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

[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)

 

[2CentsWorth]

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)

The American people who knew the so-called intelligence didn't make sense tried to generate debate and were asking for more solid evidence. The problem was that the rest of America was in a rage over 9-11 so didn't even "question authority." And of course Bush rushed the country toward the invasion, precisely to avoid facts getting in the way of his goals.

As for congress, many representatives are very knowledgeable of world affairs, and no doubt suspected they were being fed a bunch of BS. But knowing they were in the midst of a nationalism feeding frenzy, they feared they would not be reelected if they stood up to Bush, who (I believe) had record-high approval ratings at that time. Kerry said it was BS, but then still gave his approval for the war--he probably felt he was representing his constituents and not his own opinion (something Bush has never learned to do).

Those who were against the war took a lot of abuse for speaking out about their concerns. And now that we know these people were right, I agree it is sad that apologies are not forthcoming.