We Brits have never had the slightest interest in the ME or its oil. We've always prided ourselves in being totally self-sufficient as a nation, and anyone taking the time to learn a little bit about our history will see that we've always been completely respectful and altruistic toward foreign nations with whom we've interacted. Our politicians and other figures of authority come only from the best families to ensure that Britain will always be a shining example of nationhood for the rest of the world.
That terribly, terribly awful Greg Palast ruffian deserves to be flogged in public with a cat o' nine tails for the dreadful things he writes. On second thought make that a cat o' eighteen tails along with a jolly good punch on the nose.

figures of authority come only from the best families to ensure that Britain will always be a shining example of nationhood for the rest of the world...

And now I have to clean my keyboard and monitor, Dodd!

actual "planning" vs. making to decision that the action was inevitiable are two different things.

let's face it. they were going to war no matter what 'proof' was uncovered.

nobody cares anymore.

Cleanliness is next to Doddlyness, DrPat, and that's very British come to think of it! We're such a well-groomed bunch, you know. Isn't it a pity everybody can't be British? Everything cricket and fair play, decorum and rule of law, tea and crumpets. Nothing like a bit of crumpet now and then, I always say. What ho!

...mmm....with clotted cream.

Yes, from my personal experience, British crumpets are the best!

[memo quote] "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

NALLE: "What this statement means exactly is not entirely clear."

...ONLY IF YER A FUCKING MORON.

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

POLICY: war with Iraq
FACTS: yellow cake from Niger; aluminum tubes, testimony of Chalabi
INTELLIGENCE: No evidence of WMDS.

RESULT: over 1600 dead Americans, $200 BILLION down the sand hole, a quagmire, and Iraq is currently hovering somewhere between anarchy and civil war.

THANKS, GEORGE!

And hip hip hoorah for Tony! Mustn't forget to thank George's lapdog.

The most interesting and insideous sentence in the story was the historical revisionism on display in the following: "Most of us realise he wanted to invade Iraq since before he was president."
This is preposterous, and shows the depths these Bush apologists will sink to. I wonder why he didn't run on that platform in the first place. If he didnt lie us into an unjust and illegal war after election, than he certainly lied to us as a candidate before the election. Either way , he is a liar.

The Downing Street Memo is only the culminating and clearest evidence that the Bush administration had a public face ("we have no timetable", "war only if diplomacy fails") and hidden plans that were not even based on the actual threat of Iraq, considered less dangerous that North Korea etc.

When public words do not correspond to actual intentions that remain hidden, you may turn it as you want, but that's deceit.

They fixed intelligence and facts to fit their plans. People who behave like that appear more like conspirators than reliable and ethical leaders.

Whatever the political orientation one may have, this is not acceptable, if ethics and democracy matter.

It is also quite worrying how the Downing Street memo is nearly ignored by TV news and papers. That's pretty sad for American journalism, which probably deems Janet Jackson's tits or similar topics of more fundamental importance.

P.S.: the explanation of "fixed" is surely not the one you suggest, there is nothing specifically British in the use of "fixed". The meaning of that sentence is exactly that which appears to any reader.

>>NALLE: "What this statement means exactly is not entirely clear."

...ONLY IF YER A FUCKING MORON.
<<

Snark, perhaps rather than going nuts and slinging insults you should read my explanation of the possible alternative meaning of that sentence and respond to that. Or is that too much of a challenge?

>>FACTS: yellow cake from Niger; aluminum tubes, testimony of Chalabi<<

Ah, Snark. So you now admit that the yellow cake found in Iraq is a sign they had a nuclear program going?

Dave

Try to respond to the other more substantial points, not pick the easiest target.

Revisionism by a former history teacher somehow is even more sickening than anything else here. "Apologist" is the right word. You can think the war is the right thing to do without bending down and taking it all deep.

Temp, which more substantial points were those? I addressed what needed to be addressed in the article. We all already know that I don't feel the same way about political duplicitousness that the rest of you do. Not much point in hashing over that again. I'm not going to respond to posts that just call Bush a liar again. What's the point in that?

What being a history teacher has done to me is make me look at even contemporary events from a bit of a distance. I don't take politics as personally as some people do.

In the best of all possible worlds I would never have supported going to war in Iraq. I'm not sure I even would have supported the war in Afghanistan. But given what we have been through and what the administration has done, I understand their actions and - sorry guys - I don't revile them for taking the course they did.

It's not that I'm an apologist, it's just that I've got different priorities. Check my articles. It's the rights issues inside the US that have me worried enormously more than the war in Iraq.

Oh, I suppose you could mean the argument over the meaning of the word 'fixed'. That's addressed in the article. What fixing the facts means is certainoy debatable, even if people don't agree with me. It could certainly mean finding facts to back up the position the administration was taking just as viably as it could mean creating bogus data.

Dave

Dave

You've got me curious as to why someone(you) who, if I'm correctly reading you from your posts, could pretty much care less about the distortions and deceits used to justify war by Bush & Co., would even feel a need to address this issue.

To delve into idiom contortions to explain away something that, truth be told, you likely wouldn't have a problem with anyway.

>"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."<

To me this is what it is. I'll need some more convincing evidence of idiom interpretaions to be swayed otherwise. From what source did you draw this notion of the Queens English?

Besides, it just does seem to make sense as you explain it.

"But the intelligence and facts were being ATTACHED TO (around) the policy."

This statement is meaningless if the policy was the natural extention of the intelligence and facts. No statement of attachment would be needed. They would already fit.

It only makes sense when drawing attention to the notion that the one, intelligence and facts, which by it's nature did not conform to the other, the policy, necessitated "massaging" or "fixing" to create cohesion.

Bill

>>You've got me curious as to why someone(you) who, if I'm correctly reading you from your posts, could pretty much care less about the distortions and deceits used to justify war by Bush & Co., would even feel a need to address this issue. <<

I feel a need to address it because while Bush's behavior doesn't bother me that much, I am bothered by the relentless nonsensical attacks on him based on the claim that he 'lied', which just isn't supported by the facts, and the general demonization of the president based on pure speculation, paranoia and resentment. I dislike it when people form their opinions and start shouting them in public, based entirely on emotion and irrational fear.

>>To delve into idiom contortions to explain away something that, truth be told, you likely wouldn't have a problem with anyway.<<

Well, it would all be a lot easier if I only had to explain things to myself.

>"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."<

To me this is what it is. I'll need some more convincing evidence of idiom interpretaions to be swayed otherwise. From what source did you draw this notion of the Queens English?

Mmmm a dictionary?

www.dictionary.com

Fixed:
1. To place securely; make stable or firm
2. To secure to another; attach
3. To set or place definitely; establish
4. To determine with accuracy; ascertain
5. To assign; attribute: fixing the blame.
6. To correct or set right; adjust
7. To influence the outcome or actions of by improper or unlawful means

See all these uses for the word 'fixed'? It seems to me that most people are going with either 6 or 7 here, when the use could easily be any of the others and which one you choose really makes a big difference in the meaning of the sentence. What if it was meaning #4? That sounds pretty damned appropriate and innocuous to me.

>"But the intelligence and facts were being ATTACHED TO (around) the policy." <<

What if you replace 'attached to' with 'assembled to support' or 'ascertained'?

>>This statement is meaningless if the policy was the natural extention of the intelligence and facts. No statement of attachment would be needed. They would already fit.<<

But they have lots and lots of facts to work with. My honest belief is that what the sentence means is that they were going to sort out the facts that supported their objective and assemble a good case to support what they wanted to do. This doesn't mean lying or making things up, it means organizing information to support a position. That's perfectly reasonable.

>>It only makes sense when drawing attention to the notion that the one, intelligence and facts, which by it's nature did not conform to the other, the policy, necessitated "massaging" or "fixing" to create cohesion.<<

But as you can see that's only one of many definitions, and most of the other ones make more sense in context and are far less inflamatory.

Dave

>If you understand British idiom,<

I thought you had some incite into this. Maybe a British government official providing some context. I suppose there aren't many of them around willing to provide cover for Bush.

While #'s 6 & 7 are, well 6 & 7, that doesn't detract from them making the most sense in the context of the statement.

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

The explanation makes even less sense to me when looked at with the surrounding sentences. Alas, we agree to disagree.

Bill

>>I thought you had some incite into this. <<

You're the second person today I've seen make this same error - weird. The word is 'insight', not 'incite'. 'Incite' means to provoke someone to do something - like start a riot.

Anyway, I do have some insight having lived in England for 3 years, but the word can be used in the ways I laid out here in the US as well.

>>Maybe a British government official providing some context. I suppose there aren't many of them around willing to provide cover for Bush.<<

From what I can tell they've been pretty quiet about it. No one seems to think it's really all that much of a smoking gun.

>>While #'s 6 & 7 are, well 6 & 7, that doesn't detract from them making the most sense in the context of the statement.<<

My position would be that they make the most sense to a) Americans and b) people predisposed to be suspicious of Bush. I think it's perfectly believable that the author of the memo intended one of the other uses of the word.

Dave

Yea, I've got cite on the brain. Cite this cite that.

Under "Just War" doctrine (a Christian approach to war that hearkens all the way back to St. Augustine), there was no justification -- none, zero, zip, nada -- for President Bush to invade and occupy Iraq. Bush knew it. Blair (or would that be "Bliar"?) knew it. (As the British AG was cited in the Downing Street Memo, "A desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action.") And they both knew that they could NEVER convince Americans and Brits to send their sons and daughters into harm's way in order to accomplish mere "regime change."

So they cherry-picked, stove-piped, shoe-horned intelligence to try and make the case to their nations that Iraq had to be invaded for the security of England and the US. But as the memo says, "The case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours [so tell me someone, how the hell could he even HOPE to threaten us?], and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

And none of this even deals with another crucial observation of Sir Richard's (which you've evidently seen fit to not to deal with): "There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

George W. Bully was just a-gonna sweep into a soveriegn nation that was militarily weak, was no threat to us and played no part in 9/11, in order to chalk up a quick, decisive "shock-and-awe" win (and presumably teach the rest of them "dirty little rag-heads" a lesson). And, contrary to the considered expert opinion of generals who said we'd need 200,000 to 250,000 troops to secure the peace after the invasion, Rumsnamara and Co. tried to do it on the cheap: "Pish and tosh! Why, we'll invade and secure Iraq with 130,00 to 150,000 troops! (And, ahem, general? Please kindly tender your resgination on the way out ...)"

Now we're stuck in the bottomless sandbox that is the Middle East, with no end in sight, all because "there was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

(And BTW, Moms and Dads, are your kids' draft registrations up to date? It's right around the corner...)

Phrank in Foenix,
An anti-this-war evangelical Christian conservative

Cursed are the proud, for they shall inherit the quagmire. Cursed are the warmongers, for they shall be called sons-of-bitches.

Saith Framer:

The most interesting and insideous sentence in the story was the historical revisionism on display in the following: "Most of us realise he wanted to invade Iraq since before he was president."

This is preposterous, and shows the depths these Bush apologists will sink to. I wonder why he didn't run on that platform in the first place. If he didnt lie us into an unjust and illegal war after election, than he certainly lied to us as a candidate before the election. Either way , he is a liar.

And lastly (for now!), Joe London says:

It is also quite worrying how the Downing Street memo is nearly ignored by TV news and papers. That's pretty sad for American journalism, which probably deems Janet Jackson's tits or similar topics of more fundamental importance.

Wow, Phrank - good thing we don't have St. Augustine running our foreign policy.

Though come to think of it the parallels between Bush and Augustine are remarkable...

Dave

I am surprised at the level of hatred for this president. Is everyone cool with Buchanan? He could have prevented the civil war (most american deaths in any war) if he had had Bush's backbone. Was Truman a hero or a murderer? He made the decision to drop the bomb and crush the Japanese spirit. Would you have been one of the many protesters against these presidents? Were they more or less evil than the hated George Bush?

There is no one more blind than he who would not see.

The decision to go to war was made by the president first.

All the rest was just propaganda to get the thing started.

The administration lied and misled the American people.

The connection between Iraq, Terror and WMD was designed and manufactured by the administration to achieve its political goals.

Now thousands are still dying, and the American people prefer to remain oblivious to the fact that they were manipulated by fear into an illegal war.

The whole world can see this clearly, why cant the American public wake up to the obvious?

This war is the greatest fiasco in recent American history, and no 'success story' will change the facts at the end.

Bush manipulated the country to justify and unjust war in the name of Democracy and freedom for the good "american people" and the "people of Iraq".

If you think that in the real world the truth will have no consequences; you better think twice.

Yeah. What "framer" said.

Yall are free to come visit Shark's version of this story.

Dave's also over there to pummel.

=======

"In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man gets lynched."

"I don't think our troops should be used for what's called nation-building." --CANDIDATE Bush

I noticed nobody was brave enough to answer my questions in post #24. Try to picture yourself in those long ago times and think about whether you would support James Buchanan, Eisenhower, Truman. Or would you be a protester of their controversial actions? All of them ended up killing Americans.

And please - no B.S. about blindness. Both sides of any issue think the other side is blind.

Most of the people who hate Bush don't know anything about those other presidents, Maurice. Anything older than the 60s is an utter mystery to them.

I can give you my opinion, but it's not all that interesting. IMO Eisenhower was a better president than Bush, Buchanan was worse and Truman was comparable, though he's been puffed up a lot in recent revisionism.

I'd never have supported Buchanan. Nothing worse than a doe-face, IMO. I might have supported the Constitutional Union Party, but I likely would have voted for Lincoln (who you might want to compare to Bush too) and accepted war as the result. Stephen Douglas was the real great hope for the Republic back then, bu the committed political suicide at Freeport in 1858, so he lost his chance.

Dave

Dave,

I always enjoy reading your posts and respect your opinions. I found your comment about Truman and recent revisionism interesting. I think history will be kind to Bush and little will be written about the acerbic criticisms of his presidency.

As a Goldwater Republican and former infantryman, all I can say about Dave's opinion is: sounds like bullshit to me.

"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Let's switch it around and write, "But the policy was being fixed around the intelligence and the facts." You'd understand that, wouldn't you?

If you are so damned sure about what the memo means, will you support a call for an investigation to determine EXACTLY what it means?

I think I know what it means: Bush lied, and soldiers died. Along with about 100,000 Iraqis.

Bush and his neo-con buddies are, at this moment, squandering the finest army on this planet while you geniuses argue about the meaning of "fixed." And if a REAL threat develops, the United States will be sorely pressed to respond to it.

M Paulding -

you are not bringing anything new to the table. Plenty of idealists have your same view.

I do find it worth mentioning your last sentence. The implication is there is no real threat to us currently. Are you familiar with the Crusades? Do you know the root cause of World War I?

I'm not sure what fixing the facts means. The argument it means cooking them to serve an end would seem stronger if the conjunction beginning the sentence was "and" instead of "but." It's just not clear to me what was meant.

As someone who saw valid argument on both sides of the going to war debate, something else in the memo is far more telling. If the real goal was to create a democratic inroad into the middle-east, how could there have been "...little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." In what was clearly a discretionary war I mistakenly assumed that the Bush administration, who could easily access the best minds available on the dynamics of Iraq and the area in general that were widely expected to make the task complex and difficult, would surely have given the aftermath of the war the crucial consideration is deserved. The need seemed so obvious to me. This memo gives further credence to the competence of prosecution argument that Kerry made.

I wrote in Comment 31:

"And if a REAL threat develops, the United States will be sorely pressed to respond to it."

Maurice wrote in Comment 32:

"I do find it worth mentioning your last sentence. The implication is there is no real threat to us currently."

Maurice, I implied no such thing. YOU can imply whatever suits your fancy. My language is clear enough. "REAL" means something GENUINE, not artificial, fraudulent, illusory, or apparent.

For the record, there are a number of REAL threats now confronting the United States. Some of us know what some of them are.

If only one of those real threats DEVELOP, i.e., evolve, become active, unfold, the United States will be sorely pressed to respond to it.

Why? Because the neo-cons squandered our army.

As to the cause of the Crusades and World War I, I'll leave that to you geniuses. As for me, I agree with Napoleon: history is a fiction agreed upon.

DAve,

I agree with much of your post but it is still is grounds for kicking Bush out of office in my opinion.

We don't want a president trying to disguise his agenda from the American public, and certainly we don't want him conducting investigations with the sole purpose of entrapping the person they investigate.

Simply thinking there are WMD's in IRAQ adn then fabircating teh evidence to prove it and then tieing it to 9/11 is not a reasonable course of action. IT;s one of teh largest, botched lies in the history of AMerican foreign policy (and that is saying a lot...i mean A LOT!)

What are your ethical standards with regards to the governing party and forign affairs?

It seems your standards are so lax that it's inevitable that they come back to bite you in your ass?

Most americans have no scruples when it comes to their politics.

In Comment 16 Dave wrote:

"My honest belief is that what the sentence means is that they were going to sort out the facts that supported their objective and assemble a good case to support what they wanted to do."

Exactly! Bush and his poodles assembled all the facts and intelligence that suited their purposes, i.e., go to war. Anything that didn't fit was thrown down the hole.

They packaged the war and sold it like a box of soap. And they quietly planned for war while telling the American People that they had not yet decided to go to war. That's called a lie, and abuse of power.

eh...the american public seems to not care about this.


so we get the screwed up, dishonest government that we deserve.

I think it comes down to alot of conservative nto caring what Bush does wrong, so long as a right wing gov't is in power.

We really need to get rid of this two party system.

Paulding:

>>"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Let's switch it around and write, "But the policy was being fixed around the intelligence and the facts." You'd understand that, wouldn't you?<<

Not any better than the original wording. The word 'fixed' is ambiguous in either context. If I were writing the memo to be understood I would have used a much clearer word. Like 'tailored to fit the policy' or 'assembled to support the policy'.

>>If you are so damned sure about what the memo means, will you support a call for an investigation to determine EXACTLY what it means?<<

Sure. Of course, it's a third hand account from a briefing in Britain, so I'm not sure who'd do the investigating or what value it would have. But someone ought to interview the guy who wrote it - though he may be under government restrictions about discussing it.

>>I think I know what it means: Bush lied, and soldiers died. Along with about 100,000 Iraqis. <<

I despair, I really do. That otherwise seemingly intelligent people can continue to spout this 100,000 deaths figure absolutely befuddles me. It's been debunked so many times. I recently read new debunkings of it by the original authors of the Lancet study and by the British government. Anyone who's red the original study knows it can't be used reliably, and anyone familiar with realistic body count figures knows that the actual number is around 30,000 and most of those 'civilians' are likely to be terrorists or the victims of terrorists, not killed by the US.

Dave

Sydney:

>>I agree with much of your post but it is still is grounds for kicking Bush out of office in my opinion.

We don't want a president trying to disguise his agenda from the American public,<<

Ok, I'll support kicking Bush out of office if you can point to any president in the last 46 years - got to leave Ike out - who didn't conceal elements of his agenda and his administration's activities from the public or creatively misrepresent things to promote his plans. You can make it the last 100 years if you skip Eisenhower. You name the president and I'll show you where he did EXACTLY what Bush did.

>> and certainly we don't want him conducting investigations with the sole purpose of entrapping the person they investigate. <<

What's that about?

>>Simply thinking there are WMD's in IRAQ adn then fabircating teh evidence to prove it and then tieing it to 9/11 is not a reasonable course of action. IT;s one of teh largest, botched lies in the history of AMerican foreign policy (and that is saying a lot...i mean A LOT!) <<

You're saying it's worse than the Gulf of Tonkin incident? Come again? Johnson made up an entire naval battle that never happened, ferchrissakes.

>>What are your ethical standards with regards to the governing party and forign affairs? <<

That they adhere to the rules of The Great Game. The Brits seem to understand that the rules aren't strictly cricket - we haven't quite grasped it yet. I think it's one of the reasons why our intelligence services tend to suck.

Dave

Ya well just because everyone's doin' it, doesn't mean I need to support it.

And realistically I understand that the next admin will lie as well, whether they be democrats or republican, but I don't think they'll lie on the scale that GWB has been. I mean for chrisakes, he's so bold in his lies, he hardly cares to disguise them since he has realized that the American public forgets so quickly, or doesn't care to begin with.

So your excusing his crimes is just like beaten-wife syndrome. The government fucks you over, and you turn around and forgive them saying to yourself "he's still better than the alternative". As Jimmy Carter has said, GWB has done more than any other politician to ruin the public's confidence in the political process. This is no small deal! That process is integral to democracy. When people start feeling it doesn't work than they start playin dirty and fighting for their own interests.

So my view is that when we catch the bastard lying and he does nothing to correct it, than you vote the fucker out of office.

Besides, In my opinion, GWB blows recent presidents right out of the water in terms of deception and bold faced corruption. Certainly the public's awareness of these lies has never been higher. Unprecedented polarity amongst the people and the world has resulted. We need a president with an ounce of common sense and intelligence.

"...$200 BILLION down the sand hole,..."

No, not down a sand hole. This is actually what it's all about. That money went from public coffers into the pockets of rich white guys, the very ones who put Bush in office in the first place. And if why wasn't obvious before, it should be now. It's all about concentrating the wealth/power.

Perhaps we should listen to the GOP soap box and disregard the whole Downing Street Memo. Let's assume (for a moment) the best case scenario: Bush, in a true moment of non-partisan patriotism, sincerely felt Saddam was a threat to us and his own people, and decided it was his American duty to disarm him and spread "freedom". Let's forgive any negative connotations that the Downing Street memo might conjure and assume the best of our blessed president. Let's rejoice (for a moment), because Hussein was a brutal dictator, killing his own people, and he needed to be ousted. Let's sympathize with Bush (for a moment) and say that the uprising in Iraq and Afghanistan is solely a result of barbaric terrorists who simply don't want freedom. Bush is a true figure of American values and world democracy. Hooray! (Stay with me here, I know it's hard to keep your lunch down)

Explain to me then, why the White House publicly decries the horrors in Darfur (the genocide of 400,000 people, the rape of tens of thousands of women and girls, 2.5 million forcibly displaced by government raids), yet Bush fails to enact any sort of military intervention?

Explain to me why Pakistan is such a valued ally in the "war against terror", the White House calling them "the greatest single stabilizing force in the country." Yet, Pakistan, run as a dictatorship, has became a U.S.-financed garrison state, spending 80% of its budget on the military, which massacred thousands of people and ensured that most of those not killed continued to be mired in poverty and illiteracy. It also is responsible for the most concentrated act of genocide in the twentieth century, killing millions.

Explain to me why we have ignored North Korea (which has been far more successful in developing WMD, which is one of the most brutal dictatorships in the world, where dissidents simply disappear-they are sent to camps or executed).

The Downing Street is simply a tangible piece of evidence that the Bush administration wanted not to protect our country from attack or spread freedom and democracy. Let's just say this... (a) Bush Sr. ("daddy") failed to oust Hussein during his presidency, (b) there is a lot of oil in Iraq, (c) the Bush administration is run heavily by those who are entrenched in the oil industry, (d) we're building one of the largest U.S. military bases in the world in Iraq, so we probably won't handing over total control any time soon.

Maybe I'm just one of those damn sceptical, stick-throwin', conspiracist liberals. Tell me if I'm wrong here...

Perhaps we should listen to the GOP soap box and disregard the whole Downing Street Memo. Let's assume (for a moment) the best case scenario: Bush, in a true moment of non-partisan patriotism, sincerely felt Saddam was a threat to us and his own people, and decided it was his American duty to disarm him and spread "freedom". Let's forgive any negative connotations that the Downing Street memo might conjure and assume the best of our blessed president. Let's rejoice (for a moment), because Hussein was a brutal dictator, killing his own people, and he needed to be ousted. Let's sympathize with Bush (for a moment) and say that the uprising in Iraq and Afghanistan is solely a result of barbaric terrorists who simply don't want freedom. Bush is a true figure of American values and world democracy. Hooray! (Stay with me here, I know it's hard to keep your lunch down)

Explain to me then, why the White House publicly decries the horrors in Darfur (the genocide of 400,000 people, the rape of tens of thousands of women and girls, 2.5 million forcibly displaced by government raids), yet Bush fails to enact any sort of military intervention?

Explain to me why Pakistan is such a valued ally in the "war against terror", the White House calling them "the greatest single stabilizing force in the country." Yet, Pakistan, run as a dictatorship, has became a U.S.-financed garrison state, spending 80% of its budget on the military, which massacred thousands of people and ensured that most of those not killed continued to be mired in poverty and illiteracy. It also is responsible for the most concentrated act of genocide in the twentieth century, killing millions.

Explain to me why we have ignored North Korea (which has been far more successful in developing WMD, which is one of the most brutal dictatorships in the world, where dissidents simply disappear-they are sent to camps or executed).

The Downing Street is simply a tangible piece of evidence that the Bush administration wanted not to protect our country from attack or spread freedom and democracy. Let's just say this... (a) Bush Sr. ("daddy") failed to oust Hussein during his presidency, (b) there is a lot of oil in Iraq, (c) the Bush administration is run heavily by those who are entrenched in the oil industry, (d) we're building one of the largest U.S. military bases in the world in Iraq, so we probably won't handing over total control any time soon.

Maybe I'm just one of those damn sceptical, stick-throwin', conspiracist liberals. Tell me if I'm wrong here...

I think Sydney & Stringy hit the nail(s) on the head: it's (a) about concentrating power/wealth (same thing), and (b) conservatives don't give a rat's ass what goes on as long as it's their party in power. Any party that would willfully associate itself with Karl Rove proves by their sheer association they have no morals, ethics, or regard for law, rules, or anything else.

Sydney: "Besides, In my opinion, GWB blows recent presidents right out of the water in terms of deception and bold faced corruption."

Then your opinion is both incorrect and ill-informed, the latter leading to the former.

If you were at all aware of the scandals and lies of other presidents in the last 50 years you'd know that Bush's half-truths and choices in how he presents data are picayune in comparison.

I mean come on - JFK lied about whether there were nukes in Cuba. Nixon couldn't speak 2 words without lying. Bill Clinton lied and then lied about lying. And all three of them were good presidents in many ways despite this.

Dave

I suspect the reason why Bush's lies are so much more aggravating is that prior presidents weren't using their own American people to pay back their rich friends and treat themselves to a power trip, nor were they so grossly transparent and Pecksniffian in their motives, pronouncements, and behavior.
And again, Dave, your snotty superior attitude is out of place. I think most of us do indeed know who Buchanan is, we just have more urgent points to make. I know it's hard for you to believe, but you are not the only college graduate online. Besides, a college degree only implies one is good at regurgitating information, not that one is intelligent: of the three most brilliant persons I ever met, only one had more than one year of college; on the contrary, I know a lot of people w/college degrees of various levels who are absolute fools, who have nothing whatsoever to recommend them, and who couldn't think their way out of a paper bag. So don't let your degree and teaching experience make you so uppity.

What difference does the memo make? It isn't a 'smoking gun'; it's merely another 'stinking turd'.

As with many of this Author's posts, the real story here is this Author.

As he points out, most of us knew from out front that Bush & Co is a pack of liars, curs and double-speak experts.

So, the challenge - how do the 'our worst hopes confirmed' comments translate into practical opposition?

And he's got it right again! Which administration was straight forward about its motives? Which administration didn't get people killed around the world for questionable reasons? Which administration didn't view the American public as a 'them' to be manipulated and deceived in order to accomplish veiled objectives?

(But how does he get away with pointing this out without being called an America hater?)

The Author's nihilist attitude and Machiavellian approach to world affairs is interesting, as always. There is a certain honesty here. His writing represents that point in social theory where Rand and Heinlein intersect.

Good stuff, Dave.

Mark

Pryderi (75 posts) Sat May-28-05 12:57 PM
Original message
The Downing Street Memo: All Smoke, No Gun


I just emailed idiot. This guy doesn't understand, nor does he read the US Contitution.

"What's clear from all of this is that this so-called 'smoking gun' has very little substance of any controversy to it. It's mostly information we already knew and there's nothing in the memo which raises any questions of impropriety. What the memo does demonstrate is that Bush wanted to make invading Iraq a high priority after Afghanistan. That's not exactly a bolt from the blue. Most of us realize he wanted to invade Iraq since before he was president. The War on Terror just gave him the opportunity. And truthfully, if he was going to continue with the military appraoch to the WoT, where better to go after Afghanistan than Iraq?"

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/24/111000.php

Skimmer, Please learn how to post links so that they do not mess up the entire page.

Thanks

Nancy:

>>I suspect the reason why Bush's lies are so much more aggravating is that prior presidents weren't using their own American people to pay back their rich friends and treat themselves to a power trip, nor were they so grossly transparent and Pecksniffian in their motives, pronouncements, and behavior.<<

You actually made this statement in all seriousness? Are you not even able to remember the Clinton administration selling presidential pardons all of 5 years ago? I don't expect you to remember things like the scandals of the Harding administration and its excesses of cronyism, but Clinton was as guilty of it as any president this century.

>>And again, Dave, your snotty superior attitude is out of place. I think most of us do indeed know who Buchanan is, we just have more urgent points to make.<<

I never brought up Buchanan. What does he have to do with all of this?

>> I know it's hard for you to believe, but you are not the only college graduate online.<<

I can't tell who does and does not have a college degree and it's not really relevant. What is relevant is what they say. When they say things like Bush's corruption or deceptions are greater than those of other presidents then I can only conclude they are ignorant, though I don't know the cause. It's as likely to be willful ignorance as a lack of education. You can certainly be well-informed without going to college, and we see ample evidence every day of how ignorant college graduates and even those with advanced education can be when their heart rules their rational faculties.

>> Besides, a college degree only implies one is good at regurgitating information, not that one is intelligent: of the three most brilliant persons I ever met, only one had more than one year of college; on the contrary, I know a lot of people w/college degrees of various levels who are absolute fools, who have nothing whatsoever to recommend them, and who couldn't think their way out of a paper bag. So don't let your degree and teaching experience make you so uppity.<<

I absolutely agree with you. Next time you see me asking for someone's college credentials will be the first time. I also know brilliant people who dropped out of college or never even went - including my wife who determined she had better things to do and could learn more in her field by working in it rather than by going to college.

Dave

Kevin, I shouldn't have to explain things to you which are a matter of public record and general knowledge, but what the hell.

>>Explain to me then, why the White House publicly decries the horrors in Darfur (the genocide of 400,000 people, the rape of tens of thousands of women and girls, 2.5 million forcibly displaced by government raids), yet Bush fails to enact any sort of military intervention?<<

Because the European nations are already involved in this situation and have declared their intention to take the necessary action. They to a large extent created the mess, and they have pledged to fix it. In a time when we're already overextended, why intervene if our 'allies' have a clear responsibility and are going to do so? Now of course the Europeans are having trouble actually focusing on this problem as their over-government falls apart, but you can't blame that on Bush.

>>Explain to me why Pakistan is such a valued ally in the "war against terror", the White House calling them "the greatest single stabilizing force in the country." Yet, Pakistan, run as a dictatorship, has became a U.S.-financed garrison state, spending 80% of its budget on the military, which massacred thousands of people and ensured that most of those not killed continued to be mired in poverty and illiteracy. It also is responsible for the most concentrated act of genocide in the twentieth century, killing millions.<<

Wow, so many errors and so little time. First off, Pakistan is a benevolent dictatorship in the truest sense of the word. The government is not particularly oppressive. There are truly democratic regimes which are more harsh with their citizens. It has a free press and it also has the highest level of education and literacy in the general population of any nation in the area. Sure, it's not a perfect country, and there are still ignorant tribesmen in the hills, but as nations in that region go, it IS stable and it IS reliable - even more so with our heavy direct involvement. As for this Pakistani genocide, do tell me more? Are you talking about the civil war back in the 60s and 70s? That has very little to do with the current government since it resulted in splitting Pakistan into two countries and we're only dealing with one of them. Plus that genocide was largely prompted and carried out by India, not Pakistan.

>>Explain to me why we have ignored North Korea (which has been far more successful in developing WMD, which is one of the most brutal dictatorships in the world, where dissidents simply disappear-they are sent to camps or executed).<<

We haven't ignored them. The administration has been very active in trying to find a multilateral solution to the North Korea problem, particularly by pushing China into taking action there because N. Korea is their puppet state and to a large extent their responsibility. North Korea doesn't want to talk to us, but they might listen to China. Would you prefer that we invade them too?

Dave

Dave,

Nixon was on the verge of being impeached due to his Watergate coverup, and Clinton was impeached for lying about having sexual relationships with "that woman".

Now there is evidence that the Bush administration PURPOSELY deceived/lied to Congress, the American people, our allies and the UN.

I don't know what happened to my earlier post here, but John Dean and John Iredell said it best:

In an article published by John Dean in July of 2003, he warned:

�Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

It's important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned, he was about to be impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and FBI. After Watergate, all presidents are on notice that manipulating or misusing any agency of the executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of presidential power.�

James Iredell, a future Supreme Court justice speaking at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 said,

"... must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate. He is to regulate all intercourse with foreign powers, and it is his duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives. If it should appear that he has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them, -- in this case, I ask whether, upon an impeachment for a misdemeanor upon such an account, the Senate would probably favor him."

>>Now there is evidence that the Bush administration PURPOSELY deceived/lied to Congress, the American people, our allies and the UN.<<

Ok, let's see the evidence of a clear, demonstrable and conscious lie. I won't hold my breath while I wait.

>>I don't know what happened to my earlier post here, but John Dean and John Iredell said it best:<<

John Dean, the most self-serving liar of the last 40 years or so?

>>It's important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned, he was about to be impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and FBI. After Watergate, all presidents are on notice that manipulating or misusing any agency of the executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of presidential power.<<

Sure, but choosing to make one argument over another, and presenting what are believed to be perfectly good justifications for military action that later turn out to be partially mistaken is by no means the same as lying to Congress.

Dave

>>>Sure, but choosing to make one argument over another, and presenting what are believed to be perfectly good justifications for military action that later turn out to be partially mistaken is by no means the same as lying to Congress.<<<

Go ahead and dismiss John Dean if you want to, but I'd say he's an expert on "Terms of Impeachment" :P

However, the president is required to be forthcoming with all information, not merely cherry picked intelligence when wanting to go to war and giving evidence. You cleverly neglected addressing James Iredell's writing:

James Iredell, a future Supreme Court justice speaking at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 said. When writing about impeachment of the president, he said

>>>"...[The President] must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate. He is to regulate all intercourse with foreign powers, and it is his duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives. If it should appear that he has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them, -- in this case, I ask whether, upon an impeachment for a misdemeanor upon such an account, the Senate would probably favor him."<<<

The president is privy to more intelligence than the senate. The Downing Street Memo clearly shows that the "true state of things been disclosed to them". The Bush Administration purpusely "fixed the facts around the policy".

The Downing Street Memo is the "smoking gun"

oops I can't edit. My second to last paragraph should have read,

The Downing Street memo clearly shows that the Bush Administration "has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence"

The Downing St. Memo states the Bush administrations was going to, "fix the facts around the policy". [The policy being regime change, which is not a legal basis to go to war]

The Senate "would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them"


The Downing Street Memo is the "smoking gun"

>>However, the president is required to be forthcoming with all information, not merely cherry picked intelligence when wanting to go to war and giving evidence. <<

The congress had full access to the sources and intelligence agencies which gathered the information they were given. They held hearings and asked questions. What exactly was being hidden from them? Are you saying there was a vast conspiracy of all the intelligence agencies in several countries to deceive our congress? Let's get real here.

>>You cleverly neglected addressing James Iredell's writing:<<

Wasn't being clever. I find the quote ambiguous and not necessarily applicable.

The main problem is this bit:

"induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them"

Which doesn't necessarily apply here and might be too subjective to ever apply. There's no clear injury to the country which can be objectively proven here, and we can't be sure congress wouldn't have voted the same way if the administration had taken a different tack in presenting the Iraq War to them.

>>The Downing Street memo clearly shows that the Bush Administration "has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence"<<

It really doesn't.

>>The Downing St. Memo states the Bush administrations was going to, "fix the facts around the policy". [The policy being regime change, which is not a legal basis to go to war] <<

The policy was not just regime change, but stabilization of the region. And the short term objective could have been anything at all. Saddam was more than deserving of invasion regardless of the WMDs.

As for the fixing the facts, I still don't think that wording means what you think it does. Other interpretations make a lot more sense.

>>The Senate "would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them"<<

Then the Senate are fools.

>>The Downing Street Memo is the "smoking gun"<<

Hardly. There's a reason why no one is making much of it.

Dave

>>The congress had full access to the sources and intelligence agencies which gathered the information they were given. They held hearings and asked questions. What exactly was being hidden from them? Are you saying there was a vast conspiracy of all the intelligence agencies in several countries to deceive our congress? Let's get real here.<<

That's exactly what the Downing St. Memo implies.

>>Which doesn't necessarily apply here and might be too subjective to ever apply. There's no clear injury to the country which can be objectively proven here,<<

The spending of over 300 billion dollars of taxpayer money is "injurious" to the United States.

The huge, ballooning deficits resulting in foreign countries holding IOUs is "injurious" to the United States.

The loss of our soldiers lives, blood and limbs is "injurious" to the United States.

>> and we can't be sure congress wouldn't have voted the same way if the administration had taken a different tack in presenting the Iraq War to them.<<

In his State of the Union Address on January 28, 2003, President Bush reported:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

Bush Administration was warned by the CIA not to use that information before delivering the speech.
The administration ignored the 36,000 page reports by the UN weapons inspectors claiming there were no WMDs.


No WMDs were found after the war, just as the UN didn't find them before the war.

That's like a cop/prosecutor planting evidence, or a lawyer not complying with a discovery motion, in order to prove the guilt of a defendant.

>>The policy was not just regime change, but stabilization of the region. And the short term objective could have been anything at all. Saddam was more than deserving of invasion regardless of the WMDs.<<

So far "stabilization" has been a complete failure, and is helping bin Laden create the Middle East Islamic Caliphate that he desires.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/10/01247/557


Regime change is not a legal basis to go to war. You can't depose a leader because you don't like him.


>>
Hardly. There's a reason why no one is making much of it.<<

When the Watergate break-in was first reported by the Washington Post, it was a small, back-page story.

The memo is a total "smoking gun", it indicates how Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq long before 9/11, which is also clearly stated in the Project for New American Century's statement of purpose, signed by many top republicans now serving in the Bush administration (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc). The issue is not really why Bush wanted to invade Iraq, because even before this memo, that was allready abundantly clear. The real issue is that he lied about his intentions to the American people, and used Sept. 11th to justify a long sought after neo-con objective.

>>That's exactly what the Downing St. Memo implies.<<

What the memo implies is entirely subjective. It's not what the memo actually says.

>>The spending of over 300 billion dollars of taxpayer money is "injurious" to the United States.<<

Not if they get fewer terrorist attacks in the future as a result. That's value received for money paid.

>>The huge, ballooning deficits resulting in foreign countries holding IOUs is "injurious" to the United States.<<

Most people think foreign investment in the US is generally a good thing.

>>The loss of our soldiers lives, blood and limbs is "injurious" to the United States.<<

Again, it's a price paid and as long as we receive something worthwhile for the price paid, it's not injurious.

>>That's like a cop/prosecutor planting evidence, or a lawyer not complying with a discovery motion, in order to prove the guilt of a defendant. <<

No, it's not. It's like a cop or prosecuter getting a search warrant on probable cause and then not finding any evidence when he does the search.

>>So far "stabilization" has been a complete failure, and is helping bin Laden create the Middle East Islamic Caliphate that he desires.<<

Completely untrue. See my upcoming post on the reality of the current situation in Iraq.

>>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/10/01247/557<<

LOL, Daily Kos. Want to link me to the Disney Fairytopia Drawing Fun site too?

>>Regime change is not a legal basis to go to war. You can't depose a leader because you don't like him.<<

How about if he commits genocide? Check this out as an alternative to Daily Candyfloss - http://www.massgraves.info

Dave

Well Dave,

Seeing as you so strongly support this illegal war in Iraq, may I ask if you are now serving int the military? Or, are you enlisting soon?

Recruiting goals are falling short and now with the stop-loss program, the military could sure use your help.

Support Our Troops.

Enlist.

>>Seeing as you so strongly support this illegal war in Iraq, may I ask if you are now serving int the military? Or, are you enlisting soon?<<

Bingo. You lose. The chickenhawk argument is the last resort of a leftist scoundrel. Shame, shame. You should know better.

Dave

The shame, sir, is yours. Not mine.

When the Downing St. Memo is finally covered by the mainstream media, and the smoke settles, I will be proven right.

I look forward to your Iraq alternative reality article.

>>How about if he commits genocide? Check this out as an alternative to Daily Candyfloss - http://www.massgraves.info<<

BTW, genocide was not the reason given to go to war. If we were that upset over it, we would have gone into Iraq years earlier.

The Sudan would be under our occupation as well.

Ever heard of something called 'national interest', Pryderi. Look it up sometime. It's the cornerstone of any sensible foreign policy.

Dave

>>Ever heard of something called 'national interest', Pryderi. Look it up sometime. It's the cornerstone of any sensible foreign policy.
<<

So what are you saying? That deposing a leader that commits genocide is in the "national interest"?

Or, is the proliferation of WMDs in the national interest of the US?

Dave,

Dave, I'm sure JFK has told some whopper lies, and serious ones, but the American public wasn't as aware of them as they are of GWB's lies. I don't doubt that JFK embezzled millions of dollars, or that he paid out money to his friends or any other underhanded things. But we didn't know at the time.
Regardless of who lies most, or who has lied the worst in the past, the point is this;

We have caught George bush in several serious lies in the past few years. These lies have cost America dearly, both in terms of the world's perception of us, and in terms of economy. These lies have been incredibly public and obvious. I've have never seen a population, a media, so cynical about politics. Most people I know are really pissed at the political situation right now, and feel they have no control. Politicians don't have to all be liars and corrupt cheats. We can demand some integrity.

We have to kick George bush out and send a clear message that when we catch you lying, we punish you. If the next president gets caught in a lie, then we do the same to him. Anything else is unethical on out part.

Sydney, we have yet to reach a consensus that these lies you talk about even exist. That's purely a matter of opinion, because as yet there's no evidence - certainly not in this memo - to prove anything of the sort.

What they've cost us is also pretty debatable. The enmity of leftist extremists and terrorists around the world isn't exactly something to be too broken up about, and right now it looks like th economy is doiing pretty darned well.

If most people you know are pissed, then you need to widen and diversify your circle of friends. Lots of people don't think things are as bleak as you do.

As for comparisons with JFK, while he was alive the media helped him cover up his questionable activities. They haven't done that for Bush at all. And even so, the things people are trying to pin on Bush are trivial, slap-on-the-wrist offenses, even if they had any evidence to support them.

Like I said in the first place, there's a lot of smoke, but no gun.

Dave

Even if you don't see a gun, there's enough smoke to start an investigation in order to find it.

We've got plenty of dead bodies to warrant an investigation.

Hell, how many years and how much money was spent to find a Clinton lie in order to impeach him?

Re: Comment 24

Maurice, perhaps the reason no one responded to your comment is simply because it's irrelevant. Bush is not an historical figure (yet). There is little we can do about the evil that men have done, except remember, mourn and learn. The evil that men will do, however, that we must see and stand up against.

There are outstanding questions which are brought to light again by the publication of these minutes. As an employee of the US, Bush is responsible for answering these questions as honestly as he can.

Pryderi, we already HAD an investigation. Ever hear of the 911 commission? Go read the report.

Dave

correction, Mr Nalle

the INvestigation had to do with the incident of 9/11 itself..even those on the Commision have stated their field of Investigation had limits

and we both know it had nothing to do with Iraq, etc...

when we have a bi-partisan commision to look into this stuff...then you can put it to bed

i always love it when some "conservatives" toss aside the 4 years and 46 million tax dollars spent on investigating a land deal that wound up being about a blowjob...ALL for political gain on behalf of the GOP...who then stammer and discount the need for the public to have an Investigation about the blatant infractions that the current Administration is directly Responsible for

/end twaddle

Excelsior!

Hel-lo - 911 had to do with Iraq someone says? It's safe to say, the 911 commission, in any case, didn't have access to these minutes.

I hate when someone tries to shut down questioning without having tried to ask any themselves.

>>Pryderi, we already HAD an investigation. Ever hear of the 911 commission? Go read the report.

Dave<<

Yes, I am very aware of the report, and that's exactly why the Downing St. Memo is so important.

Gonzo: "i always love it when some "conservatives" toss aside the 4 years and 46 million tax dollars spent on investigating a land deal that wound up being about a blowjob...ALL for political gain on behalf of the GOP...who then stammer and discount the need for the public to have an Investigation about the blatant infractions that the current Administration is directly Responsible for"

Now Gonzo, you know I didn't support that investigation, neither its objectives or the money spent on it.

Temp: "I hate when someone tries to shut down questioning without having tried to ask any themselves."

But I don't have any questions. It all seems pretty straightforward and self-explanatory to me.

Dave

Mr Nalle..my sardonic Wit was not aimed at you on this occasion

i know it is difficult to break olde habits...but believe it or not, i do tend to give you the benefit of the Doubt..

hence my use of the modifier "some"

see?..i do learn and Remember..

{8^P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Excelsior!

Bush is a fucking criminal
plain and simple.!
You Fucking TWITS that basiclly
lick his boots and support this
fucking criminal cabal are just as guilty as sin.
We are many here in the U.S.
that see through the smoke and mirrors
of shrubs crimes against our republic.
It would do you well to wake the fuck up
for yourselfs before it is too
late.

cheers,jeers and beers.

I'm with sydney 150%. The problem is, it's only a minority seems to be incensed by the blatant lies, spin, stonewalling, and conniving, and some (like Dave) even deny totally that there have been any lies, spin, stonewalling and conniving...or if they admit it, it bothers them not at all - which really is appalling, almost as appalling as the fact that the current administration has no problem resorting to such tactics first instead of last for any situation lately. What is wrong with the public - and the media - that ANY kind of shenanigans such as these are not only tolerated, but shrugged at?! 'Oh, so what - every president has done it'- what kind of attitude is that?! This isn't about partisanship - on my part, anyway - it's about honesty in government and those elected to public office being held to standards of integrity, at least to the people of the country they are supposed to be serving. Bush wants to lie to Korea or the French, fine. He's not president of Korea or France. But to lie to me, or pull the old "from a certain point of view" crap of Obi-Wan Kenobi? That puts him beyond the pale, and as far as I'm concerned, it should put him in front of a firing squad for treason. Furthermore, it kills me to see my former political party hijacked by such scum. They have brought it so low thru their manipulations, it isn't recognizable any more, nor is it viable for anyone having any decency, honor, honesty, or ethics - despite Bush's loud ballyhooing about same. Baloney. Bush wouldn't know honesty or ethics if they leaped up and bit him in the nuts; the history of his dealings throughout his life testifies to this, as does the company he keeps...and I don't refer to Laura.