Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Downing Street Memo

  1. May 28, 2005 #1
    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.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 31, 2005 #2
    Gratuitous Bump! :biggrin:

    This one merits more attention! :approve:

    Just to add something to the thread:

     
  4. May 31, 2005 #3

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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. :rolleyes:

    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?
    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:
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2005
  5. May 31, 2005 #4

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

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

    edit: read it now. Terrible piece. A number of factually inaccurate statments, 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). :biggrin:
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2005
  6. May 31, 2005 #5
    Gee, I was thinking the same about the BS leading up to the invasion! :rolleyes:

    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.
     
  7. May 31, 2005 #6

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No. Where does it say anywhere there that he lied?
    SNAFU/FUBAR? Looks to me like its going extrordinarily well.
     
  8. Jun 1, 2005 #7
    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!?!

    Just keep telling yourself that russ.
     
  9. Jun 1, 2005 #8

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Hey, pot<->kettle. Use whatever definition you want, but apply it evenly.
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2005
  10. Jun 2, 2005 #9
    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).

    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?:rolleyes:
    Shouldn't this be upsetting? Maybe I too have been eating too many sour grapes.
     
  11. Jun 2, 2005 #10

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
    No: no one doubts that Bush manipulated the intel to paint the picture he wanted and drum-up support for the war.
    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.
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2005
  12. Jun 2, 2005 #11
    OK, how about yours:
    And that's what this administration did, LIE.
    NO, false dichotomy!
    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.
    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:
    By today's standard, old Dwight is some flaming,raving liberal. My, my, how far we've come!?! :uhh:
     
  13. Jun 18, 2005 #12

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

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

    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.
     
  14. Jun 18, 2005 #13

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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).
     
  15. Jun 18, 2005 #14

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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. :mad: 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! :approve:
     
  16. Jun 18, 2005 #15

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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 cant 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 :frown:

    The last two are kinda dumb in that article... OMG THEY KNOW HOW TO WASH THEIR HANDS :rofl: :rofl:
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2005
  17. Jun 18, 2005 #16

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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. :bugeye:
     
  18. Jun 18, 2005 #17

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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?'
     
  19. Jun 18, 2005 #18

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  20. Jun 18, 2005 #19

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Incoherent eh? Sounds like someone else understood it quite well. Is that how you get around arguments you cant beat?

    Is there absolutely any proof that the world doesnt 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 dont 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?
     
  21. Jun 18, 2005 #20

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    And that is what? You guys cant 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
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Downing Street Memo
  1. Supressed Bush Memo (Replies: 2)

Loading...