Activism Discussion: Downing Street Hearing - New Documents & Testimony, "Bush Manufactured Evidence" - Links To Online Video & Transcripts

Downing Street Hearing - New Documents & Testimony, "Bush Manufactured Evidence" - Links To Online Video & Transcripts
Posts: 33

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)

Barney Lyon
2005-06-17 11:47:26 EST

More than thirty members of Congress convened at a public hearing in
Washington Thursday to investigate the so-called "Downing Street memo."
New documents and testimony of Ambassador Joe Wilson, CIA analyst (&
GHWBush's CIA briefer), and attorney John Bonifaz show how the Bush
administration lied to Congress and took the U.S. into an illegal war.

C-Span has the video of the hearing:
http://www.cspan.org
click on:
House Judiciary Cmte. Democrats Meeting on Downing Street Memo and Iraq
War (06/16/2005)


The Downing Street memo - first published by the Sunday Times of London
on May 1st - revealed the minutes of a July 2002 meeting between
British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his advisors that indicate the
United States was already committed to attacking Iraq almost a year
before the war officially began. The memo also says that the Bush White
House "fixed" intelligence data to justify the invasion. Subsequent
documents, published by the Times reveal that British ministers were
told that they had no choice but to find a way to make the war in Iraq
legal.

Yesterda's public hearing was held in a cramped room in the basement of
the Capitol. The Republican-led House scheduled 11 votes to be held
that same afternoon - more votes than House members cast all week in
any 2-hour period. Ohio Congressmember Marcy Kaptur called it "very
interesting timing."

Testifying at the hearing was former ambassador Joe Wilson, veteran CIA
analyst Ray McGovern, attorney John Bonifaz and Cindy Sheehan whose son
Casey was killed in Iraq in 2004.

After the hearing, Conyers and other lawmakers went to Lafayette Park
across from the White House for a rally organized by the coalition
AfterDowningStreet.org. Conyers and half a dozen other lawmakers were
stopped at the gates of the White House to hand-deliver the signatures
of over 120 congressional Democrats and more than half a million
citizens on petitions demanding a detailed response from the Bush
administration to the Downing Street memo. Eventually, White House
aides retrieved the petitions at the gate and took them into the West
Wing.

Thursday's hearing began with the four witnesses reading their opening
statements. Attorney John Bonifaz is the cofounder of an organization
called AfterDowningStreet.org. He said that if the documents were
proven to be true, the president may have violated a federal law
against misleading Congress, and his actions would be grounds for
impeachment.

John Bonifaz, attorney and co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org,
speaking June 16, 2005.
Former US Ambassador Joseph Wilson was among the witnesses invited to
testify yesterday. Wilson was asked by the CIA in 2002 to travel to
Niger to investigate the alleged sale of processed uranium ore from the
country to Iraq. Even though Wilson found the claim to be false,
President Bush included the allegation in his 2003 State of the Union
address. Wilson later published an article in The New York Times
criticizing Bush's use of the claim. Also testifying yesterday was Ray
McGovern, a 27-year career analyst with the CIA. After the witnesses
read their opening statements, Congressmember Conyers questioned them
about the Downing Street memo.
Rep. John Conyers questions Joseph Wilson & Ray McGovern, June 16,
2005.
Congressmember Maxine Waters was one of the 30 (thirty) lawmakers who
attended the meeting. She questioned McGovern about the
administration's politicizing of intelligence in the run-up to the
invasion and his visits to CIA headquarters.
Rep. Maxine Waters question Ray McGovern, June 16, 2005.
Cindy Sheehan was among the witnesses called yesterday. Her son Casey
was killed in Iraq in April 2004. She is the co-founder of Gold Star
Families for Peace (http://www.gsfp.org/). This is what she had to say
in her opening statement.
Cindy Sheehan, co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace, speaking
June 16, 2005.

Democracy Now! excerpts of the hearing chaired by Rep. John Conyers
(D-MI) that featured former ambassador Joe Wilson, veteran CIA analyst
Ray McGovern, attorney John Bonifaz and Cindy Sheehan whose son Casey
was killed in Iraq in 2004.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/17/1425234
______________________________________________________________
RUSH TRANSCRIPT

AMY GOODMAN: Attorney John Bonifaz is the co-founder of the
organization,AfterDowningStreet.org. He said if the documents were
proven to be true, the President may have violated a federal law
against misleading Congress and that his actions would be grounds for
impeachment.

JOHN BONIFAZ: The Downing Street minutes shed new and important light
on a document the President himself submitted to the United States
Congress within 48 hours after having launched the invasion of Iraq.
This is the document, and I have distributed it to all of you, and I
ask that it be put into the record of these proceedings.

REP. JOHN CONYERS: Without objection.

JOHN BONIFAZ: In the letter, dated March 18, 2003, the President makes
a formal determination as required by the joint resolution on Iraq
passed by the United States Congress in October, 2002, that military
action against Iraq was necessary to, (quote), "protect the national
security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by
Iraq." He also states in this letter to Congress that military action
was consistent with the United States and other countries' continuing
to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

If the evidence revealed by the Downing Street minutes is true, then
the President's submission of his March 18, 2003 letter to the United
States Congress would violate federal criminal law, including the
Federal Anti-Conspiracy Statute which makes it a felony, (quote), "to
commit any offense against the United States or to defraud the United
States or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose," and
the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, which makes it a
felony to issue knowingly and willfully false statements to the United
States Congress.

The United States House of Representatives has a constitutional duty to
investigate fully and comprehensively the evidence revealed by the
Downing Street minutes and other related evidence and to determine
whether there are sufficient grounds to impeach George W. Bush, the
President of the United States. A resolution of inquiry is the
appropriate first step in launching this investigation.

The Iraq war has led to the deaths of more than 1,700 United States
soldiers, and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Thousands more have
been permanently and severely injured on both sides. More than two
years after the invasion, Iraq remains unstable and its future unclear.
The war has already cost the American people tens of billions of
taxpayer dollars at the expense of basic human needs here at home. More
than 135,000 United States soldiers remain in Iraq without any stated
exit plan. If the President has committed high crimes in connection
with this war, he must be held accountable. The United States
Constitution demands no less.

AMY GOODMAN: Attorney John Bonifaz, testifying at Thursday's hearing on
the Downing Street memo. Former U.S. Ambassador, Joseph Wilson, was
among the witnesses who also testified. Wilson was asked by the Bush
administration in 2002 to travel to Niger to investigate the alleged
sale of processed uranium ore from the country to Iraq. Even though
Wilson found the claim to be false, President Bush included the
allegation in his 2003 State of the Union Address. Wilson later
published an article in The New York Times, criticizing Bush's use of
the claim. Also testifying was Ray McGovern, a 27-year career analyst
with the C.I.A. After the witnesses read their opening statements,
Congress Member Conyers questioned first Wilson, then McGovern, about
the Downing Street memo.

REP. JOHN CONYERS: The Downing Street minutes outline this
administration's deliberate intention to manipulate intelligence in
order to justify a predetermined policy of war against Iraq. Some in
the media have suggested these revelations are nothing new. What do the
Downing Street minutes tell us that we did not know before they were
revealed? If you have a view about that, please come forward. Mr.
Ambassador?

JOSEPH WILSON: Well, let me begin if I may, Congressman, thank you. A
year after the Downing Street memo appeared, I asked the question in my
New York Times article: "Was the U.S. fixing the intelligence?"
essentially. It's very clear to me that in July 2002, at the very
highest levels of the British government, they had concluded that that
was the case, that war was inevitable and the facts were being fixed
around the policy.

Now, there have been a number of articles that suggest that nothing was
new, that we knew all of that at the time. Indeed yesterday there was
an opinion piece in The Washington Post that suggested all of that. I
would submit, sir, that I don't think that Jim Baker would have written
his piece, which was written after July of 2002, nor would Brent
Scowcroft have written his piece. Both were senior advisers to
President George Herbert Walker Bush. I may not have written the piece
that I wrote in October of that year had I believed that, in fact, the
cards had already been dealt. General Anthony Zinni, who was the
Commander-in-Chief of CENTCOM, which has that particular part of the
world in its region, may well not have participated in the debate until
December had he known. Indeed, he told me, and I have put it in my
book, that he left the debate in December, in December, six months
after the Downing Street memos, because in his judgment at that time
the decisions had all been made.

REP. JOHN CONYERS: You remind me that many members of Congress said if
they had known this before we voted to give the President additional
military authority in Iraq, he might not have gotten any votes, or
certainly very few had this knowledge been available to us then.

JOSEPH WILSON: Of course, Paul Wolfowitz, then the Deputy Secretary of
Defense was quoted in Vanity Fair as having said, "We settled on
weapons of mass destruction because that was something that we could
sell."

REP. JOHN CONYERS: Right. Mr. McGovern.

RAY McGOVERN: Apropos your remark about Congressmen and Senators
feeling misled, I would point out that even Senator Pat Roberts, head
of the Senate Intelligence Committee, no liberal he, has admitted that
had he known some of the things that came out since, he has strong
doubts as to whether there would have been a vote for war.

Let me just add an element to what Ambassador Wilson has said here, and
that is that these documents, not only the first document, but the
others, they show a panic, a veritable panic among British lawyers, and
I think perhaps you can all identify with this. They were befuddled.
The decision had been made for war. Their Prime Minister had opted onto
this scheme, and they were trying to figure out a way how it could be
legally justified. And not once, but several times, Peter Goldsmith,
the Attorney General in London, felt it necessary to point out to
various and sundry, including the Prime Minister, that regime change is
not a legal basis for war. Okay?

And so, the other documents show the lawyers scurrying around for other
ways to justify this, and the best they could come up with is, "Let's
propose to Saddam Hussein the kind of intrusive inspection regime that
he is sure to reject, and then we'll have a causus belli, then we can
do what we want." He outfoxed them. He accepted it. He invited in the
most intrusive, in modern history, inspection regime, and when they
found something, namely the Al-Samoud missile, which exceeded in range
the allowed limits, I remember thinking: "What is Saddam Hussein
going to do?" Does anyone remember what happened?

REP. JOHN CONYERS: Destroyed them.

RAY McGOVERN: They destroyed them. They cut them all up. There were
about ninety of them. So it was working. So I could just see the
British lawyers sort of saying, foiled again, what is our fallback
position now? So it's really ludicrous if you look at these documents.
The British were in because of the promises made by their Prime
Minister, but they could not justify it legally, and they had their
Chief of Staff saying, "Look, I am not going to send my men and women
into war unless you sign on the dotted line saying this is legal."
Because the British, unlike us, are members of the International Court
of Justice, and the admiral heading up their armed services was not
about to put his men and women at that kind of risk. And so, what
happened in the event was Peter Goldsmith, their Attorney General, was
persuaded by a phalanx of lawyers from the N.S.C. here, to change his
mind and three days before the invasion, he signed a little one pager
saying, "Yeah, I suppose it's okay, after all."

AMY GOODMAN: Former C.I.A. analyst, Ray McGovern and former ambassador,
Joe Wilson, testifying at the hearing called by Congress Member Conyers
to investigate the Downing Street minutes in Washington. Los Angeles
Congress Member Maxine Waters was one of the 30 lawmakers who attended
the meeting. She questioned McGovern about the administration's
politicizing of intelligence in the run up to the invasion and about
Dick Cheney's repeated visits to the C.I.A. in the lead up to the war.

REP. MAXINE WATERS: Now, today you have implied that with these visits
something was going on. We all believe -- many of us believe that
there's been a manipulation of intelligence information, that they had
to make the intelligence fit the conclusion that they were indeed going
to invade Iraq. Would you elaborate further on these visits, and could
you shed any light on any actions or words or anything that he may have
done that you or others know about that would help us to understand
that, in fact, he was responsible for helping to manipulate
intelligence information?

RAY McGOVERN: Thank you, Congresswoman Waters. With respect to the
visits to headquarters, people ask me, "Is this unusual that a Vice
President would be coming to C.I.A. headquarters?" And I say, "No,
it's not unusual. It's unprecedented." I was there for 27 years.
Not once -- not even George Herbert Walker Bush, who had been Director
of the C.I.A., not once did a Vice President, sitting Vice President,
come on a working visit to C.I.A. headquarters. Now, we know that
Cheney came eight or nine times. Apparently the C.I.A. officials can't
get their act together because they give a range. It's between eight
and twelve, I think they say, which opens the possibility that he may
have gone there without so much as reference, making reference to the
people in charge. No, it's incredibly -- it's incredible that that
should be happening.

Now, put yourself in the position of a young analyst. You're trying to
do the -- you're trying to find out the truth, right? And you're
analyzing this, and you have Cheney come in. He would like a briefing,
and right over his shoulder is George Tenet, who everyone knew was
cooking things to what he thought the President wanted. Now, if you --

REP. MAXINE WATERS: Excuse me, you are telling me that he would ask for
briefings, he would visit --

RAY McGOVERN: Yes.

REP. MAXINE WATERS: -- with analysts? He would be given information,
and Tenet would be present?

RAY McGOVERN: Well, that's the normal procedure. Now, I wasn't there,
but the Director would normally be there or the Deputy Director for
Intelligence. And none of these folks protected their people from this.
Now, this is the real outrage. A head of an agency needs to protect his
people from this kind of outside pressure, at least in the intelligence
business, and he did not do that. Tenet didn't do it, and Jamie Miscik,
the head of the Intelligence Directorate, she also didn't do it.

So these people, these young people who are trying to make a career,
were subjected to that kind of pressure, and not only that, but George
Tenet decided that he would like to see the President every morning,
and so he hitched a ride with the morning briefer. Now, my experience
in briefing people downtown, Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State and
Defense and so forth, was it's a one-on-one deal. Okay? You go down
there. You're trusted. You have been around for a while. You can answer
questions. You know enough not to answer questions if you don't know
the answer. And so you carry out this duty.

Now, here's your director standing behind you over your shoulder, and
if this doesn't a have an inhibiting effect on your candor when you
know your director is saying "slam-dunk" and things like that, then
nothing will. So, the bottom line here seems to be, and I regret very
much to have to say this, but that the management of the Central
Intelligence Agency has been so corrupted, has been so politicized,
that there's real question in my mind as to whether they can come up
with an objective view on anything, given the fact that the
administration makes it very clear the answers that they want to hear.

You asked about a couple of other things. Just very briefly, energy --
it's very interesting. Cheney was head of that Energy Task Force, of
course. He had come out of that Halliburton experience, okay? He had
been C.E.O., of course. Now, after Gulf War I, he was asked in Seattle
in early 1991, "Why didn't you just go in there and take Saddam out,
you know? Why didn't you do that?" You know what he said? He said,
"We asked ourselves what that would lead to, and we asked ourselves,
well, how many American soldiers are worth taking Saddam out, and we
decided, well, not very many." Okay? Now, ten years later, he's Vice
President. What changed? Two things changed. He was head of
Halliburton. He knows all about oil, number one. And the second is that
our country, for the first time in its history, is importing more than
half of the oil it needs.

AMY GOODMAN: Former C.I.A. analyst Ray McGovern, speaking at
Thursday's Downing Street memo hearing. We'll be back with more of
the hearing in a moment, and we'll be joined by a British father
whose son was killed in Iraq. He ran against Tony Blair in the recent
British elections. Reg will join us in the studio in Washington, D.C.
And we'll also hear from Cindy Sheehan, an American citizen who lost
her son in Iraq. She testified before the hearing yesterday in a
cramped basement hearing room, people packed in to ask questions about
the Bush administration's knowledge before the election, fixing the
facts and intelligence to fit the policy.


John Gilmer
2005-06-17 12:39:55 EST


> House Judiciary Cmte. Democrats Meeting on Downing Street Memo and Iraq
> War (06/16/2005)

What's the real point?

The long term result is what we are seeing: administrations that don't
want ANY paperwork generated that doesn't toe the "party line." It tends
to "encourage" administrations to take the decision FIRST and then look for
"justification."

In any honest decision process, there will be all kinds of memos floating
about that taken a few at a time could justify almost anything. The
President could have invaded Iraq, invaded some other Muslim country (the
911 attackers were Lutherans) or just declared that the WOT was over.

"W" picked Iraq. What would have his critics done? What would they have
the president do now?


That's not to say the "W" &co have handled Iraq (and the WOT) well.

I still haven't figured out the "real reason" Iraq was "next" after
Afghanistan. (The folks who say it was to make a few $dollars for some
"oil friends" of "W" aren't looking for answers they just want to let off
steam.)



Dwain
2005-06-17 13:17:39 EST
In article <42b2fff3$0$20378@dingus.crosslink.net>, gilmer@crosslink.net
says...

> "W" picked Iraq.

That he did. And then used lies to start a war.

> What would have his critics done?

Prevented the war. Allowed the United Nations to finish it's work.

> What would they have the president do now?

End the war and withdraw U.S. troops.


Bush has gotten us into an illegal, immoral and unwinnable war.

What do his supporters say now?


"War is the greatest of all crimes; and yet there is no aggressor who
does not color his crime with the pretext of justice." - Voltaire

John Gilmer
2005-06-17 14:16:24 EST

"Dwain" <dwain@nothereanymore.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d1ca5fed6eb5536989735@news.sonic.net...
> In article <42b2fff3$0$20378@dingus.crosslink.net>, gilmer@crosslink.net
> says...
>
> > "W" picked Iraq.
>
> That he did. And then used lies to start a war.
>
> > What would have his critics done?

>
> Prevented the war. Allowed the United Nations to finish it's work.

But, but ...

the UN was doing NOTHING. It's coming out why. (The UN agents were
permiting the oil for food money to be diverted.)
>
> > What would they have the president do now?
>
> End the war and withdraw U.S. troops.

That's an option.

Note that in the 2004 election, Kerry was on record as saying: 1) he would
have invaded Iraq: and 2) he would not just "end the war and withdraw" the
troops.

Basically, however, you are taking the position that the US should have
stopped at Afghanistan and declared the WOT to have been "won" or at least
fought to a draw.

In retrospect, that may have been a good choice. The US might even have
help push Iran and Iran into another war. The question remains of what US
policy should have been toward Kuwait.




>
>
> Bush has gotten us into an illegal, immoral and unwinnable war.
>
> What do his supporters say now?
>
>
> "War is the greatest of all crimes; and yet there is no aggressor who
> does not color his crime with the pretext of justice." - Voltaire



B*@gmail.com
2005-06-17 15:57:24 EST
Dwain wrote:
<snip>
> > What would they have the president do now?
>
> End the war and withdraw U.S. troops.

That's not enough. Bush needs to stand trial. Lying to Congress to
start a war is the poster child of impeachable offenses.

> What do his supporters say now?

More rationalizations, stonewalling, and lying.


J


Wm James
2005-06-18 21:24:03 EST
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:39:55 -0400, "John Gilmer"
<*r@crosslink.net> wrote:

>
>
>> House Judiciary Cmte. Democrats Meeting on Downing Street Memo and Iraq
>> War (06/16/2005)
>
>What's the real point?
>
>The long term result is what we are seeing: administrations that don't
>want ANY paperwork generated that doesn't toe the "party line." It tends
>to "encourage" administrations to take the decision FIRST and then look for
>"justification."
>
>In any honest decision process, there will be all kinds of memos floating
>about that taken a few at a time could justify almost anything. The
>President could have invaded Iraq, invaded some other Muslim country (the
>911 attackers were Lutherans) or just declared that the WOT was over.
>
>"W" picked Iraq. What would have his critics done? What would they have
>the president do now?
>
>
>That's not to say the "W" &co have handled Iraq (and the WOT) well.
>
>I still haven't figured out the "real reason" Iraq was "next" after
>Afghanistan. (The folks who say it was to make a few $dollars for some
>"oil friends" of "W" aren't looking for answers they just want to let off
>steam.)
>


Simple. Iraq was already in the crosshairs, and already caught red
handed funding terrorists and had already invaded it's neighbors, had
already been targeted by even the UN, and was already at war with the
civilized world even though a ceasefire was in place but being
regularly violated by Saddam. Also, American troops and ships were
already in place, they were already familiar with much of the country,
and Iraq's location is conveenient for striking others in the region
if necessary. And there were already a number of factions opposing
Saddam even though many of them had been killed.

Also, Iraq and Iran are the two most "westernized" countries in the
region in that their populations are mostly relatively well educated
and accustomed to much of the "stuff" in the modern civilized world,
including electricity, television, etc. Presumably, the people there
appreciate the modern conveniences and thus desire freedom more than
the ignorant masses in more third world areas who've never been
exposed to them.

The ball was dropped in the first gulf war when the first Bush screwed
up and didn't finish the job. He left too much of the Republican
Guard intact. Had he just given Stormin' Norman a few more days it's
likely that Saddam couldn't have recovered and would have been
overthrown. By pulling out witht he job half done, the other factions
including the kurds, were encouraged enough to revolt but then left
hanging. That was Bush's Bay of Pigs, an embarassment to the US, and
one reason the people in Iraq didn't trust us to finish the job this
time.

William R. James


Wm James
2005-06-18 21:26:03 EST
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 17:17:39 GMT, Dwain <dwain@nothereanymore.org>
wrote:

>"War is the greatest of all crimes; and yet there is no aggressor who
>does not color his crime with the pretext of justice." - Voltaire

Dr. Loveless should never have taught him to talk. :)

William R. James


John Tibbs
2005-06-19 10:57:56 EST

"John Gilmer" <gilmer@crosslink.net> wrote in message
news:42b4aa70$0$20905@dingus.crosslink.net...
>
> "Dwain" <dwain@nothereanymore.org> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d1ca5fed6eb5536989735@news.sonic.net...
> > In article <42b2fff3$0$20378@dingus.crosslink.net>, gilmer@crosslink.net
> > says...
> >
> > > "W" picked Iraq.
> >
> > That he did. And then used lies to start a war.
> >
> > > What would have his critics done?
>
> >
> > Prevented the war. Allowed the United Nations to finish it's work.
>
> But, but ...
>
> the UN was doing NOTHING. It's coming out why. (The UN agents were
> permiting the oil for food money to be diverted.)

Also letting Saddam get his WMD into other countries.
jt
--
Without the second amendment
the first amendment means nil.
www.townhall.com
www.newsmax.com
www.nranews.org



Dwain
2005-06-19 11:30:03 EST
In article <UJfte.7283$eM6.7081@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
j*s@earthlink.net says...
>
> "John Gilmer" <gilmer@crosslink.net> wrote in message
> news:42b4aa70$0$20905@dingus.crosslink.net...
> >
> > "Dwain" <dwain@nothereanymore.org> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1d1ca5fed6eb5536989735@news.sonic.net...
> > > In article <42b2fff3$0$20378@dingus.crosslink.net>, gilmer@crosslink.net
> > > says...
> > >
> > > > "W" picked Iraq.
> > >
> > > That he did. And then used lies to start a war.
> > >
> > > > What would have his critics done?
> >
> > >
> > > Prevented the war. Allowed the United Nations to finish it's work.
> >
> > But, but ...
> >
> > the UN was doing NOTHING.

Funny, I remember the U.N. inspectors had to abandon their work just
before Bush invaded.

> > It's coming out why. (The UN agents were
> > permiting the oil for food money to be diverted.)

Different issue.


> Also letting Saddam get his WMD into other countries.

Where's any evidence for this?


John Tibbs
2005-06-19 11:44:53 EST

"Dwain" <dwain@nothereanymore.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d1f2fc4355ee311989740@news.sonic.net...
> In article <UJfte.7283$eM6.7081@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> jwtibbs@earthlink.net says...
> >
> > "John Gilmer" <gilmer@crosslink.net> wrote in message
> > news:42b4aa70$0$20905@dingus.crosslink.net...
> > >
> > > "Dwain" <dwain@nothereanymore.org> wrote in message
> > > news:MPG.1d1ca5fed6eb5536989735@news.sonic.net...
> > > > In article <42b2fff3$0$20378@dingus.crosslink.net>,
g*r@crosslink.net
> > > > says...
> > > >
> > > > > "W" picked Iraq.
> > > >
> > > > That he did. And then used lies to start a war.
> > > >
> > > > > What would have his critics done?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Prevented the war. Allowed the United Nations to finish it's work.
> > >
> > > But, but ...
> > >
> > > the UN was doing NOTHING.
>
> Funny, I remember the U.N. inspectors had to abandon their work just
> before Bush invaded.
>
> > > It's coming out why. (The UN agents were
> > > permiting the oil for food money to be diverted.)
>
> Different issue.
>
>
> > Also letting Saddam get his WMD into other countries.
>
> Where's any evidence for this?

Look under the "Politically ignored" files of the UN and liberal media!
jt
>


Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron