How come no discussion of the Downing Street Memo here?

[oboe]

I just searched on it and found only one reference to it in the 'Deep Throat' post.

Bush administration supporters here must be comfortable with a President who decides his course and then fixes intelligence to support those decisions?    (Not surprising he has a favorite in John Bolton.)

Bushes detractors here just realize the futility of even broaching the topic?

[Momus--]

How come no discussion of the Downing Street Memo here?

Liberal media bias obviously.

[Nilsen]

all your memos belong to me!


harr..

[Toad]

Maybe first you should ask "Why did it get a great big collective yawn in England just days before the election that Blair won?"

[Airhead]

Those of us who opposed the Iraqi invasion already knew the WMDs didn't exist and GWB had decided to invade regardless.

Those who favored the Iraqi invasion didn't care if there was, or wasn't, WMDs, they wanted to invade regardless.

Look, I voiced my opposition two years ago, and nothing has happened or been revealed politically that's changed my opinion...the only question today is how many years we're willing to occupy Iraq, and how many lives we sacrifice, before we decide we can't spoon feed "democracy" to a group of people who are one step out of the dark ages.

Save your breath about how Iraq was a threat and this invasion was justified, even if true the 64 dollar question is rather this war is winnable, not if it was justified.

I'll check back in on this subject in two years.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Airhead

I'll check back in on this subject in two years.

Might even take three years. Afghanistan is just now at the point where they can kinda/sorta try to stand up all by themselves. It'll take a few of years to see if they can remain upright.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Airhead


I'll check back in on this subject in two years.

Better plan on checking back every two years for the next decade (or two).

[Skydancer]

"spoon feed "democracy" to a group of people who are one step out of the dark ages."

Part of the reason for those Dark ages may have been the UN sanctions program. You never know? Take a modern secular middle eastern society.( one of the few) Deprive the population of everything they need to maintain that modern life and bingo another breeding ground for Islamic fundamentalists and Dictatorship.

I might be wrong but......

An enlightening read on the quagmire of Iraq.

 

[Thrawn]

Flame bait/Troll

[Toad]

Originally posted by Thrawn




....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....

[/b]

Where exactly does this say the intelligence was a deliberate lie?

 

...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.

[/b]

"Case was thin" is not the same as "case is non-existent" or "case is entirely a bunch of lies".

"his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

[/b]

Again, it doesn't say he has no WMD. It says he has less than Libya, NK or Iran.  Where is the deliberate lie?

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one,

[/b]

Clearly, this consideration presumes SH has WMD. If they are planning around it, doesn't that say the planners think he HAS WMD?

I think the lack of interest is due to the continuing lack of a truly "smoking gun".

Unless you folks can show where this says the Bush administration deliberately lied?

The closest it says is:

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

[/b]

Shall we agree that one interpretation of this is that only "favorable" or "supporting" intelligence reports and facts were being used?

I see that as one interpretation and therefore, it's just not the smoking gun.

[oboe]

It sortof depends on your interpretation of the word 'fixed'.   How do you 'fix' facts and intelligence around a policy?   I think using the most favorable meaning would agree with what Toad says - thta only the most favorable reports were being used.   But using a harsher, though perhaps more realistic meaning of 'fixed' within this context yields the conclusion that facts and intelligence were being skewed to align with the desired policy goals.    And I think that is both unwise and dishonest.

As far as the case being 'thin' or 'nonexistant' - that distinction matters less to me, since both of those characterizations  wouldn't justify a starting a war, in my mind.    To my way of thinking you'd want a nice, fat, thick, solid and undeniable case before ordering your nation's best and bravest into harm's way.    I'm pretty sure you agree with me on that one, if memory serves.

But maybe the 'thin' case explains the need to 'fix' the facts.

[Airhead]

Originally posted by Toad
Might even take three years. Afghanistan is just now at the point where they can kinda/sorta try to stand up all by themselves. It'll take a few of years to see if they can remain upright.

Sorry Toad but we were talking about Iraq...not Afghanistan, Grenada, Gettysburg or Viet Nam...Iraq. And we were talking about if GWB had determined to invade Iraq, come hell or high water, before he was elected.


Tony Blair acknowledged this, and declared it old news, and that made it a non-issue in the British election..

 The only people who seem to be concerned are voters like you, and since you'll be at the forefront of the McCain (meet the new boss, same as the old boss) in '08 ... that way you can claim to have been fooled for twelve straight years.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Airhead
Sorry Toad but we were talking about Iraq...not Afghanistan,

[/b]

So you're saying the entire Afghan experience has no bearing, no value as something with which to compare our progress in Iraq?

Because Afghanistan is obviously a "better" or "easier" situation than Iraq and it's taking and will take quite a long time there.

So we can't use that to shape our expectations in Iraq? Is that what you're saying?



Tony Blair acknowledged this, and declared it old news, and that made it a non-issue in the British election.


I'd go so far as to say it's "no news".

The only people who seem to be concerned are voters like you, and since you'll be at the forefront of the McCain (meet the new boss, same as the old boss) in '08 ... that way you can claim to have been fooled for twelve straight years.


Why thanks ever so for telling me what I think, what I'll do and who I'll vote for.

Your clairvoyance is astoundingly inaccurate!

[Toad]

So, Oboe... you basically agree this is NOT the smoking gun necessary to state unequivocably that Bush outright lied to us over this issue?

I didn't say it looks good, but that it's not the necessary evidence.

[oboe]

I do think its a smoking gun, but I have to stop short of saying that its existence allows me to 'say unequivocally' that Bush lied to us over the reasons for the invasion.    I think Bush himself or someone in his inner circle would have to do that.   I wish it would've been in the media BEFORE the election, just to be fair.

Disregarding the Iraq situation for the moment, what do you think of that style of decisionmaking?    Deciding what you want to do according to your gut feeling, and then build the case for it by 'fixing' facts and intelligence to support your policies?    Doesn't it seem foolish and likely to backfire?

Would you have lasted very long as a pilot if you had decided ahead of time how you wanted to fly the plane, and then paid attention to only those instruments that reinforced your predetermined flight decisions?