Top Secret British Memo reveals BushAdmin was spinning Iraq!

[Da Lone-Warrior]

This article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html) from the TimesonLine is purportedly a memo that circulated in the Blair Administration in England in July 2002.

Here are some excerpts: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.

Some people say we ought to demand a further investigation (http://www.usalone.com/warlies.htm).

I think that would be a worthwhile thing to do. There were other options besides immediate regime change wrt Iraq and it would be good to expose those that were most responsible for the manipulation of the US( I believe this would probably turn out to be Dick Cheney.).

dlw

[Duder]

The deception brought to light by this memo does not surprise me. What does surprise me is how this deception is accepted by American voters. Two presidents in my memory fell down because Americans no longer believed them - Johnson and Nixon. But I guess our values have changed - we no longer demand that our presidents be believable.

Edit/add:
It appears the British government essetially confirms the memo as genuine.

The United States Congress sent a letter to Bush about the memo:
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/letters/bushsecretmemoltr5505.pdf

[jason]

Are you sure you are understanding the line ...

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

... correctly ?

You are accusing the Bush administration of some coverup and fabrication, but this "incriminating sentence" could be read as the intelligence being finalised about the event.

Which would render your whole coverup and conspiracy so much hype about nothing.

You may be right, this may be a smoking gun, but only if the sentence means exactly what you are claiming it means. Something not at all demonstrated.

Jason

[Duder]

Are you sure you are understanding the line ...

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

... correctly ?

You are accusing the Bush administration of some coverup and fabrication, but this "incriminating sentence" could be read as the intelligence being finalised about the event.

Which would render your whole coverup and conspiracy so much hype about nothing.

You may be right, this may be a smoking gun, but only if the sentence means exactly what you are claiming it means. Something not at all demonstrated.

Jason

Pretty plain to me, Jason. The Bush administration had its mind made to invade while at the same time telling the American people it would only do so as a last resort. The policy to invade is what the facts and the intelligence were being fixed around.

There will be no investigation. The right wing controls too much of the govenment. This will be an historical embarassment, nothing more.

[DivineOb]

Christians often accuse nonbelievers of being 'conveniently confused' when it comes to interpreting the bible... I guess Jason demonstrates that that criticism goes both ways...

Bush ought to be impeached at the minimum, and, if there is justice in the world, be tried for at least manslaughter in the deaths of the ~150k he has participated in.

[Darth Executor]

Christians often accuse nonbelievers of being 'conveniently confused' when it comes to interpreting the bible... I guess Jason demonstrates that that criticism goes both ways...

Bush ought to be impeached at the minimum, and, if there is justice in the world, be tried for at least manslaughter in the deaths of the ~150k he has participated in.

What 150k?

[Captain Ochre]

Christians often accuse nonbelievers of being 'conveniently confused' when it comes to interpreting the bible... I guess Jason demonstrates that that criticism goes both ways...

How so? Jason merely noted that the ambiguous term "fixed" was the entire key to the understanding of the memo lauded by LW and Duder.
Duder's explanation? It's clear to him! :lol: Case closed.


Bush ought to be impeached at the minimum, and, if there is justice in the world, be tried for at least manslaughter in the deaths of the ~150k he has participated in.

What should be done to people who inflate the war casualty numbers from Iraq?
:huh:

:wink:

[Captain Ochre]

This article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html) from the TimesonLine is purportedly a memo that circulated in the Blair Administration in England in July 2002.

Here are some excerpts: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.

I'm just here to help out LW, since the promise of "some" excerpts seems to be unfulfilled by the provision of one excerpt.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_2,00.html
bold emphasis added.

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

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

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_2,00.html

Given that the memo itself reinforces the fact that the UK (and implicitly the US) believed that Iraq had WMD, what specific intelligence do we suggest was being "fixed"?

Ooh! Here's a juicy tidbit:
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_2,00.html


Some people say we ought to demand a further investigation (http://www.usalone.com/warlies.htm).

I suggest that they investigate the memo a bit further before bothering their government representatives.


I think that would be a worthwhile thing to do. There were other options besides immediate regime change wrt Iraq and it would be good to expose those that were most responsible for the manipulation of the US( I believe this would probably turn out to be Dick Cheney.).

:lol:

We've officially taken a logical leap that goes far beyond the memo.
Demand an investigation of Cheney! :rofl:

[jason]

Pretty plain to me, Jason.
Stick your head in the sand if you like. Words often have jargon meanings in internal communications that are easily misinterpreted by outsiders with no knowledge. I'm not saying your readin is wrong, I'm simply asking for you to do more than say, "Well I read it that way" as if that does anything more than treat me like an idiot and dodge the direct question I asked. Don't insult my intelligence and dodge the question, answer it.


The Bush administration had its mind made to invade while at the same time telling the American people it would only do so as a last resort. The policy to invade is what the facts and the intelligence were being fixed around.
Yes exactly. The intelligence was being finalised because the government knew that Saddam would not back down. As I said, demonstrate what you are claiming rather than just infering the worst possible reading because you happen to like attacking those whom it apparently indicts.


There will be no investigation.
At this point I would settle for being sure that the document even says what the looney left is claiming it says. Why should their even be an investigation of a document that may not say what you claim it says.


The right wing controls too much of the govenment.
:ahem: Yeah that must be it. Not idiot leftists jumping up and down about nothing because they illiterate boobs who can't read the document. Stop your paranoid ramblings and answer my question.

How do you know the document is to be read the way you are claiming it should be read. It is a direct question and I want a direct and clear answer that isn't just, "Well I dun sure think-so jimmy bob, uhhuh, yessiree it sure dun looks that way to me".

Jason

[Ryokan]

I think its pretty clear at this point the the WMD arguement became the arguement for war after Colin Powell convinced the presudent he had to go to the UN. Previous to that, and now, the real discussion has been about reforming the Middle East. An illuminating, and very "neo-con" book, that I'd recommend is "The Pentagon's New Map" by Thomas Barnett, or some of Thomas L. Friedman's writing leading up to and after the war.
The Iraq war was a war for globalization.
As far as why aren't American's pissed? Well, I think after Nixon, Johnson, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, we expect to be lied to. If we win, then that is enough.
Honesty holds less water than competance. So, when it looks like we are winning, Americans don't care, and when we aren't, they are pissed.

[patteeu]

Is there anyone out there who is unsophisticated enough to not have realized that standard operating procedure for any government is to "spin" when they make public statements of any kind (up to and including preparing the citizenry for war)? A certain amount of spin has to be expected.

Intelligence is like statistics. It isn't a clean narrative of an objective truth. It is a jumble of confusing, often contradictory data inputs from a variety of sources of varying levels of credibility (which isn't always apparent in advance). And like statistics, many different stories can be told using the same set of data. ANY story told by the administration based on intelligence would be spin. That's the way it has always been and the way it will always be.

As others have said, there is nothing in that memo that makes it clear that the White House did anything unethical. "Fixing" the intelligence "around the policy" means that they were just deciding how to build their story out of the existing intelligence data. Sure that means "spin," but there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that intelligence data was being distorted or created out of thin air. If that were the case, then lets have the author of the memo step forward and say that's what they meant. Until then, I see no reason for the anti-Bush people to get too excited over this memo.

[Captain Ochre]

"Fixing" the intelligence "around the policy" means that they were just deciding how to build their story out of the existing intelligence data. Sure that means "spin," but there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that intelligence data was being distorted or created out of thin air. If that were the case, then lets have the author of the memo step forward and say that's what they meant. Until then, I see no reason for the anti-Bush people to get too excited over this memo.

But we need to investigate Cheney!!!!!!

:lol:

[The Laughing Man]

What should be done to people who inflate the war casualty numbers from Iraq?

Under Saddam, they'd probably have their tongues cut out and their hands chopped off. Here in America, though, we just easily expose their b.s., then laugh at and ridicule them.

"Oh, but it was printed in a peer-reviewed journal of medicine so it must be true!!!"

:hilar:

[The Laughing Man]

This article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html) from the TimesonLine is purportedly a memo that circulated in the Blair Administration in England in July 2002.

Was it faxed from a Kinko's in Texas? :lol:

[Da Lone-Warrior]

But we need to investigate Cheney!!!!!!

:lol:

Listen Jack ---, cut out the nonChristianlike spin mocking a fellow poster!

My postulation regarding Cheney did not come from the memo, but rather my having read significant portions of other literature regarding the matter. It has been well documented publicly (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24269&highlight=Woodward) that Cheney was the point man for immediate regime change in Iraq, the one that first brought up the WMDs argument, and the one who controlled what intelligence was given to the president.

There is more to life than just spin. It was quite evident that the case for WMDs(as opposed to pursuing capabilities) was not a good one, and yet the BushAdmin let the US public think it was so as to garner their support for immediate regime change.

When it comes to leading a country to war, there ought to be consequences for those that do it by deception. The memo mentions a host of other stuff that could have been used to support extended action agains the Hussein regime.

The only reason such a memo may not make a difference is the apathy/cynicism of so many USAmericans towards gov't that is in and of itself harming the US's democracy.

dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Under Saddam, they'd probably have their tongues cut out and their hands chopped off. Here in America, though, we just easily expose their b.s., then laugh at and ridicule them.

"Oh, but it was printed in a peer-reviewed journal of medicine so it must be true!!!"

:hilar:

Saddam's regimes days were already numbered because of the instability caused by sanctions and its own corruption. We only sped things up and took a large portion of the burden on our own shoulders that could have been shared with the rest of the world.

dlw

[Twilly Spree]

I just rewatched Wag the Dog last night. It made me smile.

[Jack777]

I saved a news article from that month in 2002...This was public knowledge.


Love Warrior, please tell your handlers to get more clever.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I saved a news article from that month in 2002...This was public knowledge.


Love Warrior, please tell your handlers to get more clever.

I love you too.

Wear that CS Lewis avatar with pride.

dlw

[Jack777]

Love you more

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Love you more

Then show it by respecting me.

dlw

[Blemonds]

I just rewatched Wag the Dog last night. It made me smile.Somebody always has to bring up the Clinton years. Can't we just get over that and move on?

[Blemonds]

Then show it by respecting me.

dlwHow about you show some respect for our president?

[Arnold]

Speaking of "fixing" intelligence - anybody remember the justification to declare war on Serbia without bothering to consult the UN? Anybody remember the supposed 200,000 missing Kosovars, the satelite photos of supposed mass graves, the satelite photos of supposedly hundreds of Serbian military vehicles in Kosovo, and the reporting during the bombing that they were being destroyed by the hundreds?

And does anybody remember that it turned out that none of those supposed mass graves turned out to be mass graves, and that only about 3,000 people ended up missing from a conflict that was ten years old. And anybody remember that only a handful of bombed out military vehicles were found after the war?

[patteeu]

The only reason such a memo may not make a difference is the apathy/cynicism of so many USAmericans towards gov't that is in and of itself harming the US's democracy.

dlw

Uh... no. I gave you the reason that the memo isn't very newsworthy. It has nothing to do with apathy and I think my understanding of the way governments work is better described as realistic than cynical. US democracy will be fine as long as we get the judicial branch back under control so that they respect the constitution.

[patteeu]

Speaking of "fixing" intelligence - anybody remember the justification to declare war on Serbia without bothering to consult the UN? Anybody remember the supposed 200,000 missing Kosovars, the satelite photos of supposed mass graves, the satelite photos of supposedly hundreds of Serbian military vehicles in Kosovo, and the reporting during the bombing that they were being destroyed by the hundreds?

And does anybody remember that it turned out that none of those supposed mass graves turned out to be mass graves, and that only about 3,000 people ended up missing from a conflict that was ten years old. And anybody remember that only a handful of bombed out military vehicles were found after the war?

I don't necessarily remember all of those specific details, but I do remember that general mismatch between what we were told (e.g. genocide) and what turned out to be the case.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

How about you show some respect for our president?

I respect the presidential office by demanding that its occupants be held to higher standards of integrity, including with investigations when they may have seriously abused its privileges.

Misleading us into war is much more serious than getting sexual favors from an intern.

dlw

ps, Patteeu,
I read what you wrote and was not convinced. I'm afraid we must just assess the facts of the situations quite differently.

dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Speaking of "fixing" intelligence - anybody remember the justification to declare war on Serbia without bothering to consult the UN? Anybody remember the supposed 200,000 missing Kosovars, the satelite photos of supposed mass graves, the satelite photos of supposedly hundreds of Serbian military vehicles in Kosovo, and the reporting during the bombing that they were being destroyed by the hundreds?

And does anybody remember that it turned out that none of those supposed mass graves turned out to be mass graves, and that only about 3,000 people ended up missing from a conflict that was ten years old. And anybody remember that only a handful of bombed out military vehicles were found after the war?

And your implication is?
Oh, well if Clinton got away with it then I guess its only fair to let the BushAdmin do the same! The precedent on the issue has already been set.

dlw

[The Laughing Man]

Then show it by respecting me.

I wonder if the Pharisees ever said that to Jesus.

P: "Do you love me, Jesus?"
J: "Yes."
P: "Then show it by respecting me."

[$cirisme]

Listen Jack ---, cut out the nonChristianlike spin mocking a fellow poster!

Another excellent and fact filled response to CO's flawed post #8. Well done.

We love you. :kiss:

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I wonder if the Pharisees ever said that to Jesus.

P: "Do you love me, Jesus?"
J: "Yes."
P: "Then show it by respecting me."

Jesus never disrespected his enemies/opponents in a debate.

dlw

[$cirisme]

Jesus never disrespected his enemies/opponents in a debate.

dlw
Likewise, I fail to see how anyone has disrespected you in this debate, either. Of course, it's just a ruse for you to get away from discussing anything substantively.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Another excellent and fact filled response to CO's flawed post #8. Well done.

We love you. :kiss:

Why don't you pick on him too, then...

I read that post. It had more detail, but nothing that undermined the basic point that the facts were being fitted to the BushAdmin's intention to immediately regime change Iraq. WMDs capabilities~=stockpiles.
One can rationalize why Iraq and not other countries.

It seems like the latter quotes Cap'n makes is about strategy for selling the potential action to the public, going along with the WMD strategy used by the US.

But just because a belief that WMDs is being presupposed in discussing political strategy doesn't imply that the facts were not being manipulated or there was no serious doubts about whether WMDs were the right reasons to foster some action against Iraq.

As for John Scarlett's assessment that, "Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real."

I don't see the relevance of this for the matter at hand. AIRC, Saddam never did believe the threat of military action was real and so he did not comply with the inspections as he should have.

But none of that by any means negates the first paragraph I posted in the OP. And all I am saying is that this is sufficient evidence to justify an investigation.
dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Likewise, I fail to see how anyone has disrespected you in this debate, either. Of course, it's just a ruse for you to get away from discussing anything substantively.

Really, I find el Capitan's rhetoric to be quite disrespectful as well as insinuations that I have handlers who ought to be keeping me in my cell rather than posting at TWeb. To say nothing of being compared with a pharisee for showing some emotional upsetness over the matter.

dlw

[$cirisme]

But just because a belief that WMDs is being presupposed in discussing political strategy doesn't imply that the facts were not being manipulated or there was no serious doubts about whether WMDs were the right reasons to foster some action against Iraq.

Of course. But it does completely undermine the very basis of this thread: that memo you (partially) quoted. Whle what you may say is true, it's pretty clear it will be almost impossible to prove through the means you've chosen.

[Arnold]

Misleading us into war is much more serious than getting sexual favors from an intern.

Getting those "sexual favors from an intern" placed the president in a position of being open to blackmail. For that alone he should have been removed from office.

And if the left and the media were as altruistic about Serbia as they pronounce that they are about Iraq, there would have been many times the outrage at Clinton. But instead they defended him and ignored the evidence of his duplicity. This speaks volumes about the media and liberals...

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Of course. But it does completely undermine the very basis of this thread: that memo you (partially) quoted. Whle what you may say is true, it's pretty clear it will be almost impossible to prove through the means you've chosen.

The memo only proves that top officials in the British Gov't saw the US gov't as completely committed to regime change and fitting the facts to support their preconceived goal.

It doesn't prove anything, but I never claimed it did, just that it raised the issue enough to mandate a deeper investigation.

dlw

[$cirisme]

Really, I find el Capitan's rhetoric to be quite disrespectful

As disrespectful as calling him a jackass? You may have said it out of anger, but that doesn't excuse you. Really, you're being petty about something you both would be equally guilty of. (really, I don't see it as disrespectful but I have a high standard for that. If what the Captain said was disrespectful then what you said is most definitely equally so.)

[Da Lone-Warrior]

As disrespectful as calling him a jackass? You may have said it out of anger, but that doesn't excuse you. Really, you're being petty about something you both would be equally guilty of. (really, I don't see it as disrespectful but I have a high standard for that. If what the Captain said was disrespectful then what you said is most definitely equally so.)

There is a difference when the other person mocks you first repeatedly for speaking your mind based on information that went beyond what had been cited in the post.

Why don't you get off my case and onto his? (I'm in a bad mood)

dlw

[$cirisme]

The memo only proves that top officials in the British Gov't saw the US gov't as completely committed to regime change and fitting the facts to support their preconceived goal.


It doesn't prove anything, but I never claimed it did, just that it raised the issue enough to mandate a deeper investigation.

Two contradictory statements back to back? Bravo, you're really good at this. I believe spin occured, but disagree with the first statement that this memo proves it. I agree with the second statement that it proves nothing, which makes me wonder why you brought it up.

[The Laughing Man]

Yes, there is spin. It's just not coming from the direction LW wants it to.

[$cirisme]

Why don't you get off my case and onto his?

Because you're making a fool of yourself over nothing and he isn't.


(I'm in a bad mood)

I wouldn't suggest posting in that mood as you simply appear foolish and/or hypocritical.

[Archimedes]

And if the left and the media were as altruistic about Serbia as they pronounce that they are about Iraq, there would have been many times the outrage at Clinton. But instead they defended him and ignored the evidence of his duplicity. This speaks volumes about the media and liberals...
The difference between Iraq and Kosovo is that the latter was a NATO operation with broad international support. The former is unilateral American-led action with a bunch of third-tier countries like Iceland and Afghanistan to prop its public image. I would have been 100% for the invasion if US had bothered to work the diplomatic route and get France and Germany involved. It's true that Kosovo didn't have a UN resolution either, but I don't think United Nations is the only international body that can legitimize use of force.

[Arnold]

The difference between Iraq and Kosovo is that the latter was a NATO operation with broad international support. The former is unilateral American-led action with a bunch of third-tier countries like Iceland and Afghanistan to prop its public image. There was no American interest in Serbia whatsoever, unlike Iraq.


I would have been 100% for the invasion if US had bothered to work the diplomatic route and get France and Germany involved. It's true that Kosovo didn't have a UN resolution either, but I don't think United Nations is the only international body that can legitimize use of force.

Wrong. There was a UN resolution - 1441. And Germany and France agreed to that resolution.

And the justification for the Serb war was based on bald-faced lies as I have pointed out in post #24. So where was the outrage from liberals? Where were the thousands of media condemnations? Why do you defend Clinton who took America into a war with absolutely no American interest whatsoever, but condenm Bush for moving to defend America?

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Because you're making a fool of yourself over nothing and he isn't.

I wouldn't suggest posting in that mood as you simply appear foolish and/or hypocritical.

Hypocritical? Where I am from, calling someone a jack--- isn't even seen as a swear word. Its just another word for jerk.

The remainder of this post is self-censored as a matter conscience.

dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Yes, there is spin. It's just not coming from the direction LW wants it to.

But there is also a lot more than spin and epistemological relativism like Laughing Man is espousing right now.

As Christians, we are called to be peace-makers and to hold our states to principles of Just War. That means that we need safeguards against being mislead into war and consequences when they do mislead us into war.

And that requires a willingness to launch investigations even into people on our side when there is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that they may have been abusing their authority.

dlw

[Captain Ochre]

Listen Jack ---, cut out the nonChristianlike spin mocking a fellow poster!

Did you mistakenly take me for Jack 777?


My postulation regarding Cheney did not come from the memo, but rather my having read significant portions of other literature regarding the matter.

Obviously it didn't come from the memo, and the fact that you brought it up in a thread that is supposedly about the memo is funny.
Hence the laughter.


It has been well documented publicly (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24269&highlight=Woodward) that Cheney was the point man for immediate regime change in Iraq, the one that first brought up the WMDs argument, and the one who controlled what intelligence was given to the president.

You have not earned the right to be taken seriously with such pronouncements. When I get time I'll see if this was documented sufficiently to justify your smear against Cheney.


There is more to life than just spin.

Oh? And what is it you do with your tiny excess of free time?


It was quite evident that the case for WMDs(as opposed to pursuing capabilities) was not a good one, and yet the BushAdmin let the US public think it was so as to garner their support for immediate regime change.

So you claim, but the memo you linked to provides evidence counter to your claim. It is implicit in the memo that both the US and the UK regarded the case for WMD's as basic.
You've ignored my post on that topic thus far, AFAICS.


When it comes to leading a country to war, there ought to be consequences for those that do it by deception. The memo mentions a host of other stuff that could have been used to support extended action agains the Hussein regime.

And it leaves your insinuated (or shall we say "spun") charge of deception without a leg to stand on.


The only reason such a memo may not make a difference is the apathy/cynicism of so many USAmericans towards gov't that is in and of itself harming the US's democracy.

The memo won't make a difference because there aren't quite enough Democrats in the fever swamp to make a difference in majority politics.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Did you mistakenly take me for Jack 777?

apparently.


Obviously it didn't come from the memo, and the fact that you brought it up in a thread that is supposedly about the memo is funny.
Hence the laughter.

The thread is not about the memo, but the spinning of Iraq as the person who wrote the OP would know.


You have not earned the right to be taken seriously with such pronouncements. When I get time I'll see if this was documented sufficiently to justify your smear against Cheney.

Whatever.


So you claim, but the memo you linked to provides evidence counter to your claim. It is implicit in the memo that both the US and the UK regarded the case for WMD's as basic.
You've ignored my post on that topic thus far, AFAICS.

I dealt with it in a later post. I quite frankly was not convinced as the later parts of the post dealt with the details of strategy that presupposed the existence of WMDs. This by no means negates the way the WMDs facts were questioned as being fitted by the BushAdmin to justify the regime change in the first paragraph.


And it leaves your insinuated (or shall we say "spun") charge of deception without a leg to stand on.

No. Not at all.


The memo won't make a difference because there aren't quite enough Democrats in the fever swamp to make a difference in majority politics.

possibly.
dlw

[The Laughing Man]

But there is also a lot more than spin and epistemological relativism like Laughing Man is espousing right now.

As Christians, we are called to be peace-makers and to hold our states to principles of Just War. That means that we need safeguards against being mislead into war and consequences when they do mislead us into war.

And that requires a willingness to launch investigations even into people on our side when there is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that they may have been abusing their authority.

We are also called to justly judge, not throw out vast accusations of conspiracies, lies/spin and wrong-doing based upon "half-vast" evidence.

Check your eyes for planks, LW.

[Duder]

Getting those "sexual favors from an intern" placed the president in a position of being open to blackmail. For that alone he should have been removed from office.

And if the left and the media were as altruistic about Serbia as they pronounce that they are about Iraq, there would have been many times the outrage at Clinton. But instead they defended him and ignored the evidence of his duplicity. This speaks volumes about the media and liberals...

I repeat the question put to you previously - does all of this imply that Bush is excused by precedent?

[Duder]

There was no American interest in Serbia whatsoever, unlike Iraq. . . .

And the justification for the Serb war was based on bald-faced lies . . .

Which leaves you the problem of explaining why Clinton would have invented excuses to engage Serbia if there was no American interest in doing so.

[Arnold]

I repeat the question put to you previously - does all of this imply that Bush is excused by precident?

What precident?

[Arnold]

Which leaves you the problem of explaining why Clinton would have invented excuses to engage Serbia if there was no American interest in doing so.

How about you tell me what the American interest was...

[Duder]

How about you tell me what the American interest was...

I cannot say what the American interest was. I can only speak to the reasons that I personally was in favor of that war. And I will happily inform you, when you have earned the right by anwswering my and LW's question: Why did Clinton invent an excuse to engage Serbia if there was no American interest in doing so?

[Duder]

What precident?

"What precedent"? The precedent you just cited in your post!

Your answer to the charge that Bush lied is a counter-charge that Clinton lied, as if Clinton's precedent excuses Bush's lie.

[Arnold]

I cannot say what the American interest was.

Bingo! Neither can anyone else.

[Arnold]

"What precedent"? The precedent you just cited in your post!

Your answer to the charge that Bush lied is a counter-charge that Clinton lied, as if Clinton's precedent excuses Bush's lie.

I never said Bush lied, and I have presented evidence to support that Bush didn't lie many times over the past six months.

I was not citing Clinton as a parallel, but as a contrast.

[Duder]

Getting those "sexual favors from an intern" placed the president in a position of being open to blackmail. For that alone he should have been removed from office.

And if the left and the media were as altruistic about Serbia as they pronounce that they are about Iraq, there would have been many times the outrage at Clinton. But instead they defended him and ignored the evidence of his duplicity. This speaks volumes about the media and liberals...

Republicans impeached Bill Clinton in the House and put him on trail in the Senate because he said he didn't have sex with Monica when he really did.

Now comes evidence in black-and-white that intelligence was bent to sell death by the tens of thousands, and it is judged by a Republican Congress and by what Republicans disingenuously call a liberal media not to be worth a second glance.

[Duder]

Bingo! Neither can anyone else.

There was little strategic advantage or practical benefit to the American economy. The reasons were primarily moral, Arnold. It was a good thing to stop ethnic cleansing in Europe.

I realize there is no foundation for moral behavior in your religion, but unlike you, some of us feel that God is good and that men must do their best to follow the Godly example and pursue the good - even when there is little immediate, practical gain in it for us.

And that (bingo!) was what I take to be the American interest in Serbia.

[Arnold]

Republicans impeached Bill Clinton in the House and put him on trail in the Senate because he said he didn't have sex with Monica when he really did.

I don't agree with your claimed reasoning, but anyway, he should have been tossed for potentially jeopardizing the presidency to blackmail.


Now comes evidence in black-and-white that intelligence was bent to sell death by the tens of thousands, and it is judged by a Republican Congress and by what Republicans disingenuously call a liberal media not to be worth a second glance.

What evidence is that?

[Arnold]

There was little strategic advantage or practical benefit to the American economy. The reasons were primarily moral, Arnold. It was a good thing to stop ethnic cleansing in Europe.

I realize there is no foundation for moral behavior in your religion, but unlike you, some of us feel that God is good and that men must do their best to follow the Godly example and pursue the good - even when there is little immediate, practical gain in it for us.

And that (bingo!) was what I take to be the American interest in Serbia.

There was no "ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo. The missing 200,000 Kosovars was a fabrication.

So I guess you supported the invasion of Iraq for the same reason then, since it was well known that Saddam was a butcher, and considering there are mass graves spread throughout Iraq...

And since there are now new accusations of ethnic cleansing of the remaining Serbs in Kosovo by the Kosovars, I suppose you are calling on W to reinvade Kosovo...

[Duder]

What evidence is that?

That rejoinder does not deserve notice.

[Duder]

So I guess you supported the invasion of Iraq for the same reason then, since it was well known that Saddam was a butcher, and considering there are mass graves spread throughout Iraq...

That is the last remaining argument for the present war, and it is a respectable one. We might have a very interest discussion about it.

The point is, the Bush administration did not feel that humanitarian sentiments alone justified the war, so he bent intelligence to provide a justification the American people would buy - WMDs.


And since there are now new accusations of ethnic cleansing of the remaining Serbs in Kosovo by the Kosovars, I suppose you are calling on W to reinvade Kosovo...

I would like it very much is President Bush were to lean on the UN for a multinational peacekeeping force and a humanitarian mission there. That would be a very good idea. But again, this is far off the topic of Bush justifying war by fixing intelligence.

[patteeu]

The difference between Iraq and Kosovo is that the latter was a NATO operation with broad international support. The former is unilateral American-led action with a bunch of third-tier countries like Iceland and Afghanistan to prop its public image. I would have been 100% for the invasion if US had bothered to work the diplomatic route and get France and Germany involved. It's true that Kosovo didn't have a UN resolution either, but I don't think United Nations is the only international body that can legitimize use of force.

When you were mentioning the 3rd tier supporters of the Iraq action you forgot to mention countries like UK, Italy, Spain, and Poland.

[patteeu]

I cannot say what the American interest was. I can only speak to the reasons that I personally was in favor of that war. And I will happily inform you, when you have earned the right by anwswering my and LW's question: Why did Clinton invent an excuse to engage Serbia if there was no American interest in doing so?

How is he supposed to know Clinton's mind? OTOH, you can easily explain your rationale so why not just offer it? But if you need a theory about Clinton, I'll give you one. Clinton was currying favor among European leaders who did have an interest in stopping a war that was on their doorstep.

[patteeu]

Republicans impeached Bill Clinton in the House and put him on trail in the Senate because he said he didn't have sex with Monica when he really did.

Now comes evidence in black-and-white that intelligence was bent to sell death by the tens of thousands, and it is judged by a Republican Congress and by what Republicans disingenuously call a liberal media not to be worth a second glance.

Black and white, only if you are colorblind. It's not at all clear that your interpretation of this memo is accurate. To me, "black and white" implies that it is clear beyond doubt. I've already explained what the memo really means and in the worst case the memo is ambiguous between my interpretation and yours.

[patteeu]

There was little strategic advantage or practical benefit to the American economy. The reasons were primarily moral, Arnold. It was a good thing to stop ethnic cleansing in Europe.

I realize there is no foundation for moral behavior in your religion, but unlike you, some of us feel that God is good and that men must do their best to follow the Godly example and pursue the good - even when there is little immediate, practical gain in it for us.

And that (bingo!) was what I take to be the American interest in Serbia.

So your theory is that America had a great enough moral interest in stopping the forced relocation of some Kosovarians that we went to war over it, but you should keep in mind that we didn't recognize enough moral interest to lift a finger in Rwanda over a real genocide. No one says we have to be consistent, but that's a pretty dramatic difference. As far as I'm concerned, moral interests on the scale of Kosovo aren't nearly worth going to war over.

In fact, given that we were going to intervene, I think we were on the wrong side in that war. We sided with Al Qaeda and the Kosovarian terrorists there instead of Russia and the Serbs. I wonder how much different our relationship with Russia could be right now if we had made a different choice. I certainly don't agree that it's clear that Serbia was in the wrong in that conflict. Both sides were committing acts of war (aka atrocities).

[Arnold]

That is the last remaining argument for the present war, and it is a respectable one. We might have a very interest discussion about it.

That is utter nonsense and you know it. I have presented much evidence to justify the Iraq war, including WMD's and Saddam's links to Al Qaeda. And the fact Saddam refused to account for the missing WMD's that had been quanitfied by the UN prior to being kicked out by Saddam in /98, and that he was willing to gamble with his dictatorship rather than simply providing the evidence and access to the UN inspectors to clear his name, justifies the conclusion that he still had WMD's.


I would like it very much is President Bush were to lean on the UN for a multinational peacekeeping force and a humanitarian mission there. That would be a very good idea. But again, this is far off the topic of Bush justifying war by fixing intelligence.

Let's see - W already tried that "lean on the UN" approach once - didn't work too well, even though they voted for resolution 1441 overwhelmingly.

Look, I'll tell you why Clinton went into Kosovo - the reason he did everything as president - his legacy.

He went to Kosovo to impress his European buddies, but allowed 800,000 Rwandans to be massacred in just a few months because he saw no political benefit to sending troops into Rwanda, even though the handful of UN peacekeepers had warned for months that a massacre was brewing.

(And just for interest's sake, it was Kofi Annan that was in charge of the UN committee with jurisdiction over Rwanda.)

[edit - added:] Ooops - honest, I didn't read your recent posts and copy them patteeu - I guess it is true; great minds think alike. LOL!

[patteeu]

There was no "ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo. The missing 200,000 Kosovars was a fabrication.

So I guess you supported the invasion of Iraq for the same reason then, since it was well known that Saddam was a butcher, and considering there are mass graves spread throughout Iraq...

And since there are now new accusations of ethnic cleansing of the remaining Serbs in Kosovo by the Kosovars, I suppose you are calling on W to reinvade Kosovo...

They conflated the terms "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" in the run-up to that war. The fact is that there was ethnic cleansing going on, but it was merely forced relocation and not genocide as they would have liked us to believe. The Serbs were tired of having to deal with conflicts in regions of mixed ethnicity so they decided to create more homogeneous zones. Of course, they were keeping the best regions for themselves which isn't a very nice thing to do, but it's a far cry from genocide and IMO it's a far cry from being a big enough moral outrage to justify our action. And it's not like the Kosovarians were willing to live peacefully side-by-side with the Serbs. In their midst, they had instigators who were willing to commit acts of terrorism in a campagin aimed at gaining independence. With the US, western Europe and Al Qaeda's help, they substantially succeeded.

[Arnold]

In fact, given that we were going to intervene, I think we were on the wrong side in that war. We sided with Al Qaeda and the Kosovarian terrorists there instead of Russia and the Serbs. I wonder how much different our relationship with Russia could be right now if we had made a different choice. I certainly don't agree that it's clear that Serbia was in the wrong in that conflict. Both sides were committing acts of war (aka atrocities).

Very good point! :thumb:

[Arnold]

They conflated the terms "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" in the run-up to that war. The fact is that there was ethnic cleansing going on, but it was merely forced relocation and not genocide as they would have liked us to believe. The Serbs were tired of having to deal with conflicts in regions of mixed ethnicity so they decided to create more homogeneous zones. Of course, they were keeping the best regions for themselves which isn't a very nice thing to do, but it's a far cry from genocide and IMO it's a far cry from being a big enough moral outrage to justify our action. And it's not like the Kosovarians were willing to live peacefully side-by-side with the Serbs. In their midst, they had instigators who were willing to commit acts of terrorism in a campagin aimed at gaining independence. With the US, western Europe and Al Qaeda's help, they substantially succeeded.

I am going to wear out my thumb... :thumb:

[Captain Ochre]

Jesus never disrespected his enemies/opponents in a debate.

dlw

You are like whited sepulchres ...
You brood of vipers ...

[Da Lone-Warrior]

You are like whited sepulchres ...
You brood of vipers ...
:wink:
Yeah, well you play with dolls.
dlw

[Captain Ochre]

Why don't you pick on him too, then...

I read that post. It had more detail, but nothing that undermined the basic point that the facts were being fitted to the BushAdmin's intention to immediately regime change Iraq.

That "basic point" was, in fact, undermined. Specifically, a reasonable alternative framework of understanding was offered that makes better sense of the memo, and a critical question was asked: If the US and the UK understood (as per that memo) that Iraq possessed WMD, then what aspect of the evidence required "fixing"?
I'd still like an answer to that question.


WMDs capabilities~=stockpiles.
One can rationalize why Iraq and not other countries.

Probably the combination of strategic location combined with the relative ease of justification. Ties with al Qaeda probably figured in, also. :smile:


It seems like the latter quotes Cap'n makes is about strategy for selling the potential action to the public, going along with the WMD strategy used by the US.

Have you gone this long without reading the entire memo? Your supposition is silly. The strategy was designed to justify the legality of the action, which means the UN along with other nations individually (such as France and Turkey).


But just because a belief that WMDs is being presupposed in discussing political strategy doesn't imply that the facts were not being manipulated or there was no serious doubts about whether WMDs were the right reasons to foster some action against Iraq.

Right, hence I asked what facts our resident Lefties feel were manipulated in hindsight given that the memo implicitly confirms that the US and UK (let alone the French) believed that Hussein had WMD.
Will you be answering that question on behalf of your tribe?


As for John Scarlett's assessment that, "Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real."

I don't see the relevance of this for the matter at hand.

You suggested that there were other ways of obtaining a satisfactory result WRT Iraq. Is that claim not still at hand?


AIRC, Saddam never did believe the threat of military action was real and so he did not comply with the inspections as he should have.

Agreed, but he at least agreed to the inspections in the first place, which is the occurrence that was referred to in the memo. Lest we forget to wonder: If Iraq really didn't have stuff they shouldn't have had, then why didn't they cooperate fully with the inspections?
Figure that answer in when you suggest an alterntive scenario that would have solved the Iraq situation.


But none of that by any means negates the first paragraph I posted in the OP.

This?

This article from the TimesonLine is purportedly a memo that circulated in the Blair Administration in England in July 2002.

Here are some excerpts:
This?
Some people say we ought to demand a further investigation.
Or this?
I think that would be a worthwhile thing to do. There were other options besides immediate regime change wrt Iraq and it would be good to expose those that were most responsible for the manipulation of the US( I believe this would probably turn out to be Dick Cheney.).

The first is an acceptable statement of fact.
The second is an acceptable statement of fact (though the persons saying so are fever swamp material IMHO).

The third starts with LW's own benighted opinion. You can't really argue against somebody's opinion--but you can assess whether or not it is a sensible opinion. LW suggests that there were other options besides "immediate" regime change, but he doesn't tell us what they were (which is good, since we don't want to drift too far off-topic, I suppose). Then he suggests that it would usefully expose those "most responsible for the manipulation of the US", but we still don't know what manipulation he is talking about. It shouldn't be the supposed "lie" that Iraq had WMD's, since the cited memo confirms that the UK and US believed that Iraq possessed WMD's.
So what's the manipulation, LW?


And all I am saying is that this is sufficient evidence to justify an investigation.
dlw

All I'm saying is that what you're saying is not a respectable position to take, at least based on what you've written so far on the subject.

[Captain Ochre]

:wink:
Yeah, well you play with dolls.
dlw

Good to see you emulating Jesus at last.
:wink:

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Ah the british, always the masters of Stating the bloody obvious.
Nice to know they finally caught on.

[patteeu]

I am going to wear out my thumb... :thumb:

Well here's one back. We're definitely on the same page on this one. :thumb:

[patteeu]

Then he [LW] suggests that it would usefully expose those "most responsible for the manipulation of the US", but we still don't know what manipulation he is talking about. It shouldn't be the supposed "lie" that Iraq had WMD's, since the cited memo confirms that the UK and US believed that Iraq possessed WMD's.
So what's the manipulation, LW?

The heart of the matter has been reached.

[Duder]

The heart of the matter has been reached.

No, it is not the heart of the matter that Bush believed WMDs in Iraq constituted some kind of a crisis. Read the memo.

It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

[Captain Ochre]

No, it is not the heart of the matter that Bush believed WMDs in Iraq constituted some kind of a crisis.

Uh, Duder, that's not even what either pateeu or I said.
The heart of the matter is that LW is alleging some horrendous deceit on the part of the Bush administration based on this memo, while the memo itself defuses the most likely topic of deceit according to the liberal line. So far, nobody has stepped forward to pinpoint the subject about which we were supposedly (deliberately) misled.


Read the memo.

It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

Evidently some particular conclusion is apparent you you, Duder, but I'm afraid that it's not equally clear to all of us.
Could you be specific as to what part of the quotation constitutes your smoking gun?

FWIW, the quotation doesn't support what LW was claiming ... which is what I thought we were talking about.

[$cirisme]

Hypocritical? Where I am from, calling someone a jack--- isn't even seen as a swear word. Its just another word for jerk.

And this somehow makes it less hypocritical how? Or do you call him a jerk with the utmost of respect. :ahem:


The remainder of this post is self-censored as a matter conscience.

Far too late to really make a difference and undo the damage you've already done with your hypocritical pettiness.

[patteeu]

No, it is not the heart of the matter that Bush believed WMDs in Iraq constituted some kind of a crisis. Read the memo.

It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

That appears to be the heart of the matter in the dispute between CO and LW. As for the memo, I've read it. You should try to understand it.

As CO said, the memo makes clear that both the UK and the US believed Saddam had WMD capabilities. Presumably, one of the reasons Iraq was the first of the Axis of Evil countries confronted on this issue is because they were seen as low hanging fruit. The passage you quoted is consistent with this theory. In addition, it's now known that Libya's WMD situation was being worked diplomatically.

FWIW, I don't remember Bush characterizing Iraq as a crisis but instead as a gathering threat. The whole point of the operation was that if you waited until it was a crisis it would be too late. Don't forget that Bush was in the process of being chastized because his government didn't "connect the dots" and prevent 9/11. It isn't any wonder why he wasn't in a mood to take chances and wait for ironclad proof of an imminent threat mounted by Saddam or Saddam using Al Qaeda as a proxy. Any you know as well as I do that Saddam was given ample opportunity to prevent an attack by complying with UN disarmament resolutions.

[DivineOb]

What should be done to people who inflate the war casualty numbers from Iraq?
:huh:

:wink:

Well then reduce the number to 100k or 50k or even 100. That isn't the issue.

[DivineOb]

Under Saddam, they'd probably have their tongues cut out and their hands chopped off. Here in America, though, we just easily expose their b.s., then laugh at and ridicule them.

"Oh, but it was printed in a peer-reviewed journal of medicine so it must be true!!!"

:hilar:

The worst thing about Christianity, I think, is pride. How did you arive at this twisted state where you are so full of yourself you don't even consider the possibility that there are some things you don't understand?

[Captain Ochre]

Well then reduce the number to 100k or 50k or even 100. That isn't the issue.

I've posted quite a bit on the issue, AFAICT.
Join in anytime with something more than a one-liner that contains inaccurate information.

[DivineOb]

I've posted quite a bit on the issue, AFAICT.
Join in anytime with something more than a one-liner that contains inaccurate information.

Christians are hardly worth my contempt. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

[Captain Ochre]

Christians are hardly worth my contempt. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

Hmmm. The way I heard it, discrediting Christians is an even higher calling than truth. If that's true, then it seems like Christians are worth a fairly decent amount of contempt.

See if you can set aside your bigotry long enough to have a reasonable conversation, won't you?
You may yet have an opinion that is above ridicule.

[DivineOb]

Hmmm. The way I heard it, discrediting Christians is an even higher calling than truth. If that's true, then it seems like Christians are worth a fairly decent amount of contempt.



Ok, then I'll restate what I said to say that Christians are hardly worth an expression of contempt. They are indeed every bit deserving of hatred.




See if you can set aside your bigotry long enough to have a reasonable conversation, won't you?
You may yet have an opinion that is above ridicule.

It's clear that my credibility on this site is beyond the point of recovery, so what would be the point?

[Blemonds]

Ok, then I'll restate what I said to say that Christians are hardly worth an expression of contempt. They are indeed every bit deserving of hatred. So you've determined that some segments of society are worthy of hate speech, discrimination, etc?


It's clear that my credibility on this site is beyond the point of recoveryJust on this site. I find that hard to believe.

[Captain Ochre]

The thread is not about the memo, but the spinning of Iraq as the person who wrote the OP would know.

Yet you seem unable to answer questions about what exactly was supposedly spun.
You used the topic of the memo to justify your supposition that an investigation is in order.
Why would the memo indicate the advisability an investigation of the manner in which the Bush Administration justified the action against Iraq?
IMO, there is a subtext to your suggestion. Share.


I dealt with it in a later post.

Noted. I hadn't read through the entire thread up through that point, hence the "AFAICS". I had, however, read a comment by $cir to the effect that there had been no response.


I quite frankly was not convinced as the later parts of the post dealt with the details of strategy that presupposed the existence of WMDs. This by no means negates the way the WMDs facts were questioned as being fitted by the BushAdmin to justify the regime change in the first paragraph.

What way is that, pray tell (it wouldn't hurt for you to clarify that somewhat convoluted sentence)?


No. Not at all.

In that case, you will promptly tell us in what manner the Bush Administration deceived us.
Such that we will have no difficulty seeing that they engaged in deception, that is.

[patteeu]

Does anybody really believe that President Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq (or even had a good idea that there were no WMD in Iraq) but went on to mislead the American public into thinking that there were so he could go to war, all the while knowing that the truth would have to eventually come out? Anybody? Seriously, this theory doesn't pass the smell test.

[DivineOb]

So you've determined that some segments of society are worthy of hate speech, discrimination, etc?



Just like you have. Except I think my criterion is a more reasonable one.




Just on this site. I find that hard to believe.

Well, make your case, then. I think it will be rather difficult to do so.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Does anybody really believe that President Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq (or even had a good idea that there were no WMD in Iraq) but went on to mislead the American public into thinking that there were so he could go to war, all the while knowing that the truth would have to eventually come out? Anybody? Seriously, this theory doesn't pass the smell test.He had a lot to gain, One Iraq's Oil, second a major military strong hold in the middle east. Plus a distraction for passing the Patriot act amoung other freedom removing legislation. by the time the information was leaked out it would really be too late to do anything about it.

[Captain Ochre]

He had a lot to gain, One Iraq's Oil, second a major military strong hold in the middle east.

It would have been cheaper to simply buy the oil after lifting sanctions on Iraq. We don't really need a military stronghold in the ME. Our military is quite mobile. Non-elaborate based on the Baltic region would suffice.
Perhaps you should consider more a more parsimonious explanation for the decision to go to war to remove Hussein.


Plus a distraction for passing the Patriot act amoung other freedom removing legislation.

1) The Patriot Act was designed to expire.
2) What freedom(s) did you lose owing to the Patriot Act?


by the time the information was leaked out it would really be too late to do anything about it.

At the very least they could repeal the "freedom-removing" legislation.
:lol:

[Cu Mhorrigan]

The Patriot act has a few disturbing facets to it...
http://www.cbldf.org/pr/archives/000158.shtml

Any body who has studied history knows full well that once government siezes control of certain freedoms they NEVER relinquish them unless there is some kind of violent over throw.

And please, He was not about to lift any embargo unless it suited his purpose. But keeping the oil prices High, He and his oil company buddies stand to gain a major profit from the sale of said oil. People have no choice but to pay these prices so they still make profit no matter what.
Never mind the fact that the US government still stiffles Research into alternative fuel sources...It's all about the green baby.

[Captain Ochre]

The Patriot act has a few disturbing facets to it...
http://www.cbldf.org/pr/archives/000158.shtml

You're right--it's not a perfect piece of legislation.
I asked, however, what loss of freedom you had experienced.


Any body who has studied history knows full well that once government siezes control of certain freedoms they NEVER relinquish them unless there is some kind of violent over throw.

You're not addressing the issue. The Patriot Act was passed with a built-in time limit. If the government does not act to pass the Patriot Act (or something similar) over again, then the force of the act disappears.


And please, He was not about to lift any embargo unless it suited his purpose.

You suggested that his purpose was to obtain Iraqi oil. That purpose would be realized by lifting the embargo. IIRC, the US was already buying the majority of exported Iraqi oil prior to the war.
Cheaper to buy it than to take it by force (especially if we don't literally claim the Iraqi oilfields as a US possession (we didn't do that, did we?))


But keeping the oil prices High, He and his oil company buddies stand to gain a major profit from the sale of said oil. People have no choice but to pay these prices so they still make profit no matter what.

How are they keeping the oil prices high? Are you unaware that oil prices are rising primarily because China has radically increased its demand for oil? Ever heard of supply-and-demand?
One thing that you wrote is true: Whereever gasoline is sold, it's almost certainly sold at a profit.
That includes China, of course.


Never mind the fact that the US government still stiffles Research into alternative fuel sources...It's all about the green baby.

I assume you mean this. (http://www.timelesstrinkets.com/SnorksSniks/Images/AstroBaby.jpg)

[Cu Mhorrigan]

You're right--it's not a perfect piece of legislation.
I asked, however, what loss of freedom you had experienced. Nothing yet since I rarely leave the house except to go to work, but judging by what the patriot act intends to do, Part of the problem will be my reading or buying certain books and other matters will eventually create a thought police state. I cant even find a decent porn store any more, thanks to Adolph Ghouliani Nor can I smoke thanks to Fuher Blumberg. There are already several restrictions here in New york City, which will eventually be made worse thanks to the republinazis running the city and state now.




You're not addressing the issue. The Patriot Act was passed with a built-in time limit. If the government does not act to pass the Patriot Act (or something similar) over again, then the force of the act disappears. and do you honestly think the government is oing to NOT renew the patriot act? You place too much faith in a bunch of Power Hungry COntrol freaks.




You suggested that his purpose was to obtain Iraqi oil. That purpose would be realized by lifting the embargo. IIRC, the US was already buying the majority of exported Iraqi oil prior to the war.
Cheaper to buy it than to take it by force (especially if we don't literally claim the Iraqi oilfields as a US possession (we didn't do that, did we?)) again you are so trusting of a man who has launched a Jihad against the middle east. The embargo was designed to weaken the Iraqi people so that they would be "grateful" when we came to "Liberate" them. all you had to do was wait a few years then march in with goose steppers and voila you have people loyal to you after "Freeing them" from the very tyrant you put into power to begin with.




How are they keeping the oil prices high? Are you unaware that oil prices are rising primarily because China has radically increased its demand for oil? Ever heard of supply-and-demand?
One thing that you wrote is true: Whereever gasoline is sold, it's almost certainly sold at a profit.
That includes China, of course. which bush and his cronies stood to gain once they got control of the oil fields. Oh they say Iraq would "Own the fields" to keep the populace from suspecting the truth, but in reality Bush and his suits would be running the show.



And I meant to write, "It's all about the Green, Baby." It's all about the green.

[Captain Ochre]

Nothing yet since I rarely leave the house except to go to work, but judging by what the patriot act intends to do, Part of the problem will be my reading or buying certain books and other matters will eventually create a thought police state.

Will you be checking out books on how to build your own breeder reactor?


I cant even find a decent porn store any more, thanks to Adolph Ghouliani Nor can I smoke thanks to Fuher Blumberg.

Bloomberg's a RINO, as I understand it.
Would you trade low crime for better porn?


There are already several restrictions here in New york City, which will eventually be made worse thanks to the republinazis running the city and state now.

The political right is home to the Libertarian. Vote for Dems and your smokers' rights will probably disappear even faster (same goes for porn, I suppose)--but at least you'll be able to count on a liberal judge to rule that it's the tobacco company's fault if you should happen to get lung cancer.
:thumb:


and do you honestly think the government is oing to NOT renew the patriot act? You place too much faith in a bunch of Power Hungry COntrol freaks.

I think that the Patriot Act will be renewed as long as it is deemed necessary to assist with the war on terror, but that it might be altered where the civil rights issues seem to pricey.
The Left wants control certainly no less than the Republicans (probably more, however). That's why, for example, the Left would like to ensure liberal indoctination in the public schools. The Republicans, OTOH, are in favor of the freedom of school choice.


again you are so trusting of a man who has launched a Jihad against the middle east.

:lol:
You need to brush up on your Michael Moore: Bush is in bed with the Saudis.

It's not a jihad, unless the insitution of representative democracy counts as jihadist behavior. Bush is encouraging different factions within Iraq to form a coalition government. He didn't put the Iraqi Christians in charge.


The embargo was designed to weaken the Iraqi people so that they would be "grateful" when we came to "Liberate" them.

Seriously, it seems that you have trouble thinking straight. The embargo was designed to neutralize Hussein's aspirations for power and--with a little luck--create enough civil unrest to topple him from power. Unfortunately, there was too much corruption in the application of the embargo (check with the UN for that one), and Hussein used the embargo to increase his power in significant ways (salting away cash, among other things).


all you had to do was wait a few years then march in with goose steppers and voila you have people loyal to you after "Freeing them" from the very tyrant you put into power to begin with.

The US doesn't need the loyalty of Iraq. All we want from them is relatively free markets.
It's time that you took off the Sunglasses of Conspiracy.


which bush and his cronies stood to gain once they got control of the oil fields. Oh they say Iraq would "Own the fields" to keep the populace from suspecting the truth, but in reality Bush and his suits would be running the show.

You don't know what you're talking about. The US is giving a huge amount of capital to Iraq. We stand to gain a new market and free trade (from which we would profit, no doubt), but it would literally be cheaper to buy the oil from Hussein than to go through all of this.


And I meant to write, "It's all about the Green, Baby." It's all about the green.

I think that you committed a freudian slip. Inside, deep down, ... you think it's all about the green baby.
:wink:

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Will you be checking out books on how to build your own breeder reactor?



Bloomberg's a RINO, as I understand it.
Would you trade low crime for better porn? It had nothing to do with crime, Ghouliani wanted to Make time square a tourist trap and get a crap load of Money from Disney and other Corporations. the Gentrification is making things so expensive, there are going to be no middle class neighborhoods within about 10-15 years from now. Alot of people I know cant afford rent, utilities, and food, Never mind the fact that there are no jobs here that arent being taken over by the Mexican and Other Illegals
that GW is letting in. Bloomberg is cut from the same Nazi Cloth as Ghouliani. A corporate, scum-sucking, bottom-feeding, money hungry greedy little Schmuck that wants to make this city a haven for other scum sucking Yuppies.
It was NEver about crime It was about the money that even turned WTC into a tourist trap for all the Rubes in their Lycra Pants stretched over mountains of Fat.
Thanks alot Repubs.



The political right is home to the Libertarian. As a Libertarian, I know That is total and complete cow feces, There is nothing Libertarian about the republican party. They want big government just as much as the democrats.




I think that the Patriot Act will be renewed as long as it is deemed necessary to assist with the war on terror, but that it might be altered where the civil rights issues seem to pricey. In other words, Once civil rights get in the way of the Bush Jihad, they will be taken out.


The Republicans, OTOH, are in favor of the freedom of school choice. Yep Just like mayor mike who doenst have the money to pay teachers but he has the money to force a stadium NOBODY WANTS down our throats so we can have more stupid tourists clogging up our sidewalks.



:lol:
You need to brush up on your Michael Moore: Bush is in bed with the Saudis. Bush is in bed with a lot of people..Daddy bush is working over time for the family screw up to keep the Nazi agenda alive.


It's not a jihad, unless the insitution of representative democracy counts as jihadist behavior. Bush is encouraging different factions within Iraq to form a coalition government. He didn't put the Iraqi Christians in charge. Can we say "PUPPET GOVERNMENT"?




Seriously, it seems that you have trouble thinking straight. The embargo was designed to neutralize Hussein's aspirations for power and--with a little luck--create enough civil unrest to topple him from power. Unfortunately, there was too much corruption in the application of the embargo (check with the UN for that one), and Hussein used the embargo to increase his power in significant ways (salting away cash, among other things). In other words it did exactly what I said it did.




The US doesn't need the loyalty of Iraq. All we want from them is relatively free markets. :lmbo: yet another piece of BS, man you are killing me.

[Duder]

2) What freedom(s) did you lose owing to the Patriot Act?

What's this, Cappy? :egad:

Can you think of any precedents where a society tolerated the loss of freedoms, so long as it did not appear to most individuals that it effected them personally - when, for example, the individual felt safe since he was not Jewish, mentally ill, queer,a gypsy or a communist?

Perhaps you are incorrect to think that we should only object to losses of freedom that effect us personally and directly.

[patteeu]

He had a lot to gain, One Iraq's Oil, second a major military strong hold in the middle east. Plus a distraction for passing the Patriot act amoung other freedom removing legislation. by the time the information was leaked out it would really be too late to do anything about it.

I don't think that's a reasonable take at all. There is no way a President subject to re-election would have misled the public to that degree. Not only would he have had to be willing to become a one term president (which could very well have happened anyway if the democrat candidate hadn't been so flawed) but he would have also had to seriously consider the possibility that he would have faced Nixon-like disgrace and very possibly impeachment (or worse).

In addition, most of Bush's primary advisors would have had to go along with the monumental deception and allies like Tony Blair and their advisors would have had to go along with it too. That's way too many people who would have had to be willing to suffer great consequences to make it a plausible scenario. It seems to me that only the most unhinged would believe that George Bush and Tony Blair didn't believe there were WMD in Iraq.

To late to do something about it? He would have had to know that it would become obvious that Iraq had no signficant WMD before his first term was up. That's not even close to too late to do something about it. It's too late to stop the invasion but it's certainly not too late for dire personal reprecussions to fall down like a load of bricks on his head.

[patteeu]

As a Libertarian, I know That is total and complete cow feces, There is nothing Libertarian about the republican party. They want big government just as much as the democrats.

As a libertarian I think you're wrong. SOME Republicans want big government just as much as MOST democrats, but there are far more libertarian republicans than there are libertarian democrats. Afterall, what party did Ron Paul end up joining after he ran for President as a Libertarian?

[Captain Ochre]

I'll make this brief, since conversing with a wall gets boring after awhile.


As a Libertarian, I know That is total and complete cow feces, There is nothing Libertarian about the republican party. They want big government just as much as the democrats.

As a Libertarian, you should know that Libertarianism is to the right of big-government Republicanism.
And yes there is something Libertarian about the Republican Party. It is more Libertarian than is the Democratic Party.


In other words, Once civil rights get in the way of the Bush Jihad, they will be taken out.

Non sequitur, or should I say "Yabba-dabba-do, double park too!"


Yep Just like mayor mike who doenst have the money to pay teachers but he has the money to force a stadium NOBODY WANTS down our throats so we can have more stupid tourists clogging up our sidewalks.

(and supporting your businesses ... some Libertarian this guy is!)


Bush is in bed with a lot of people..Daddy bush is working over time for the family screw up to keep the Nazi agenda alive.

:lol:


Can we say "PUPPET GOVERNMENT"?

:ahem:
We could, but I'd recommend talking in terms of evidence instead of knee-jerk impressions.


In other words it did exactly what I said it did.

:ahem:


:lmbo: yet another piece of BS, man you are killing me.

I'll be more careful in the future (to direct my replies to a person capable of expressing consideration of the issues).

[Captain Ochre]

What's this, Cappy? :egad:

Can you think of any precedents where a society tolerated the loss of freedoms, so long as it did not appear to most individuals that it effected them personally - when, for example, the individual felt safe since he was not Jewish, mentally ill, queer,a gypsy or a communist?

Sure, but we can apply that reasoning to the 55 MPH speed limit if we wish.


Perhaps you are incorrect to think that we should only object to losses of freedom that effect us personally and directly.

Perhaps you're not thinking on my behalf of what I'm actually thinking. I guess I'll attempt to draw you into the Socratic dialogue.

What freedoms did you lose owing to the Patriot Act, Duder?

[Archimedes]

There was no American interest in Serbia whatsoever, unlike Iraq.
I guess there is no American interest in getting rid of murdering Tyrants like Milosevic or Saddam Hussein, but I'm an idealist and I think that intervening for the sake of making the world a bit nicer place to live is a good enough justification.


Wrong. There was a UN resolution - 1441. And Germany and France agreed to that resolution.
My mistake. I was thinking of Security Council approval. But my point was that the situation in this regard similar to Iraq, which I think you are not disputing.


And the justification for the Serb war was based on bald-faced lies as I have pointed out in post #24. So where was the outrage from liberals? Where were the thousands of media condemnations? Why do you defend Clinton who took America into a war with absolutely no American interest whatsoever, but condenm Bush for moving to defend America?
I don't know where you get your information that "none of those supposed mass graves turned out to be mass graves" when at least 7,000 people in mass graves were actually found, and reports of other graves being covered up put even the most conservative estimates to 10,000. And that all happened in the course of a few months, which makes it relatively worse Saddam's 300,000 figure. Plenty of justification for the bombings there.

My gripe with Bush admin is that they did not get international approval for the invasion. That's one more excuse for the Iraqi insurgents to view the invasion as American imperialism and keep killing people. On the other hand, Clinton had the support of NATO and most European countries, and had the silent approval of UN secratary general despite not having a SC mandate. This makes a world of difference in terms of legitimacy.

[Arnold]

I guess there is no American interest in getting rid of murdering Tyrants like Milosevic or Saddam Hussein, but I'm an idealist and I think that intervening for the sake of making the world a bit nicer place to live is a good enough justification.


My mistake. I was thinking of Security Council approval. But my point was that the situation in this regard similar to Iraq, which I think you are not disputing.


I don't know where you get your information that "none of those supposed mass graves turned out to be mass graves" when at least 7,000 people in mass graves were actually found, and reports of other graves being covered up put even the most conservative estimates to 10,000. And that all happened in the course of a few months, which makes it relatively worse Saddam's 300,000 figure. Plenty of justification for the bombings there.

My gripe with Bush admin is that they did not get international approval for the invasion. That's one more excuse for the Iraqi insurgents to view the invasion as American imperialism and keep killing people. On the other hand, Clinton had the support of NATO and most European countries, and had the silent approval of UN secratary general despite not having a SC mandate. This makes a world of difference in terms of legitimacy.I'm not here to argue the merits of stopping tyrants from killing people. The content of the opening post was that the evidence for pursuing the Iraq war was doctored. The point of my post was that the war that was based on faulty evidence was the Serb war. Many of those mass graves that have been found were not part of those original satelite photos, and they incuded many Serbs, Bosnians from both sides and other nationals that had nothing to do with the Kosovo incident at the time. My point is valid. We were sold the war on 200,000 missing Kosovars and it was a flat out lie. They never could produce any evidence to support that figure. And the supposedly huge Serb military buildup in Kosovo also turned out to be a lie. What happened to those supposedly hundreds of bombed Serb military vehicles? There should have been rusting hulks on every street corner. But only the odd few here and there were ever found.

[Blemonds]

My gripe with Bush admin is that they did not get international approval for the invasion. That's one more excuse for the Iraqi insurgents to view the invasion as American imperialism and keep killing people. On the other hand, Clinton had the support of NATO and most European countries, and had the silent approval of UN secratary general despite not having a SC mandate. This makes a world of difference in terms of legitimacy.Only to those already opposed to George Bush

[patteeu]

I guess there is no American interest in getting rid of murdering Tyrants like Milosevic or Saddam Hussein, but I'm an idealist and I think that intervening for the sake of making the world a bit nicer place to live is a good enough justification.

The problem is that our intervention was on the side of murderers just the same.


My mistake. I was thinking of Security Council approval. But my point was that the situation in this regard similar to Iraq, which I think you are not disputing.

There is dispute about whether or not resolution 1441 amounts to SC approval.


I don't know where you get your information that "none of those supposed mass graves turned out to be mass graves" when at least 7,000 people in mass graves were actually found, and reports of other graves being covered up put even the most conservative estimates to 10,000. And that all happened in the course of a few months, which makes it relatively worse Saddam's 300,000 figure. Plenty of justification for the bombings there.

My gripe with Bush admin is that they did not get international approval for the invasion. That's one more excuse for the Iraqi insurgents to view the invasion as American imperialism and keep killing people. On the other hand, Clinton had the support of NATO and most European countries, and had the silent approval of UN secratary general despite not having a SC mandate. This makes a world of difference in terms of legitimacy.

I don't know where you get your information so if you've got a link it would be interesting to see it. Assuming your figures are right, how many of those dead people were killed by Serbs before the US bombing began? My understanding is that the number is considerably lower, but I'm open minded.

Silent approval of Saddam's Arab neighbors > "Silent approval of UN secretary general"

[patteeu]

I'm not here to argue the merits of stopping tyrants from killing people. The content of the opening post was that the evidence for pursuing the Iraq war was doctored. The point of my post was that the war that was based on faulty evidence was the Serb war. Many of those mass graves that have been found were not part of those original satelite photos, and they incuded many Serbs, Bosnians from both sides and other nationals that had nothing to do with the Kosovo incident at the time. My point is valid. We were sold the war on 200,000 missing Kosovars and it was a flat out lie. They never could produce any evidence to support that figure. And the supposedly huge Serb military buildup in Kosovo also turned out to be a lie. What happened to those supposedly hundreds of bombed Serb military vehicles? There should have been rusting hulks on every street corner. But only the odd few here and there were ever found.

Not to mention the fake concentration camp (Trnopolje) that Christianne Amanpour reported from that turned out to be a fence (that didn't even create an enclosed space) with a handful of malnourished refugees behind it.

[Arnold]

Not to mention the fake concentration camp (Trnopolje) that Christianne Amanpour reported from that turned out to be a fence (that didn't even create an enclosed space) with a handful of malnourished refugees behind it.I didn't hear about that one - how typically CNNN...

[Archimedes]

I don't know where you get your information so if you've got a link it would be interesting to see it. Assuming your figures are right, how many of those dead people were killed by Serbs before the US bombing began? My understanding is that the number is considerably lower, but I'm open minded.
I gleaned the casualty count from US State Department's report here:

http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/kosovoii/homepage.html


Only to those already opposed to George Bush
Indeed, wouldn't the world be a nicer place if you only had to convince people who already agree with you?

[Captain Ochre]

I gleaned the casualty count from US State Department's report here:

http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/kosovoii/homepage.html


Your source is dated in the unfortunate sense (unfortunately).
A data sheet with a more recent date would be preferable, since investigations of mass graves in Kosovo persist through the present year and the numbers (as I understand it) aren't what we were led to expect.
I've cast about for information on the topic but I haven't found anything like a good summary (sorry).

[patteeu]

I gleaned the casualty count from US State Department's report here:

http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/kosovoii/homepage.html

I notice that you ignored my question regarding when these deaths took place. Your reference says that these numbers represent casualties from a period between March and late June 1999. Guess what, that's AFTER the US and NATO escalated the conflict by dropping bombs on Serbia. Arnold and I have been talking about how the Clinton administration lied about genocide and other Serbian attrocities to get us into that war. Referencing a casualty count from after our entry doesn't address our point. I'll leave aside the argument that US/NATO entry into the war acted as an incentive to the Serbs to increase the brutality level of their cleansing efforts because it isn't really relevant to the point Arnold and I have been making.