The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin
Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his
mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet
decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening
his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of
Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an
ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons
inspectors. 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-defence, humanitarian
intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second
could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of
three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of
course change."

For the complete memo, go here.

[url]http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1[/url]

--
Wingnut

It did change. the Collation relied on the LAST UN Resolution,
the one it decided to enforce with out the help of the Axis of
Weevils France, Germany and Russia and their blood for oil
cartel LOL


mike hunt



Wing Nut wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Here are some excerpts:
>[/color]
[color=blue]
>
> "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-defence, humanitarian
> intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second
> could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of
> three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of
> course change."
>
>
> Wingnut[/color]

[email]MajorDomo@mailcity.com[/email] wrote:[color=blue]
> It did change. the Collation relied on the LAST UN Resolution,
> the one it decided to enforce with out the help of the Axis of
> Weevils France, Germany and Russia and their blood for oil
> cartel LOL
>
>
> mike hunt[/color]

Except it's *really* a stretch to call bush & inbred-clan a collation.
Say Mikee - now that we've secured those nasty WMD, generally plundered &
blown-up the country to ensure they can't make any more AND secured their
oil for us, why are we still there?

FanJet wrote:
[color=blue]
> [email]MajorDomo@mailcity.com[/email] wrote:
>[color=green]
>>It did change. the Collation relied on the LAST UN Resolution,
>>the one it decided to enforce with out the help of the Axis of
>>Weevils France, Germany and Russia and their blood for oil
>>cartel LOL
>>
>>
>>mike hunt[/color]
>
>
> Except it's *really* a stretch to call bush & inbred-clan a collation.
> Say Mikee - now that we've secured those nasty WMD, generally plundered &
> blown-up the country to ensure they can't make any more AND secured their
> oil for us, why are we still there?[/color]

Because they might have the gall to do what we did and fight
for our own right to rule ourselves.

It's amazing how 230 years later, we've come full circle
and are exactly what we fought so hard against.

Just as we suspected, you are not up on current events. We are
still there killing all the Islamic terrorists that are coming to
Iraq making it easier for us so we don't have to go to a dozen
other counties to find them. LOL


mike hunt



fan-jet wrote:[color=blue]
>
> [email]MajorDomo@mailcity.com[/email] wrote:[color=green]
> > It did change. the Collation relied on the LAST UN Resolution,
> > the one it decided to enforce with out the help of the Axis of
> > Weevils France, Germany and Russia and their blood for oil
> > cartel LOL
> >
> >
> > mike hunt[/color]
>[/color]
why are we still there?

[email]MajorDomo@mailcity.com[/email] wrote:[color=blue]
> Just as we suspected, you are not up on current events. We are
> still there killing all the Islamic terrorists that are coming to
> Iraq making it easier for us so we don't have to go to a dozen
> other counties to find them. LOL
>
>
> mike hunt[/color]

Except, as it turns out, they're no where near as stupid as you and bush
would like to believe. Speaking of current events, you always forget to
mention that a substantial portion of these "Islamic terrorists" are
actually Iraqi Nationalists. Conveniently, you and bush *never* mention
collateral damage or that fact that the Iraqi invasion and destruction is a
actually a US police action and not a war at all. What's up with that?
Confused?

You opinion of the President aside, the goal is to kill Islamic
terrorists in Iraq that want of kill Americans and that is what
we are doing, no mater to which terrorist group they happen to
belong.


mike hunt




FanJet wrote:[color=blue]
>
> [email]MajorDomo@mailcity.com[/email] wrote:[color=green]
> > Just as we suspected, you are not up on current events. We are
> > still there killing all the Islamic terrorists that are coming to
> > Iraq making it easier for us so we don't have to go to a dozen
> > other counties to find them. LOL
> >
> >
> > mike hunt[/color]
>
> Except, as it turns out, they're no where near as stupid as you and bush
> would like to believe. Speaking of current events, you always forget to
> mention that a substantial portion of these "Islamic terrorists" are
> actually Iraqi Nationalists.[/color]