http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1650822,00.html

 

MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.

 

The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.

 

The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal.

"the use of force has been and remains our last resort."

 

 

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...memo050616.html

Labelled "top secret," the memo summarizes a report from Richard Dearlove, the head of British intelligence, who had just met senior Bush officials in Washington.

 

The memo says: "Military action was now seen as inevitable."

 

That "Terrorism and WMD [weapons of mass destruction]" would be used to justify the war.

 

But, the memo says, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

 

Neither Bush nor Blair has challenged the authenticity of the Downing Street Memo. But earlier this month both said it is wrong.

And the nation yawns and hits the snooze button. Credible evidence that the Administration may have lied to Congress and to the nation to get authorization and support for the war, and barely a ripple.

 

Now, if it had been an extramarital Oval Office bj on the other hand, then everybody would be up in arms. It makes perfect sense.

And the nation yawns and hits the snooze button.  Credible evidence that the Administration may have lied to Congress and to the nation to get authorization and support for the war, and barely a ripple.

 

Now, if it had been an extramarital Oval Office bj on the other hand, then everybody would be up in arms.  It makes perfect sense. 

 

Don't be so sure that this is being ignored Jim.

 

Terrible approval rates + lying to start a war that probably could have been fought truthfully= impeachment

Impeachment requires a party in control of Congress willing to throw the President overboard. In today's partisan Senate, if Bush had a D after his name, you might be right.

 

Today, its *yawn.* After all, look at Tom DeLay. Still kicking. Sadly.

Don't be so sure that this is being ignored Jim.

 

Terrible approval rates + lying to start a war that probably could have been fought truthfully= impeachment

Not likely, in the Bizzaro America we find ourselves existing in today.

Impeachment requires a party in control of Congress willing to throw the President overboard. In today's partisan Senate, if Bush had a D after his name, you might be right.

 

Today, its *yawn.* After all, look at Tom DeLay. Still kicking. Sadly.

 

I guess I have too much faith in the rest of the Republicans.

Why should Bush care at this point? He can't run again and Cheney isn't running. He's out. Even if Jeb ran, I think this country is kinda sick of the Bush family. This, if true, is an outrage. 2008 can't come quick enough.

I guess I have too much faith in the rest of the Republicans.

 

If you think they'd impeach Bush for anything he did in Iraq even if everything I've suspected about the war is true (planned to do before 9/11, moving funds & troops from Afghanistan to Kuwait in late 01, orders to begin preparations given at the same time, decision already made, WMD info deliberately abused)...then yes, you have waaaayyyy too much faith in the Rest of the Republicans.

 

Even if documents came out showing that Bush had done each and every one of those things, the Republicans would come out and say that Saddam is gone, the U.S. is safer, and the ends justify the means.