First there was the Downing Street Memo.
Now we have the Cabinet Office paper.
This week we’ll see Rep. Conyers presentation of the former document to Congress.
Is it too much to ask that next week the impeachment hearings will commence?
If receiving oral sex and lying about it is an impeachable offense, surely taking a nation to war under false pretenses is even worse, right?
Help us all out here, Liberal media, and get this man out of the White House. NOW!
UPDATE: To clarify, the first document outlines the run-up to war in the face of conflicting and contradictory intelligence on the parts of the U.S. and the U.K. The second document espouses that it was “necessary to create the conditions†for legally taking an action that was illegal in light of the evidence. These actions are clearly and demonstrably illegal and punishable. The second document shows how to cover up the actions of the first document – to explain away “regime change” by lying about WMD. IMPEACH BUSH NOW!
Over at the Ape Man we are bird-dogging this story from a different angle than most – an angle that I believe is much more difficult for the Bush administration to brush off as old news.
Here’s my most recent post in full, but please visit the blog for an analysis of the recently disclosed UK documents as well as a longer exposition on this more powerful meme.
The Ape Man
————————-
All over the blogosphere I am still seeing folks harping on this one phrase about “facts being fixed around the policy.” The reality is, this phrase is not a smoking gun. It’s just the British perception of the American inattention to the details of selling the war. Jack Straw, C and others are merely saying that the Bush administration is being too ham-handed in their attempts to make a case against Saddam.
The smoking gun in the documents is elsewhere. Here is the question we bloggers, and eventually (once we embarrass them into it) the print and broadcast media, ought to be asking Bush:
Was disarming Saddam Hussein a primary war aim?
If not, why did you and your administration tell Congress it was?
If so, why did you and your administration repeatedly attempt to block inspections in Iraq, then withdraw the inspectors while Hans Blix, the head inspector, was reporting free and substantial access to all relevant inspection sites?
Why did you repeatedly lie and say that Saddam had not allowed inspectors into Iraq?
Why, after the war, did you fail to secure sites containing precursors for chemical and biological weapons?
In short, Mr. President, the facts seem to indicate that you were not concerned at all with Saddam’s weapons capabilities except as a means to justify an invasion of Iraq. Do you have any facts that have not come to light that might contradict this rather obvious conclusion?
Taking a page from Democrats.com’s book, $1000 to any reporter who asks Bush that series of questions.
Thanks for the update, Ape Man.