I decided this needed its own thread...

Quote :

"Later today RawStory.com will be posting an article that they have been researching for several days. Six new secret British documents have been leaked and made widely available on the internet, including via the links below. These were retyped from the originals to protect the source, but RawStory.com has verified the authenticity and will be reporting on that research, on the significance of the documents, and on the timeline of the events illuminated by this information, known to the British media but new on this side of the pond. "

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=205&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

"path to war timeline" based on memos
http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/muriel/path_of_war_timeline_613.htm

http://www.rawstory.com/ (to find the memos in non-pdf form)

nbc news verifies the memos:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8207731

"Iraq Options Paper," UK Overseas and Defense Secretariat, March 8, 2002

The greater investment of Western forces, the greater our control over Iraq's future, but the greater the cost and the longer we would need to stay. The only certain means to remove Saddam and his elite is to invade and impose a new government, but this could involve nation building over many years. Even a representative government could seek to acquire WMD and build-up its conventional forces, so long as Iran and Israel retain their WMD and conventional armouries and there was no acceptable solution to the Palestinian grievances.

SIGNIFICANCE: UK government anticipated "nation building over many years," in contradiction to public case by Bush administration. British also believed Iraq might acquire WMD without Saddam Hussein in power.

We have looked at three options for regime change...

OPTION 3: A GROUND CAMPAIGN

The aim would be to launch a full-scale ground offensive... A pro-Western regime would be installed... The optimal times to start action are early spring.

SIGNIFICANCE: Timing of invasion already set in March 2002. Aim is not an Iraq which can democratically choose its policies, but a "pro-Western regime."

Most Iraqis see the INC/INA as Western stooges.

SIGNIFICANCE: The head of the INC (Iraqi National Congress) was Ahmed Chalabi; Chalabi is now acting Oil Minister of Iraq. The head of the INA (Iraqi National Accord) was Ayad Allawi; Allawi was Prime Minister of the Iraqi Interim government from June 1, 2004-April 7, 2005.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/ods020308.pdf

• "Iraq: Legal Background," UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, March 8, 2002

The US... maintain that the assessment of breach [of UN resolutions] is for individual member States. We are not aware of any other State which supports this view.

SIGNIFICANCE: Bush administration's interpretation of international law, which eventually invoked for the invasion, was so bizarre it was not shared by any other nation on earth (including UK).

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/fcolegal020308.pdf

• Memo from David Manning (Foreign Policy Advisor to Blair) to Blair on Manning's Dinner with Condoleezza Rice, March 14, 2002

I said you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion... Condi's enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed.... Bush has yet to find the answers to the big questions:... what happens on the morning after?

SIGNIFICANCE: Aim was always regime change. Bush had no plan for future of Iraq.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/manning020314.pdf

• Memo from Christopher Meyer (UK Ambassador to US) to David Manning on Meyer's lunch with Wolfowitz, March 18, 2002

"On Iraq I opened by sticking very closely to the script that you used with Condi Rice last week. We backed regime change, but the plan had to be clever and failure was not an option. It would be a tough sell for us domestically, and probably tougher elsewhere in Europe. The US could go it alone if it wanted to. But if it wanted to act with partners, there had to be a strategy for building support for military action against Saddam. I then went through the need to wrongfoot Saddam on the inspectors and the UN SCRs and the critical importance of the MEPP as an integral part of the anti-Saddam strategy. If all this could be accomplished skillfully, we were fairly confident that a number of countries would come on board."

SIGNIFICANCE: UN process was a sham for Blair's sake; aim was not disarmament but regime change, which had already been decided on.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/meyer020318.pdf

• Memo from Peter Ricketts (Political Director, UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office) to Jack Straw (UK Foreign Secretary), March 22, 2002

For Iraq, "regime change" does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam. Much better, as you have suggested, to make the objective ending the threat to the international community from Iraqi WMD...

SIGNIFICANCE: Aim was regime change, but that wouldn't sell; WMD issue was useful for PR reasons.

US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al [Q]aida is so far frankly unconvincing.

SIGNIFICANCE: Even UK government at the highest levels believed the Bush administration claims of an Iraq-Al Qaida links were false.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/ricketts020322.pdf

• Memo from Jack Straw to Blair, March 25, 2002

We have also to answer the big question—what will this action achieve?... [no US assessment] has satisfactorily answered how that regime change is to be secured, and how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be better.

SIGNIFICANCE: UK government at its highest levels did not believe the US had any plan to be certain a new Iraqi government would be an improvement on Saddam and would not develop WMD.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/straw020325.pdf

[Edited on June 14, 2005 at 4:05 PM. Reason : .]

6/14/2005 4:05:24 PM

http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=318500&page=3

6/14/2005 4:06:10 PM

yeah, like i said, needed its own thread.

6/14/2005 4:14:38 PM

Cliffs notes:

UK government anticipated "nation building over many years," in contradiction to public case by Bush administration. British also believed Iraq might acquire WMD without Saddam Hussein in power.

Timing of invasion already set in March 2002. Aim is not an Iraq which can democratically choose its policies, but a "pro-Western regime."

The head of the INC was Ahmed Chalabi; Chalabi is now acting Oil Minister of Iraq. The head of the INA as Ayad Allawi; Allawi was Prime Minister of the Iraqi Interim government from June 1, 2004-April 7, 2005. (I don't really see the significance of this part)

Bush administration's interpretation of international law, which eventually invoked for the invasion, was so bizarre it was not shared by any other nation on earth (including UK).

Aim was always regime change. Bush had no plan for future of Iraq.

UN process was a sham for Blair's sake; aim was not disarmament but regime change, which had already been decided on.

Aim was regime change, but that wouldn't sell; WMD issue was useful for PR reasons.

Even UK government at the highest levels believed the Bush administration claims of an Iraq-Al Qaida links were false.

UK government at its highest levels did not believe the US had any plan to be certain a new Iraqi government would be an improvement on Saddam and would not develop WMD.


Theres nothing horribly surprising - basically that Bush wanted to get rid of Saddam since the beginning of his administration, I'm sure that most people suspected this already. I'd like to see whether or not these can be verified.

6/14/2005 4:25:01 PM

Quote :

"Theres nothing horribly surprising - basically that Bush wanted to get rid of Saddam since the beginning of his administration, I'm sure that most people suspected this already. I'd like to see whether or not these can be verified."

So you agree that Bush lied to Congress in order for Congress to fund and give its permission to invade Iraq.

That is an impeachable offense. Subversion of the US Constitution.

Quote :

"If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.) Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you. (Applause.) Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come. We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail. (Applause.) "

[Edited on June 14, 2005 at 4:33 PM. Reason : http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html]

6/14/2005 4:28:18 PM

Here we go again....

Quote :

"So you agree that Bush lied to Congress in order for Congress to fund and give its permission to invade Iraq."

Once again, your reading comprehension has failed you. Where exactly did I say that?

6/14/2005 4:33:54 PM

Quote :

"basically that Bush wanted to get rid of Saddam since the beginning of his administration, I'm sure that most people suspected this already. I'd like to see whether or not these can be verified."

Quote :

""We're Taking Him Out" Posted Sunday, May. 05, 2002 His war on Iraq may be delayed, but Bush still vows to remove Saddam. Here's a look at White House plans"

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,235395,00.html

There are tons of evidence. How can Bush say he will use military force as a last resort, when he knows damn well he'll find a reason to invade?

6/14/2005 4:38:16 PM

ive said it before and ill say it again, i think its highly likely that bush fed us a lot of things that werent true, but until you can demonstrate to me that his motives for the war were evil or self interested i consider those lies to be acceptable, because i think saddy had to go and that no matter how good the other reasons were the country wouldnt OK the war unless we felt personally threatened by WMD or ready for vengeance over 9-11. if thats the bullshit that had to be fed to the masses to get them to support what i continue to believe was a just war, then the ends justify the means, and i wouldve done the same. ditto, incidentally, for any fdr pearl harbor conspiracy.

6/14/2005 8:57:10 PM

dangerous policy... if that's acceptable, then why do we need checks and balances? well, i guess in this case we didn't really have them...Bush did what he had to to avoid major opposition, and you agree with that. just put someone in there and for 4 years, let him do what he thinks is right, regardless of what everyone else thinks. term limit dictators.

6/14/2005 9:25:54 PM

Quote :

" i consider those lies to be acceptable"

so

lies to get a war started - ok

lies to get elected - OMGFLIP FLOP

6/14/2005 9:47:39 PM

^^^ As bad as it sounds, GrumpyGOP makes an interesting point. War is a tough sell these day. Even if there was a dictator that shot babies like skeet on live television every day, there would many people that would strongly oppose ousting him. Even if our mainland was being invaded, there are plenty that would just leave rather than fight.(Is dirt worth dying for?[/devils advocate])

Churchill sacrificed the Lusitania and initiated hunger blockades with terrible civilian consequences in WWI. In WWII he was responsible for the carpet bombing of Germany and France that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians(the A-bomb attacks paled in comparison) and personally ordered the sinking of the French navy after the fall of France. Despite all this and his countless more subtle evils, he is still regarded as the most beloved Prime Minister. In some instances the people will respect leaders willing to make tough immoral decisions for the greater good. It had better be a MUCH greater good though.

[Edited on June 14, 2005 at 10:17 PM. Reason : .]

6/14/2005 9:54:34 PM

The problem is, your comparing the "might" of Iraq to the *might* of Germany..

There really is no comparison or basis to draw the conclusion that the ends justify the means when the ends with Germany (controlling the whole of Europe) and Iraq (not having WMD, generally not threatening it's neighbors, etc) are so completely different.

[Edited on June 15, 2005 at 8:06 AM. Reason : -these]

6/15/2005 8:05:44 AM

Quote :

"ive said it before and ill say it again, i think its highly likely that bush fed us a lot of things that werent true, but until you can demonstrate to me that his motives for the war were evil or self interested i consider those lies to be acceptable, because i think saddy had to go and that no matter how good the other reasons were the country wouldnt OK the war unless we felt personally threatened by WMD or ready for vengeance over 9-11. if thats the bullshit that had to be fed to the masses to get them to support what i continue to believe was a just war, then the ends justify the means, and i wouldve done the same. ditto, incidentally, for any fdr pearl harbor conspiracy."

So you're supporting the deceit of Congress in order to get the permission and funding for the invasion of Iraq?

[Edited on June 15, 2005 at 9:55 AM. Reason : for]

6/15/2005 9:55:00 AM

^^ A supporter might argue that a nation no longer has to conquer the world to be a threat. Merely harboring terrorists is sufficient. But I don't really buy that personally.

6/15/2005 12:41:24 PM

^ Yes but then a supporter would have to prove that Iraq was harboring terrorists.. and even if they prove that, they would have to prove (in order to make a case for an invasion) that invading would actually reduce the ability of the nation to harbor terrorists (which, if anything, it appears has probably increased). Then you could also say that they would have to prove that the nation is harboring more terrorists than other nations (Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, etc)..

Either way, it is utterly stupid to compare the use of the doctrine of preventative warfare to the world situation in the 1940-50's and the world situation today.

6/15/2005 3:45:08 PM

don't forget the us harbors terrorists as well.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=2&q=http%3A//havanajournal.com/politics_comments/3351_0_5_0_M23/&ei=b5SwQuPWEMbSaPjMgdsI&sig2=rISScT7ptxnHbB6kEPU5CA

6/15/2005 4:51:04 PM

Conyers to hold hearing on all the Downing Street Documents tomorrow , live on C-SPAN3 @ 2:30PM

http://www.conyersblog.us/default.htm

Quote :

"A Busy Day Today, and an Important and Historical Day Tomorrow I just concluded a very busy day of interviews about the Downing Street Minutes. This morning, I appeared on the Democracy Now Radio and Television show with Amy Goodman, and... I just concluded a very busy day of interviews about the Downing Street Minutes. This morning, I appeared on the Democracy Now Radio and Television show with Amy Goodman, and NPR’s “All Things Considered” (taped for Thursday AM). I taped an interview with CNN’s Bill Schneider for “Inside Politics,” which I believe was broadcast later in the day. I had a very nice visit and interview with Dembloggers.com as well. Late in the day, I taped an interview for AP TV. (Also, lest you think Downing Street is all I am thinking about, I taped an interview with a group doing a very interesting documentary on Ohio 2004). The pace will not let up tomorrow either. At 9am, I will be on C-Span’s Washington Journal for a half hour. Shortly after 10, I will be appearing on Stephanie Miller’s show to break some news I am very excited about. Finally, at a time to be determined, I will appear on the Al Franken Show at 12:15pm. For those commenters who were concerned (or hoping) that there would be a media blackout of the forum, that will not be the case. I have every major network, other than Fox, bringing cameras to the hearing. Nightline is taping the event, which I think represents a welcome development from a well respected investigative program. In addition, C-Span 3 and Radio Pacifica are carrying it live. Member interest in the hearing has been stellar and participation is expected to be very high. My friends Jerry Nadler, Maxine Waters, Chris Van Hollen, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Sheila Jackson Lee, Barbara Lee, Jim McDermott, Lynn Woolsey, Major Owens, barney Frank, Cynthia McKinney, Corrine Brown, Jay Inslee, and Charlie Rangel are all likely to attend. A number of other Members are attempting to adjust their schedules to attend as well. There has been some confusion about where the event will be held. As some of you may be aware, the Republican majority on the Judiciary Committee will not allow me to use Committee space, as I have in the past, for this. As a result, I had to consider some other locations, all with pros and cons. In the end, I decided it was best to hold the hearing in the one official room that was available, a very small room in the basement of the Capitol (HC-9). I want the location to be one that is nonpartisan and one where any Republican member interested in attending can do so. Consequently, the time of the hearing has been changed to 2:30pm. Because of the lack of seating, I have created an overflow room, where the public can listen to or watch the hearing in the Wasserman Room of the DNC on South Capitol Street. I want people coming to DC to know that it is highly unlikely they will be able to get a seat in the hearing room, it is THAT small. Following the hearing, I will personally deliver a letter with stacks and stacks of signatures to the White House. This is the culmination of all of your efforts and I hope Thursday makes you very proud. I also hope at the end of the day tomorrow, we will all feel that the truth has begun to be known by more and more Americans and that we are all re-invigorated to do the critical work that comes next. To review, here are the details: WHAT: Democratic Hearing on Downing Street Minutes and Pre-war intelligence WHEN: Thursday, June 16, 2005, 2:30pm WHERE: HC-9 The Capitol (Overflow Room – 430 S. Capitol Street, SE – The Wasserman Room) WITNESSES: Joe Wilson, Former Ambassador and WMD Expert Ray McGovern, 27-year CIA analyst who prepared regular Presidential briefings during the Reagan administration Cindy Sheehan, mother of fallen American soldier John Bonifaz, renown constitutional lawyer "

[Edited on June 15, 2005 at 10:01 PM. Reason : http://www.conyersblog.us/default.htm]

6/15/2005 9:59:01 PM

Quote :

"i consider those lies to be acceptable"

(sums up the American public and politics, 2005)

6/16/2005 9:01:11 AM

Not all lies are acceptable. That particular set, however, strikes me as such.

Dont you all try to act now like youve got such a strong intrinsic moral objection to the act of saying something untrue.

6/17/2005 12:58:21 PM

uh, what would make you think I don't have that intrinsic objection?

6/17/2005 1:52:47 PM

You're human.

6/17/2005 1:54:23 PM

oh, i see

so humans are intrinsically liars?

you must lead a very untrusting and sad existence.

I certainly am against lying. That's not to say that I've never done it, but I certainly try not to. I believe honesty is much easier than lying if nothing else - it's not even moral really. when you lie, eventually you either get caught or you feel bad

[Edited on June 17, 2005 at 1:59 PM. Reason : .]

6/17/2005 1:59:21 PM

If something is important enough, everyone lies. If you're a politician or a salesman, you lie constantly. It's part of the job description. I don't condemn them for it, but if I denied that it happens I would be kidding myself.

[Edited on June 17, 2005 at 2:04 PM. Reason : typo]

6/17/2005 2:03:10 PM

but i'm NOT a salesperson or a politician, partially for those exact reasons

your original point still goes argued against - it is not an intrinsically human thing to lie.

6/17/2005 2:07:12 PM

The wingnuts are getting desperate. Captain's Quarters, in a nostalgic attempt to recreate the glories of Rathergate, suggests that the Downing Street Memos aren't real. Why? Because Michael Smith, the reporter who got hold of them, had them retyped to protect his source and then returned the originals. Jonah Goldberg feverishly calls CQ's revelations a "must read."

Now, unlike the Killian memos that were at the center of Rathergate, there are quite a few principals in this case who either wrote or received these memos and therefore have absolute knowledge of whether or not they're genuine. The first memo, for example, was written by Matthew Rycroft and distributed at the time to David Manning, Geoff Hoon, Jack Straw, Peter Goldsmith, Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, Richard Dearlove, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, and Alastair Campbell. So far, not a single one of these people has claimed they're fake.

Here's Tony Blair himself on May 1, the day the first memo was published:

In a Sunday morning television interview, Mr. Blair did not deny that the meeting took place in July 2002, but he recalled that "subsequent to that meeting, we went the United Nations route," seeking a resolution in November 2002, calling on the Iraqi government to disarm.

Here's Knight Ridder on May 5:

A former senior U.S. official called it "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during the senior British intelligence officer's visit to Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity.

Here's the Washington Post on June 12:

Excerpts were made available to The Washington Post, and the material was confirmed as authentic by British sources who sought anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the matter.

Give it up, guys. They're real.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006537.php

[Edited on June 20, 2005 at 10:43 AM. Reason : ,]

6/20/2005 10:43:08 AM

Quote :

"A former senior U.S. official "

???

actually....Yoda told me they were not real soooo......

6/20/2005 10:45:28 AM

Quote :

"so humans are intrinsically liars?"

yes

i suppose i shouldnt be surprised that the anarchist wants to drown himself in delusions of widespread human decency

Quote :

"uh, what would make you think I don't have that intrinsic objection?"

because i dont hear you complain about other lies. you complain about THIS one. your objection is to the war, plain and simple. at the end of the day, the means used to get us into it dont matter to you, just like they dont matter to pryderi. if everyone had spoken the golden-tongued truth from day one, that we wanted to invade Iraq just because it was run by monsters who needed to be ousted, youd still be complaining, youd just have to do it from a slightly different angle.

Take out the lie part, and all you do is go from, ´´when clinton lied, no one died!´´ to the less catchy, ´´´bush kills people!´´

6/22/2005 12:04:45 PM

Quote :

"if everyone had spoken the golden-tongued truth from day one, that we wanted to invade Iraq just because it was run by monsters who needed to be ousted, youd still be complaining, youd just have to do it from a slightly different angle."

You don't know that. Do you believe Congress would have authorized an all-out invasion and occupation of Iraq, based on ousting a monster?

I'm all for "ousting monsters", as long as it's an operation similar to Kosovo when we had UN and NATO support.

6/22/2005 12:21:27 PM

Quote :

"I'm all for "ousting monsters", as long as it's an operation similar to Kosovo when we had UN and NATO support. a democrat in office."

6/22/2005 12:25:49 PM

But thats bullshit, too, judging from your comments in the vietnam thread.

and you like kosovo because not many people got hurt, and because it was your boy that did it. international support doesnt have anything to do with it, and justification CERTAINLY has nothing to do with it

6/22/2005 12:32:38 PM

Quote :

" (b) all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030522-15.html

There is the difference between Kosovo and Iraq.

6/22/2005 1:11:25 PM

wide threads are the work of turrists

6/22/2005 1:22:06 PM

Quote :

"because i dont hear you complain about other lies."

this is so fallacious. firstly, I certainly DO complain about other lies. however, the lies that the president uses to get us into a war are, to me, some of the most important and most necessary to point out. I also complain about lies that hurt our environment, try to force religious silliness on our children in school, and the like.

you've heard me complain about PLENTY of lies. And as far as the clinton thing goes, when clinton was president, I wasn't even in school (well, I was for a semester), so I certainly wasn't on TWW complaining about him. However, young as I was, I was opposed to his bombing campaings in Iraq to the best of my limited knowledge and opinions at the time. I didn't really become politically aware until the 2000 elections when, by the way, I voted for harry browne. Not al gore.

6/22/2005 2:16:14 PM

ok, pryderi, so now your line is that if iraq didnt have oil, you wouldnt be opposed to it. im just trying to keep track of your position, what with it changing so often.

and props to DirtyGreek for continuing to miss the obvious point.

6/23/2005 3:58:57 PM

no flash photography please

6/23/2005 4:00:40 PM

but we do want a statement nonetheless

6/23/2005 4:01:30 PM

look, DG, if lying really bothered you so much in and of itself, you woulve mentioned the whole ''lying about getting blown while conducting presidential business'' thing. but no. you went out of your way to AVOID mentioning that. what you dont like is war, and that's fine, i suppose, but dont try to make it more palatable to us by dressing it up as an opposition to lies.

6/23/2005 4:07:30 PM

what the fuck you fucking ridiculous crazy person? i have, many many times, mentioned that I hated the fact that clinton lied to the american people, that it was despicable, and that I was angry about it then (as angry as I could be seeing as I didn't follow politics back then).

however, lying about a blowjob and lying about a war are NOT equal

both are dispicable, one is worse than the other.

6/23/2005 4:08:59 PM

hard to believe, given the way you danced around mentioning it a couple of posts ago

6/23/2005 4:09:57 PM

what IN THE WORLD makes it necessary for me to mention the fact that clinton lied every time i say bush lied? CLINTON ISN'T PRESIDENT ANYMORE. now Bush is president, and now HIS lies are important.

ok? I'm sorry. from now on, every single time I point out a bush lie I'll be FUCKING SURE to point out that clinton lied last decade in order to make sure that YOU can't say I'm not objective

you're ridiculous

6/23/2005 4:13:21 PM

way to get into a pissy fit, but lets look at the post, shall we?

Quote :

"And as far as the clinton thing goes, when clinton was president, I wasn't even in school (well, I was for a semester), so I certainly wasn't on TWW complaining about him. However, young as I was, I was opposed to his bombing campaings in Iraq to the best of my limited knowledge and opinions at the time."

Doesnt this seem like the kind of place that BEGS mention of the lies im referring to? why yes it does. i mean, youre listing the things youre opposed to that he did and theyre all...wars. the discussion is about lies, and you mention...wars. because thats what youre opposed to.

come back to the thread when your uterus stops bleeding, man.

6/23/2005 4:15:38 PM

THAT'S BECAUSE THE FUCKING THREAD IS ABOUT WARS

if we were discussing whether george bush should be punished for lying about infidelity or somethign equally benign, I would have brought that up if it was relevant.

what you're doing here is just looking for some way to discredit me, which is dishonest, or you're being stupid, which is stupid.

fuck you.

[Edited on June 23, 2005 at 4:23 PM. Reason : .]

6/23/2005 4:23:19 PM

someone with more experience in feminine hygiene products please help DG out, thanks

the thread may be about wars, but we were quite clearly in a discussion about lies and your opinion thereof. it isnt exactly the first time dicussion in a thread has drifted.

i mentioned clinton in the context of his lies, not his wars. you responded with ''as far as the clinton thing goes.'' now, how in the world did i get the wrong idea about what you were talking about?

and im not trying to discredit any damn body at the moment, im trying to discredit the practice of complaining about the iraq war for reasons that are distinct from those that actually motivate your opposition on the grounds that they will be more palatable to a populace that isnt nearly so damn pacifistic. this is, however, especially bad for you, since youve made it known that youre just opposed to all wars, all the time. why even bother with talking about the lies behind the war, then?

look at what ive said here in other threads -- if bush had straight up told you why he was invading iraq, you would still be rabidly opposed to the whole endeavor, meaning that the lies, such as they are, really make no difference.

6/23/2005 4:29:50 PM

Quote :

"if bush had straight up told you why he was invading iraq, you would still be rabidly opposed to the whole endeavor, meaning that the lies, such as they are, really make no difference."

and had george w. bush be thoroughly honest about the iraq war, then congress would not have given him the authority to go to war, but as it stands, bush lied to congress about the war

6/23/2005 4:35:10 PM

Quote :

"and had george w. bush be thoroughly honest about the iraq war, then congress would not have given him the authority to go to war, but as it stands, bush lied to congress about the war"

Are you saying that GWB subverted the US Constitution and should be impeached?

Quote :

"From Memos, Insights Into Ally's Doubts On Iraq War British Advisers Foresaw Variety of Risks, Problems By Glenn Frankel Washington Post Foreign Service Tuesday, June 28, 2005; A01 LONDON -- In the spring of 2002, two weeks before British Prime Minister Tony Blair journeyed to Crawford, Tex., to meet with President Bush at his ranch about the escalating confrontation with Iraq, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw sounded a prescient warning. "The rewards from your visit to Crawford will be few," Straw wrote in a March 25 memo to Blair stamped "Secret and Personal." "The risks are high, both for you and for the Government." In public, British officials were declaring their solidarity with the Bush administration's calls for elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But Straw's memo and seven other secret documents disclosed in recent months by British journalist Michael Smith together reveal a much different picture. Behind the scenes, British officials believed the U.S. administration was already committed to a war that they feared was ill-conceived and illegal and could lead to disaster. The documents indicate that the officials foresaw a host of problems that later would haunt both governments -- including thin intelligence about the nature of the Iraqi threat, weak public support for war and a lack of planning for the aftermath of military action. British cabinet ministers, Foreign Office diplomats, senior generals and intelligence service officials all weighed in with concerns and reservations. Yet they could not dissuade their counterparts in the Bush administration -- nor, indeed, their own leader -- from going forward. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062701584_pf.html

6/28/2005 7:29:26 AM

fuck the gulf of tonkin

6/28/2005 9:45:25 AM

^Did GWB deceive both Congress and the American people in order to invade Iraq?

6/28/2005 9:47:19 AM

Quote :

"and had george w. bush be thoroughly honest about the iraq war, then congress would not have given him the authority to go to war, but as it stands, bush lied to congress about the war"

That´s hardly a sure thing. If something as obviously flimsy as WMD got them to sign off, I fail to see why alternatives wouldnt.

6/28/2005 1:14:25 PM

^wow. Nevermind that WMD was just about the biggest way they hypothetically could have posed a threat to us. I suppose playing fast and loose with the most important logical reason for any invasion of Iraq ain't no thang if you are a pathological liar.

[Edited on June 28, 2005 at 7:01 PM. Reason : sdfs]

6/28/2005 7:00:04 PM

I guess Bush bought every person involved within the CIA a geo metro in order to keep them quiet.

6/28/2005 8:04:46 PM