Downing Street Memo: Shedding Light on Admin's Deceit?

[kcballer21]

Just recently found out about this. Not quite sure what to think yet.
Downing Street Memo
Does anyone doubt that Bush was deadset on invading Iraq before he said so? This memo, if real, may shed some light on the deceitful nature of the administration, but it doesn't say why they would lie in the first place.

 

[polyb]

Gratuitous Bump!

This one merits more attention!

Just to add something to the thread:

THE IMPEACHMENT of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, should be part of mainstream political discourse.

Minutes from a summer 2002 meeting involving British Prime Minister Tony Blair reveal that the Bush administration was ''fixing" the intelligence to justify invading Iraq. US intelligence used to justify the war demonstrates repeatedly the truth of the meeting minutes -- evidence was thin and needed fixing.

President Clinton was impeached for perjury about his sexual relationships. Comparing Clinton's misbehavior to a destructive and costly war occupation launched in March 2003 under false pretenses in violation of domestic and international law certainly merits introduction of an impeachment resolution.

...

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/31/the_i_word?mode=PF

 

[russ_watters]

Just recently found out about this. Not quite sure what to think yet.
Downing Street Memo

Already been discussed, but...

Does anyone doubt that Bush was deadset on invading Iraq before he said so?

Don't you see how funny that sounds? Of course he made the decision before he annouced it. He isn't going to announce it before he makes the decision.

But hey - I suspect that Bush wanted an excuse to take out Saddam even before he was elected. Bush SR wanted to as well, but decided it wasn't worth the political fallout. Heck, even Clinton wanted to! What's wrong with that?

This memo, if real, may shed some light on the deceitful nature of the administration, but it doesn't say why they would lie in the first place.

There is little doubt the memo is real, but you have to be careful with it - it doesn't contain direct quotes, but rather one person's interpretation of what he saw/heard.

I read it and all it says to me is that Bush was intent on making his case - playing-up the evidence that supported his position and downplaying the evidence that didn't (that's what "manipulating" evidence means). Uh... he's a politician. In another context, we'd call it marketing. :uhh:

 

[russ_watters]

Gratuitous Bump!

Just to add something to the thread:

An op-ed by Ralph Nader? Jeez, can you say "sour grapes"?

edit: read it now. Terrible piece. A number of factually inaccurate statements, assumptions without evidence, word-twisting, etc. Heck, reading it makes me wonder what his problem with Bush is - they're two of a kind (ie, politicians).

 

[polyb]

edit: read it now. Terrible piece. A number of factually inaccurate statements, assumptions without evidence, word-twisting, etc. Heck, reading it makes me wonder what his problem with Bush is - they're two of a kind (ie, politicians).

Gee, I was thinking the same about the BS leading up to the invasion!

So it is OK to lie to start a war?

BTW, Sr. didn't invade because of exactly the SNAFU/FUBAR Iraq is today! IIRC, it was written in his memoirs.

 

[russ_watters]

So it is OK to lie to start a war?

No. Where does it say anywhere there that he lied?

BTW, Sr. didn't invade because of exactly the SNAFU/FUBAR Iraq is today!

SNAFU/FUBAR? Looks to me like its going extrordinarily well.

 

[polyb]

No. Where does it say anywhere there that he lied?

I say he and his crew lied and the memo says the facts were being fixed. Geeze, I guess 'fixing facts' is not technically lying, but that depends on what your definition of 'is' is?

SNAFU/FUBAR? Looks to me like its going extrordinarily well.

Just keep telling yourself that russ.

 

[russ_watters]

I say he and his crew lied and the memo says the facts were being fixed. Geeze, I guess 'fixing facts' is not technically lying, but that depends on what your definition of 'is' is?

Hey, pot<->kettle. Use whatever definition you want, but apply it evenly.

Just keep telling yourself that russ.

Have you read the "Leaving the Left" editorial? Democrats are supposed to be the champions of the oppressed. They are constantly poo poo-ing a democratic election in two countries that have never hade them before! Did you read what the Iraqi citizens did/said during the election? They went to the polling places in groups - one group was stopped by a couple of terrorists and told to go home, so they killed the terrorists and continued on to the poll! Its an absolutely extrordinary turn of events for those two countries.

For some context - to see why instant perfection is an unreasonable demand - read the history of the Marshall plan. Read about how long it took. Read about the specific incidents like the military-run martial law, the summary executions of those who wouldn't fall in line with our military rule, etc. and compare what went on then to what is going on now.

 

[kcballer21]

edit: read it now. Terrible piece. A number of factually inaccurate statements, assumptions without evidence, word-twisting, etc. Heck, reading it makes me wonder what his problem with Bush is - they're two of a kind (ie, politicians).

I guess the debate is useless when the 'other side' is not at all bothered by the deceitfulness of the administration. I was kinda hoping for the knee-jerk "they are not liars!" but I guess we've all moved beyond that stage (after november, that is).

Already been discussed, but... Don't you see how funny that sounds? Of course he made the decision before he annouced it. He isn't going to announce it before he makes the decision.

I apologize, the question does sound silly. Let me rephrase: Does anyone doubt that Bush fudged the case for war (as well as manipulation via the 911 tradgedy) in order to invade Iraq? If the case for war was so concrete (which in retrospect it could have been, but wasn't at the time of invasion) why did Bush have to lie, I mean, uh, why did he cherry pick his intelligence?
Shouldn't this be upsetting? Maybe I too have been eating too many sour grapes.

 

[russ_watters]

I guess the debate is useless when the 'other side' is not at all bothered by the deceitfulness of the administration. I was kinda hoping for the knee-jerk "they are not liars!" but I guess we've all moved beyond that stage (after november, that is).

Again, pick your definition, but apply it evenly: if you want to call Bush a liar and say he needs to be impeached, fine, but you also need to say that you supported Clinton's impeachment. You also need to say that just about every politician, ever deserved impeachment. Frankly, I'm all for re-inserting integrity into politics, but I'm not going to hold my breath. In lieu of a time where I can say no politician is intending to decieve me, I'm going to stick with the dictionary definition of lying, which (paraphrased) is saying something you know to be factually wrong. In this way, at least, you can separate the weasels from the actual criminals.

Along the same lines, I would have much preferred it if Bush had gone before Congress, (then before the UN) held up his middle finger, and said "Saddam Hussein is a bad guy and I'm going to go take him out, and f-you if you disagree" and left it at that.

I apologize, the question does sound silly. Let me rephrase: Does anyone doubt that Bush fudged the case for war (as well as manipulation via the 911 tradgedy) in order to invade Iraq?

No: no one doubts that Bush manipulated the intel to paint the picture he wanted and drum-up support for the war.

If the case for war was so concrete (which in retrospect it could have been, but wasn't at the time of invasion) why did Bush have to lie, I mean, uh, why did he cherry pick his intelligence?

Like I said above, once elected, his decisions are his decisions and there really is no need to try to deceive us about them. So I don't think its relevant whether the evidence was that strong or not.

edit: In fact, being deceptive creates a problem. Rather than simply judging whether the actions themselves were legal or illegal, we now judge both the actions and the prior justification. If no prior justification was given, there would be nothing to judge but the actions themselves.

Shouldn't this be upsetting? Maybe I too have been eating too many sour grapes.

It should be, yes. But people have come to accept it from some politicians while deriding it in others. So what annoys me about such conversations is that people don't apply their standards evenly - what upsets me is that people (everyone) choose not to make integrity important in politics.

One of the main reasons I voted for Bush was that he is more honest - or, put more negatively, as is probably appropriate, less of a weasel than Kerry.

 

[polyb]

Hey, pot<->kettle. Use whatever definition you want, but apply it evenly.

OK, how about yours:

...,I'm going to stick with the dictionary definition of lying, which (paraphrased) is saying something you know to be factually wrong. In this way, at least, you can separate the weasels from the actual criminals.

And that's what this administration did, LIE.

Have you read the "Leaving the Left" editorial?

NO, false dichotomy!

Democrats are supposed to be the champions of the oppressed. They are constantly poo poo-ing a democratic election in two countries that have never hade them before! Did you read what the Iraqi citizens did/said during the election? They went to the polling places in groups - one group was stopped by a couple of terrorists and told to go home, so they killed the terrorists and continued on to the poll! Its an absolutely extrordinary turn of events for those two countries.

Once again russ, just keep telling yourself that! Neither you nor I are there plus we do not have a direct account of the events on the ground, but since hyperbola is your current track then how about this: What about the right of the Iraqi people to repel a foreign invader? It is their country and we would certainly do the same if the shoe were on the other foot. Besides I do not see that it serves me one bit seeing hundreds of billions of dollars going down that hole nor do I see any strategic advantage in this 'war'. I do see higher gas prices and it does not take much of a syllogism to see the connection between this invasion and higher gas prices.

For some context - to see why instant perfection is an unreasonable demand - read the history of the Marshall plan. Read about how long it took. Read about the specific incidents like the military-run martial law, the summary executions of those who wouldn't fall in line with our military rule, etc. and compare what went on then to what is going on now.

How is this for some context, my grandfather and his family were part of the Marshall plan and were stationed there for 4 years after the fall of Hitler. To compare present situation to that is not only fallacious on your part but also downright despicable. If he were around today I'm pretty sure that he would be demanding the impeachment of that sniveling little brat.

How is this for some perspective:

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

By today's standard, old Dwight is some flaming,raving liberal. My, my, how far we've come? :uhh:

 

[SOS2008]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8270144/page/2/

...In the March 22 memo from Foreign Office political director Ricketts to Foreign Secretary Straw, Ricketts outlined how to win public and parliamentary support for a war in Britain: “We have to be convincing that: the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending our troops to die for; it is qualitatively different from the threat posed by other proliferators who are closer to achieving nuclear capability (including Iran).”

-----------

On March 25 Straw wrote a memo to Blair, saying he would have a tough time convincing the governing Labour Party that a pre-emptive strike against Iraq was legal under international law.

“If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the U.S. would now be considering military action against Iraq,” Straw wrote. “In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with OBL (Osama bin Laden) and al-Qaida.”

He also questioned stability in a post-Saddam Iraq: “We have also to answer the big question — what will this action achieve? There seems to be a larger hole in this than on anything.”

June 16th, Congressman John Conyers delivered 560,000 petition signatures to the White House demanding that President Bush address smoking-gun evidence of deception in the Downing Street Memos.

 

[Nereid]

So, why does anyone (continue to) think that pollies (left, right or polka-dotted) are honest, straight, sincere, {insert your favourite here}?

C'mon PFers, of course Bush&Blair wanted to 'take out' Mr Hussain way, way back! Of course they needed some time to 'get their sh** together' and spin it so that their 'case' was 'robust' enough to not get derailed! These folk are highly successful politicians, and have had their hearts set on 'success' for decades. Should you or I try such a political feat, for sure we'd be ground to dust within a week; Bush&Blair were elected - more or less democratically - as leaders of two large, powerful nations ... the kind of finessing that the D St memos give a glimpse into are surely darn near instinctual for guys of this calibre (by now).

 

[SOS2008]

So, why does anyone (continue to) think that pollies (left, right or polka-dotted) are honest, straight, sincere, {insert your favourite here}?

C'mon PFers, of course Bush&Blair wanted to 'take out' Mr Hussain way, way back! Of course they needed some time to 'get their sh** together' and spin it so that their 'case' was 'robust' enough to not get derailed! These folk are highly successful politicians, and have had their hearts set on 'success' for decades. Should you or I try such a political feat, for sure we'd be ground to dust within a week; Bush&Blair were elected - more or less democratically - as leaders of two large, powerful nations ... the kind of finessing that the D St memos give a glimpse into are surely darn near instinctual for guys of this calibre (by now).

I don't feel Blair/UK had interest in removing Saddam--just a desire to be a supportive ally of the U.S. The reason for the "rush" to invade was no doubt due in large part to realization that the real facts would become clear fairly quickly, eliminating the ability to proceed.

In the meantime we are all still waiting for apologies--but alas this is not the case. Staunch Bush supporters continue to argue that the invasion was justified, so don't waste time and effort on these folks. It would be so cool if these people had to pay for the war in "blood and treasure" on their own and leave the rest of us alone to prosper without them. I vote for moving them all to someplace like...Kansas, and making it a separate country!

 

[Pengwuino]

June 16th, Congressman John Conyers delivered 560,000 petition signatures to the White House demanding that President Bush address smoking-gun evidence of deception in the Downing Street Memos.

Oh SOS you make me giglge :D

How does any of that mean deception? Thats like agreeing with these 9/11 conspiracy idiotso who think that since a few people thought they saw something different at the Pentagon, that the Bush adminstration had to have lied and bombed the pentagon instead. READ what you actually posted. "Im going to have trouble convincing...". This does not mean there is no facts. THIS IS POLITICS. People do not want facts as much as they want to be convinced of something. The facts could have been glaring right at them but if they were like the typical liberal and thought "oh we can't have war for any reason at all unless the UN says so", you would need to go beyond hte facts to convince them.

And its fairly obvious OBL didnt have anything to do with iraq but Iraq has been screwing around with people for decades. Hundreds of thousands of dead. I'm sure the families of those victims want some appologies from the liberals who think it was wrong to go to war. But i doubt michael moore will be having a press conference anytime soon about it :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

We'd also like to hear some appologies from the left that say Iraq is a "mistake" and that its "FUBAR" or a "debacle". We lost more every few days in WW2 and no one was calling the war a debacle or a mistake now were they... Of course, I doubt any person could believe the war is going good based on all the biased news reports we hear from Iraq. When will we hear about the good happening in Iraq however

The last two are kinda dumb in that article... OMG THEY KNOW HOW TO WASH THEIR HANDS :rofl: :rofl:

 

[SOS2008]

Oh SOS you make me giglge :D

Did you giggle like a pansie? :tongue: Since your post was incoherent, I will clarify further my point...

Bush, et al, had plans to invade Iraq from the beginning of his first term in 2000. They were trying to find a way to obtain support. Bush supporters will say that because there was always a desire for regime change, the war was justified, no? This kind of mentality (ends justify the means) isn't acceptable to the majority of the world. Falsifying intelligence to obtain support from the American people, congress, allies, etc. is never acceptable for any reason.

Bush supporters also continue to complain that those who have been anti-war are hoping Iraq will fail. I for one do not want the Iraqi people to continue suffering, but I also do not want the Bushies and followers an iota of an excuse to continue with their disgusting ways.

In the meantime, it is even far more despicable for Bush to use the tragedy of 9-11 to pursue his agenda to invade Iraq, and also shameful that he was able to be reelected to a second term largely because of the war.

 

[Nereid]

If we lift things up a level, Pengwuino, then questions such as the following start to become relevant:
- there are many, many brutal dictators and millions who suffer from human rights abuses (other than the Iraqis did, under Monsigneur Hussain); why commit a cool US$multi-hundred billion to his ouster (and not any of the others)?
- 'national self-interest' (whatever it means in any particular situation) is, ultimately, what 'makes the difference' in going to war, signing a 'free-trade agreement', etc. What were the primary 'national self-interests' for the US (and the UK) to invade Iraq?
- at the end of the day, no national leader (right, left, polka-dotted) gives a ***'s **** over the lives of members of the armed forces - it's a cool, clear-headed calculation: how can I achieve my goals? wrt the blood of patriots and citizens, this means 'how can finesse the news/public perception so that I continue to get the support I need to {install a compliant regime in Iraq/whatever}? Have I got sufficiently sensitive mechanisms in place, so that I'll be informed in enough time to invoke 'Plan B', should the natives (US, Iraqi) get too restless?'

 

[SOS2008]

If we lift things up a level, Pengwuino, then questions such as the following start to become relevant:
- there are many, many brutal dictators and millions who suffer from human rights abuses (other than the Iraqis did, under Monsigneur Hussain); why commit a cool US$multi-hundred billion to his ouster (and not any of the others)?
- 'national self-interest' (whatever it means in any particular situation) is, ultimately, what 'makes the difference' in going to war, signing a 'free-trade agreement', etc. What were the primary 'national self-interests' for the US (and the UK) to invade Iraq?
- at the end of the day, no national leader (right, left, polka-dotted) gives a ***'s **** over the lives of members of the armed forces - it's a cool, clear-headed calculation: how can I achieve my goals? wrt the blood of patriots and citizens, this means 'how can finesse the news/public perception so that I continue to get the support I need to {install a compliant regime in Iraq/whatever}? Have I got sufficiently sensitive mechanisms in place, so that I'll be informed in enough time to invoke 'Plan B', should the natives (US, Iraqi) get too restless?'

Exchanges of posts with pfers such as Pengwuino are very representative of the problems faced in the U.S. in trying conduct logical debate with Bush supporters.

I have already pointed out the fallacy of regime change and that it has not been and never will be U.S. foreign policy to remove dictators, brutal or otherwise; 1) because the list is never-ending and the ongoing cost in "blood and treasure" would be too high; 2) U.S. foreign policy is what ever serves U.S. interests at a given time, including support of brutal dictators. Not to mention the importance of democracies abiding by international laws and treaties, respecting sovereignty of other countries, etc. in keeping with their own ideals and preachings. This is the problem with antiquated neocon thinking in general.

No one owes the lying Bush regime and his devout supporters an apology of any kind, rather a swift kick in the a** on their way out would do nicely.

 

[Pengwuino]

Did you giggle like a pansie? :tongue: Since your post was incoherent, I will clarify further my point...

Bush, et al, had plans to invade Iraq from the beginning of his first term in 2000. They were trying to find a way to obtain support. Bush supporters will say that because there was always a desire for regime change, the war was justified, no? This kind of mentality (ends justify the means) isn't acceptable to the majority of the world. Falsifying intelligence to obtain support from the American people, congress, allies, etc. is never acceptable for any reason.

Bush supporters also continue to complain that those who have been anti-war are hoping Iraq will fail. I for one do not want the Iraqi people to continue suffering, but I also do not want the Bushies and followers an iota of an excuse to continue with their disgusting ways.

Incoherent eh? Sounds like someone else understood it quite well. Is that how you get around arguments you can't beat?

Is there absolutely any proof that the world doesn't accept "teh ends justifies the means"? Or is that just a simple opinion your trying to push as fact. Maybe you want to provide proof for once in your life :-/. And where exactly is this falsified intelligence? As many people agree, there is no evidence that he did delibretly falsify information... unless you can prove otherwise (and as usual, i'll screen half your posts by reminding you that opinions don't count).

And you sound, as usual, rather hypocritical. Were you ever lobbying for war before 2000? You say you care about the Iraqi people but you say the war was wrong... odd... so was it good that they were being murdered by the hundreds of thousands? Is that how you "care" about people in this day an age?

 

[Pengwuino]

Exchanges of posts with pfers such as Pengwuino are very representative of the problems faced in the U.S. in trying conduct logical debate with Bush supporters.

And that is what? You guys can't pass your lies and opinions-called-facts by Bush supporters? Is that why its so hard to argue with them?

As for your cynacism as to the Bush administration solely going after Iraq... notice anything else going on in the middle east? Syria for example? Iran for example? The problem with US policy in the past is that liberals, when they do get in power, support dictators and organizations taht support dictators yet accuse the right of being horrible for doing what they have done for many decades. Hypocricy at its finest

 

[SOS2008]

And that is what? You guys can't pass your lies and opinions-called-facts by Bush supporters? Is that why its so hard to argue with them?

As for your cynacism as to the Bush administration solely going after Iraq... notice anything else going on in the middle east? Syria for example? Iran for example? The problem with US policy in the past is that liberals, when they do get in power, support dictators and organizations taht support dictators yet accuse the right of being horrible for doing what they have done for many decades. Hypocricy at its finest

Pengwuino, first of all it would be helpful if you used spell check (option below the reply box). As for substantiating claims, do you really want to go there?

Ah yes, the "axis of evil." Oooooh, I'm shaking in my shoes. Who cares if N. Korea or Iran have nuclear weapons--along with all the other countries that already have nuclear weapons. And have you read the news lately about Iran, including the election at this time? If you spent more time acquainting yourself with what goes on in the world (and no, state-sponsored spins from Fox won't cut it - A.k.A. drinkin' the Kool Aid), people might take your posts more seriously...or maybe not.

 

[Pengwuino]

I fast reply :D

But if a few mispelled words means your completely unable to use logic to re-distribute a few letters to make the statement make sense... then i appologize. YOu really do need to substantiate claims. I've heard the "bush falsified the data" claim a few times but no actual proof. Lot of opinion... but no proof.

Is it at all possible that you could throw a few externalities into your reasoning as to why we don't go into nuclear armed states? Any large mushroom cloud reactions ring a bell? Is it at all possible that we could use diplomacy using a billion population nation as a foothold to solve the problem instead? Or, for Iran, use international pressure? Are you advocating for war? Is that the latest liberal stance? All out war with no thought as to diplomacy? Because i swear sooooome people were complaining that's "whats wrong with the republican party" the last few years.

 

[sid_galt]

LOL, this is getting really funny. Check out the AP article on this

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050618/ap_on_re_eu/downing_street_memos;_ylt=Ar.4YURFRZzovjc17hBkVnWs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2NzN0azRvBHNlYwN3bA%E2%80%94

Excerpt

The eight memos — all labeled "secret" or "confidential" — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.

Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.

If what Smith is claiming is true, the memos now have no legal validity whatsoever. We don't even know now if they are faked or not. That is, unless there are several other original copies. Let's wait and watch.

 

[SOS2008]

I fast reply :D

But if a few mispelled words means your completely unable to use logic to re-distribute a few letters to make the statement make sense... then i appologize. YOu really do need to substantiate claims. I've heard the "bush falsified the data" claim a few times but no actual proof. Lot of opinion... but no proof.

Is it at all possible that you could throw a few externalities into your reasoning as to why we don't go into nuclear armed states? Any large mushroom cloud reactions ring a bell? Is it at all possible that we could use diplomacy using a billion population nation as a foothold to solve the problem instead? Or, for Iran, use international pressure? Are you advocating for war? Is that the latest liberal stance? All out war with no thought as to diplomacy? Because i swear sooooome people were complaining that's "whats wrong with the republican party" the last few years.

Spelling is a minimal effort that would help, and I don't want to be mean, but more importantly your post lacked understanding or logic. Pengwuino, I do not want to keep addressing the topic of substantiating claims, and I, along with several other members are very tired of your accusations that liberal members (which would include me) don't provide quotes/sources/links to substantiate our posts, especially when you of all members are the most negligent in this area. So why do you persist with this?

If I thought it was worth my time and effort I would post a VERY long thread with all the facts/proof of Bush bunglings/lies in chronological order beginning with his background (education, military record, business failings, abuse of alcohol, etc.), his unethical election strategies, negligence/falsification in regard to the Iraq war, etc, and believe me, I could back it all up. And you know what? You would still espouse nonsensical BS (with no evidence, of course) in your attempt to dispel it all.

 

[SOS2008]

Is there absolutely any proof that the world doesn't accept "teh ends justifies the means"? Or is that just a simple opinion your trying to push as fact. Maybe you want to provide proof for once in your life :-/. And where exactly is this falsified intelligence?

What planet are you on? It seems as if you don’t follow the news, or read what members have been posting, or the sources, etc., but here goes again:

With regard to Americans, the 48% who did not vote for Bush in 2004 were not in favor of the war. After it was found that there was no connection between Saddam and 9-11, and that there were no WMD (you have heard of the 9-11 Commission Report I hope), support from swing voters dissipated as well. Now that it appears the U.S is getting bogged down in another Vietnam, even some Republicans are disappointed in the war. In addition to data already posted from the Washington Post-ABC Poll:

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

CBS News/New York Times Poll. June 10-15, 2005
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?"
All Adults Polled – 59% Disapprove (23% of these adults are Republican)

And what about the rest of the world and opinion of the U.S. invasion of Iraq? There are so many sites on the topic, but here’s one quickly selected:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206

A Year After Iraq War - Mistrust of America in Europe Ever Higher, Muslim Anger Persists

Summary of Findings
A year after the war in Iraq, discontent with America and its policies has intensified rather than diminished. Opinion of the United States in France and Germany is at least as negative now as at the war’s conclusion, and British views are decidedly more critical.

I’m only referencing allies, and not any of the Muslim countries, etc., and likewise there are specific statistics on this matter, but perhaps you could do a little research and report back what percentage of the world supports the war in Iraq?

Returning to the OP of this thread, while we know the reasons given for invading Iraq are untrue, will there be proof that the information was intentionally falsified? IMO it was “fixed” because it was so ridiculous one didn’t need CIA intelligence/Commission Report to know if it was true or false, and I hope Bush gets nailed for it.

LOL, this is getting really funny. Check out the AP article on this: "If what Smith is claiming is true, the memos now have no legal validity whatsoever. We don't even know now if they are faked or not. That is, unless there are several other original copies." Let's wait and watch.

Even if Bush can never be tagged, over half a million Americans have signed petitions demanding an investigation. Somehow I doubt Bush finds this funny. Also, that the controversy remains in the news and on people’s mind is damaging just the same, and deserved.

 

[Pengwuino]

So your proof that "the majority of peopld ont believe the idea that ends can justify means" is that a bunch of people oppose the war? Wow. I think many members here are getting tired of your rediculous claims and your dodging of facts and questions.

And as I've said many times, if people knew the good we were doing there and not what CNN nad the BBC were feeding them, they'd probably have a better view on the war. And wait wait, how exactly does this prove he "fixed the intelligence"? Why are you dodging this so bad? And again, why are you posting OPINION. Nowhere have i said that the world loves what we're doing or that its roses and chocolates over there.

And please stop dodging the issues, you seemingly answer every question with "well, people don't like bush". Please stop dodging questions.

 

[SOS2008]

So your proof that "the majority of peopld ont believe the idea that ends can justify means" is that a bunch of people oppose the war? Wow. I think many members here are getting tired of your rediculous claims and your dodging of facts and questions.

And as I've said many times, if people knew the good we were doing there and not what CNN nad the BBC were feeding them, they'd probably have a better view on the war. And wait wait, how exactly does this prove he "fixed the intelligence"? Why are you dodging this so bad? And again, why are you posting OPINION. Nowhere have i said that the world loves what we're doing or that its roses and chocolates over there.

And please stop dodging the issues, you seemingly answer every question with "well, people don't like bush". Please stop dodging questions.

Wow, spell check is great isn't it? My ridiculous claims (or just what you don't like to see posted, because it doesn't fit into your limited understanding of the world)? Did you even bother reading my post above with sources and statistics? I said that Bush has yet to be tagged for "fixing" the intelligence, but everyone except staunch Bush supporters like you know it was fixed with or without proof.

Yeh, I can see how I'm dodging facts and questions by posting poll results, etc. Pengwuino, you need to lay off the Kool Aid, and get your news from more reliable sources.

 

[GENIERE]

The memo does nothing except confirm the very best intelligence of the day indicated that Saddam very definitely had WMD.

From the memo per NYT:

“For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.”


...

 

[faust9]

The memo does nothing except confirm the very best intelligence of the day indicated that Saddam very definitely had WMD.

From the memo per NYT:

“For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.”


...

This post makes no sense. If you're going to source the NYT why not link to the source? How does the memo prove Saddam had WMD's according to the very best intellignece?

The Memo can be found here http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html (disregard to bias just read the memo). Pulling ideas out of context is a very dishonest thing to do IMHO. If one takes the time to read a paragraph or three above and below the citation above then one gets a different sense of things.

"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.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN."

The entire supposition being that the Saddam would continue to "Play-hardball" not that he actually had WMD or even that the US thought he had the WMD's.

People, a little research goes a long way.

 

[Pengwuino]

Wow, spell check is great isn't it? My ridiculous claims (or just what you don't like to see posted, because it doesn't fit into your limited understanding of the world)? Did you even bother reading my post above with sources and statistics? I said that Bush has yet to be tagged for "fixing" the intelligence, but everyone except staunch Bush supporters like you know it was fixed with or without proof.

Didn't use spellcheck.

And thank you for clerifying that only Bush supporters use FACTS in their ideas about the world :).

 

[GENIERE]

The memo does nothing except confirm the best intelligence of the day indicated that Saddam very definitely had WMD.

From the memo per NYT:

“For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.”


Typical of a liberal post that says nothing:

“I don't feel Blair/UK had interest in removing Saddam--just a desire to be a supportive ally of the U.S. The reason for the "rush" to invade was no doubt due in large part to realization that the real facts would become clear fairly quickly, eliminating the ability to proceed.”

Whatever the poster feels, emotion driven lacking factual basis, is irrelevant to the fact that the US and the UK are the staunchest of allies. It is compelling for the one to support the other. Historically the one has had no better friend than the other.

”In the meantime we are all still waiting for apologies--but alas this is not the case.”

Amusing!

“Staunch Bush supporters continue to argue that the invasion was justified, so don't waste time and effort on these folks.”

Kerry voted for the war, at least before he voted against it. He’s to be forgiven because he lacked your clairvoyant. Clairvoyance would have been necessary as ALL the intelligence agencies of the major European nations and the US presumed Saddam had WMD.

“It would be so cool if these people had to pay for the war in "blood and treasure" on their own and leave the rest of us alone to prosper without them.”

Prosper like France or Germany, or prosper like the UK or the US?

“I vote for moving them all to someplace like...Kansas, and making it a separate country!“

Kansas is large, but not quite large enough for the majority. It would, however, be nice to isolate the liberals from normal people, Canada beckons.

 

[faust9]

The memo does nothing except confirm the best intelligence of the day indicated that Saddam very definitely had WMD.

From the memo per NYT:

“For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.”


Typical of a liberal post that says nothing:

“I don't feel Blair/UK had interest in removing Saddam--just a desire to be a supportive ally of the U.S. The reason for the "rush" to invade was no doubt due in large part to realization that the real facts would become clear fairly quickly, eliminating the ability to proceed.”

Whatever the poster feels, emotion driven lacking factual basis, is irrelevant to the fact that the US and the UK are the staunchest of allies. It is compelling for the one to support the other. Historically the one has had no better friend than the other.

”In the meantime we are all still waiting for apologies--but alas this is not the case.”

Amusing!

“Staunch Bush supporters continue to argue that the invasion was justified, so don't waste time and effort on these folks.”

Kerry voted for the war, at least before he voted against it. He’s to be forgiven because he lacked your clairvoyant. Clairvoyance would have been necessary as ALL the intelligence agencies of the major European nations and the US presumed Saddam had WMD.

“It would be so cool if these people had to pay for the war in "blood and treasure" on their own and leave the rest of us alone to prosper without them.”

Prosper like France or Germany, or prosper like the UK or the US?

“I vote for moving them all to someplace like...Kansas, and making it a separate country!“

Kansas is large, but not quite large enough for the majority. It would, however, be nice to isolate the liberals from normal people, Canada beckons.

Riddle me this Batman: How does the memo confirm your belief that the best intellignece at the time indicated that Saddam indeed had WMD?

What we have QUOTED(there's a little green button at the bottom of all of the post that says "quote"; additionally, there is a quote function available in advanced section or you could use the word QUOTE in [] if you like) is a typical deflectionary response. In fact what you have given the internet community at large as a response can be catagorized as either a http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html or a http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

Back to the topic at hand; the Downing Street Memo. How does this memo support your position? Just curious.

 

[GENIERE]

Riddle me this Batman: How does the memo confirm your belief that the best intellignece at the time indicated that Saddam indeed had WMD? …

What do you find ambiguous in this excerpt?

From the memo per NYT:

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.”

In fact what you have given the internet community at large as a response can be catagorized as either a URL=http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html]Strawman or a http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html …

As in criticizing Penquino’s spelling or the excellent example you provide:

…What we have QUOTED(there's a little green button at the bottom of all of the post that says "quote"; additionally, there is a quote function available in advanced section or you could use the word QUOTE in []...

...

 

[SOS2008]

Didn't use spellcheck.

And thank you for clerifying that only Bush supporters use FACTS in their ideas about the world :).

Please quote where I said that. Maybe you're just dyslexic.

It is clearly known that none of the reasons given for invasion were true. IMHO the intelligence was intentionally falsified. Whether it can be proven, who knows. But as stated, I hope it can be.

Here are similar opinions Aired June 18, 2005, in which the original members of the Capital Gang reviewed the news over the last 17 years, concluding with what they think have been the biggest outrages:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/18/cg.01.html

PATRICK BUCHANAN, FORMER HOST, CAPITAL GANG: Welcome to the original CAPITAL GANG. I'm Pat Buchanan, with Al Hunt, Robert Novak and Mark Shields…
------------------------------------
HUNT: …And now, for the outrages of the last 17 years.

CARLSON: Well, it's a tough call -- that Supreme Court delivering the 2000 election, limiting stem cell research? No, it's Bush and Cheney swearing Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam was linked to al Qaeda, so that they could try out their theory of spreading democracy by force. Seventeen hundred men and women have died in this experiment, sent to Iraq without a plan, in too few numbers, and unarmored. The lies continue, including the one about the insurgency being in its last throes and Iraqis taking over.

I know why Bush doesn't meet the dead at Dover. It might pierce his denial or break his heart.

SHIELDS: Al, Saddam Hussein did not have chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Iraq had absolutely no connection to the September 11th attacks on the U.S. Saddam's forces constituted no realistic military threat to his neighbors, let alone to the United States. The case President George W. Bush made for leading his nation into war, now in its third year, with criminally inadequate post-war planning and with tragic costs in blood and treasure, was totally counterfeit and indefensible.

I can't believe the continuing defense of Bush on this matter--in this forum or otherwise. What evidence is there to show there was connection between Saddam and Bin Laden, or that there were large stockpiles of WMD, or that Iraq was an immediate threat to neighbors, or to the U.S.? To make legitimate disputes, please provide such evidence to prove these things.

If you want to talk about all the good things that are resulting from the invasion, feel free to start a new thread on this topic. But don't forget the price that has been paid, including a divided nation and alienation of the majority of the world.

 

[alexandra]

If you want to talk about all the good things that are resulting from the invasion, feel free to start a new thread on this topic. But don't forget the price that has been paid, including a divided nation and alienation of the majority of the world.

SOS2008, I think one of the most worrying things about the price you mention is that very few people living in other countries seem to be able to understand that this invasion has divided the American people, and how these people consequently tend to hate 'America' (and, by implication, Americans). I wish they could read the views expressed on these discussion boards - the division is so obvious. The recent US election results also demonstrate that the present US administration does not have a 'mandate' on this issue, as you point out. Unfortunately, however, both political parties supported the invasion in the last election and it seems that the American voters who were against the invasion didn't really have any options to choose from (at least regarding this particular issue)