Damning evidence can't be ignored

By David Swanson and Jonathan Schwarz

SINCE ITS publication May 1 [2005] by The Sunday Times of London, the
so-called Downing Street memo has dominated the media in Britain and on
the Internet in the United States. The memo is the official minutes
from a secret meeting about Iraq held by British Prime Minister Tony
Blair and his inner circle July 23, 2002.

The significance of the memo - and additional leaked British documents
now surfacing in public view - can hardly be overstated. They
conceivably could lead to impeachment proceedings against President
Bush.

The Bush administration consistently has made two claims regarding its
decision to invade Iraq:

Mr. Bush chose war only as a last resort.
Mr. Bush dealt honestly with intelligence about weapons of mass
destruction and alleged Iraqi ties to al-Qaida.

The Downing Street memo contradicts these claims.

Here are some of the key words in the memo, written three months before
Mr. Bush received congressional authorization for war, four months
before U.N. Resolution 1441 held Iraq in "material breach" of
disarmament obligations and eight months before the invasion in March
2003:

"[British intelligence chief Richard Dearlove] reported on his
recent talks in Washington. ... Military action was now seen as
inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam [Hussein], through military
action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the
intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. . .

"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 neighbors, and his WMD capability was
less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

Other internal British memos from March 2002 and July 2002 reveal
British officials discussing Mr. Blair's agreement with Mr. Bush to
support an invasion of Iraq and Mr. Blair's insistence that Mr. Bush
make a public show of going to the United Nations in order to - as the
British ambassador to Washington, Christopher Meyer, put it -
"wrongfoot Saddam on inspectors" to create a pretext for war.

The British privately scoffed at the frightening claims made by the
Bush administration. In a memo to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw in March
2002, Peter Ricketts, the political director of the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office, said: "US scrambling to establish a link" between
Iraq and al-Qaida "is so far frankly unconvincing."

Anyone who follows the news will not be surprised. A long list of
whistleblowers, including former Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill and
former National Security Council official Richard Clarke, have reported
that the Bush administration was obsessed with regime change in Iraq
from Day One and regarded 9/11 as an opportunity to put its plans into
action. Removing Mr. Hussein was in the 2000 Republican Party platform.
Bush administration misuse of intelligence has been well documented.

But the Downing Street minutes and other recently leaked documents
illustrate that the intelligence was wrong by design. The documents
show officials at the apex of the government of our closest ally
confirming among themselves what were the darkest suspicions about the
Iraq war among ordinary Americans.

The evidence suggests that Mr. Bush has lied to Congress and to the
American people about the justifications for war. It includes a formal
letter and report that he submitted to Congress within 48 hours of
launching the invasion in which he explained the need for the war in
terms that appear to have been intentionally falsified, not mistaken.

Lying to Congress is a felony. Either lying to Congress about the need
to go to war is a high crime, or nothing is.

AfterDowningStreet.org, a coalition of veterans groups, peace groups
and other activist organizations, is urging Congress to introduce a
Resolution of Inquiry that would require the House Judiciary Committee
to hold formal investigations with the power of subpoena. The result
would be a determination as to whether the president has committed
impeachable offenses.

Democratic Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey of New York, a member of the House
Appropriations Committee, said Monday, "I think a Resolution of Inquiry
is completely appropriate at this stage. It's something that should be
done."

Rep. John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the
Judiciary Committee, has not expressed support for a Resolution of
Inquiry. But he has asked Mr. Bush in a letter to respond to questions
raised by the Downing Street memo. At least 90 members of Congress and
about 500,000 U.S. citizens have signed the letter. Mr. Conyers plans
to deliver it to the White House tomorrow.

He also plans to hold hearings about the memo tomorrow and participate
in a rally in front of the White House.

David Swanson is co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org, and Jonathan
Schwarz is a consultant for the group.

Damning evidence can't be ignored

By David Swanson and Jonathan Schwarz

SINCE ITS publication May 1 [2005] by The Sunday Times of London, the
so-called Downing Street memo has dominated the media in Britain and on
the Internet in the United States. The memo is the official minutes
from a secret meeting about Iraq held by British Prime Minister Tony
Blair and his inner circle July 23, 2002.

The significance of the memo - and additional leaked British documents
now surfacing in public view - can hardly be overstated. They
conceivably could lead to impeachment proceedings against President
Bush.

The Bush administration consistently has made two claims regarding its
decision to invade Iraq:

Mr. Bush chose war only as a last resort.
Mr. Bush dealt honestly with intelligence about weapons of mass
destruction and alleged Iraqi ties to al-Qaida.

The Downing Street memo contradicts these claims.

Here are some of the key words in the memo, written three months before
Mr. Bush received congressional authorization for war, four months
before U.N. Resolution 1441 held Iraq in "material breach" of
disarmament obligations and eight months before the invasion in March
2003:

"[British intelligence chief Richard Dearlove] reported on his
recent talks in Washington. ... Military action was now seen as
inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam [Hussein], through military
action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the
intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. . .

"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 neighbors, and his WMD capability was
less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

Other internal British memos from March 2002 and July 2002 reveal
British officials discussing Mr. Blair's agreement with Mr. Bush to
support an invasion of Iraq and Mr. Blair's insistence that Mr. Bush
make a public show of going to the United Nations in order to - as the
British ambassador to Washington, Christopher Meyer, put it -
"wrongfoot Saddam on inspectors" to create a pretext for war.

The British privately scoffed at the frightening claims made by the
Bush administration. In a memo to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw in March
2002, Peter Ricketts, the political director of the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office, said: "US scrambling to establish a link" between
Iraq and al-Qaida "is so far frankly unconvincing."

Anyone who follows the news will not be surprised. A long list of
whistleblowers, including former Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill and
former National Security Council official Richard Clarke, have reported
that the Bush administration was obsessed with regime change in Iraq
from Day One and regarded 9/11 as an opportunity to put its plans into
action. Removing Mr. Hussein was in the 2000 Republican Party platform.
Bush administration misuse of intelligence has been well documented.

But the Downing Street minutes and other recently leaked documents
illustrate that the intelligence was wrong by design. The documents
show officials at the apex of the government of our closest ally
confirming among themselves what were the darkest suspicions about the
Iraq war among ordinary Americans.

The evidence suggests that Mr. Bush has lied to Congress and to the
American people about the justifications for war. It includes a formal
letter and report that he submitted to Congress within 48 hours of
launching the invasion in which he explained the need for the war in
terms that appear to have been intentionally falsified, not mistaken.

Lying to Congress is a felony. Either lying to Congress about the need
to go to war is a high crime, or nothing is.

AfterDowningStreet.org, a coalition of veterans groups, peace groups
and other activist organizations, is urging Congress to introduce a
Resolution of Inquiry that would require the House Judiciary Committee
to hold formal investigations with the power of subpoena. The result
would be a determination as to whether the president has committed
impeachable offenses.

Democratic Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey of New York, a member of the House
Appropriations Committee, said Monday, "I think a Resolution of Inquiry
is completely appropriate at this stage. It's something that should be
done."

Rep. John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the
Judiciary Committee, has not expressed support for a Resolution of
Inquiry. But he has asked Mr. Bush in a letter to respond to questions
raised by the Downing Street memo. At least 90 members of Congress and
about 500,000 U.S. citizens have signed the letter. Mr. Conyers plans
to deliver it to the White House tomorrow.

He also plans to hold hearings about the memo tomorrow and participate
in a rally in front of the White House.

David Swanson is co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org, and Jonathan
Schwarz is a consultant for the group.