How come no discussion of the Downing Street Memo here?

[Toad]

Originally posted by 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.

[/b]

So, now you have your answer to your question that opened the thread.

Even you don't find this to be the "smoking gun" that would lead to impeachment. I'm pretty sure no one else (well, no normal person) does either.

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?  

[/b]

I think that's "business as usual" for almost any politician and for D.C. especially.
 
Would I do it? No. But then I'd never be a politician since my parents were married when I was born (and still are).

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?

I fear this analogy quickly goes beyond your depth of understanding.

Professionally, in the USAF and the airline, we ALWAYS decided ahead of time how we wanted to fly the plane. We paid attention to the instruments necessary to do so... which is most of them. IF something unexpected or unplanned for happened, you dealt with it according to preestablished procedure in almost every case.

In short, bad analogy; tough to go anywhere with it.

[oboe]

Actually I was interested in the discussion itself, not so much an answer.   Impeachment never crossed my mind.

Apologies for the bad analogy.   What I had in mind was a pilot who decides he wants to climb and then ignores the airspeed indicator and stall warning horn if they indicate continued climbing is not such a good idea.   Wasn't thinking an deeper than that.
Or maybe a pilot who believes his engines should be running perfectly, and so he ignores any instruments that are indicating the engines are not running properly...

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Airhead
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.
 

No surprise here. Go read the transcripts from the Bush/Gore debates. The guy had a hardon for Iraq from day one.

[Holden McGroin]

Since 1998 it has been the policy of the United States to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

[john9001]

sorry to disapoint all you booshbashers, but the UN just said that saddam had WMD, they just could not find them nor did they know where the WMD had been moved to.

[Airhead]

Originally posted by john9001
sorry to disapoint all you booshbashers, but the UN just said that saddam had WMD, they just could not find them nor did they know where the WMD had been moved to.

LOL Late breaking news eh?

[Skydancer]

No Thrawn an opinion,,, But hey shout nyah nyah and put your fingers in your ears.

The Image is the cover of the book not something I made up!

[Toad]

Originally posted by oboe
Impeachment never crossed my mind.

[/b]

It crossed mine; however there just isn't any real evidence.

Or maybe a pilot who believes his engines should be running perfectly, and so he ignores any instruments that are indicating the engines are not running properly...

Again, you're swimming in deep water. One engine instrument? All engine instruments? Airspeed? Altitude? Vibration? There have been times I have ignored ONE engine instrument that showed an abnormality. Possibly even times when I ignored two instruments.

Whatever, Bush did not "crash and burn" on this issue. The outcome remains "in the air". No one will know for a while.  If this starting point democratizes the whole Middle East within 50 years, Bush will be a legendary, heroic historical figure. If this leads to even greater Islamic militarism in the ME and economic ruin for the US, he'll be a legendary goat.

I'm sure not ready to judge as yet.

I think we've had this entire discussion before.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Skydancer
No Thrawn an opinion,,, But hey shout nyah nyah and put your fingers in your ears.

The Image is the cover of the book not something I made up!

What the hell are you talking about?

[oboe]

Originally posted by Toad


It crossed mine; however there just isn't any real evidence.

 

Again, you're swimming in deep water. One engine instrument? All engine instruments? Airspeed? Altitude? Vibration? There have been times I have ignored ONE engine instrument that showed an abnormality. Possibly even times when I ignored two instruments.

Whatever, Bush did not "crash and burn" on this issue. The outcome remains "in the air". No one will know for a while.  If this starting point democratizes the whole Middle East within 50 years, Bush will be a legendary, heroic historical figure. If this leads to even greater Islamic militarism in the ME and economic ruin for the US, he'll be a legendary goat.

I'm sure not ready to judge as yet.

I think we've had this entire discussion before. [/B]

You're thinking too hard about my analogy.   Its only supposed to give a real example of a person who makes is mind up about a situation, and then ignores facts that contradict their view of reality.   I've heard this said about Bush, but I don't think I've seen a more official or concrete example of it than the Downing Street Memo.   I guess that's what caught my attention in the first place - it officially validated these opinions about Bush I'd read about earlier.

But I agree - we aren't covering any new ground here.   It's just that it seems so much firmer this time.

[Toad]

Originally posted by oboe
...example of a person who makes is mind up about a situation, and then ignores facts that contradict their view of reality.   I've heard this said about Bush, but I don't think I've seen a more official or concrete example of it than the Downing Street Memo.    

Respectfully, I don't see how this memo does that.

You're saying Bush made up his mind to invade and ignored facts that contradicted his view of reality?

Referring to WMD? Or what facts did he (in your view) ignore?

[oboe]

The memo says it - it says he made up his mind to invade, and then 'fixed' the intelligence and facts to fit the policy.  Ignoring facts that contradict the policy is implied - but not much of a stretch I think.

You said yourself a favorable interpretation of the memo was that only "favorable" or "supporting" intelligence reports and facts were being used to support the case for Iraqi invasion - thus  unfavorable information was being ignored.

[Toad]

No, it didn't say that unfavorable information was being ignored.

It said:

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.

Now, to your concern about "fixed":

From the Oxford English Dictionary, the one I think is most appropriate for a memo written in England by and Englishman.

fixed

  • adjective 1 fastened securely in position. 2 predetermined or inflexibly held. 3 (fixed for) informal situated with regard to: how are you fixed for money?

Note the FIRST defintion. As in:

Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fastened securely in position around the policy.

Fits the thrust of the argument pretty well in its context.

The second definition?

Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being inflexibly held around the policy.


I suggest to you that in this context, "fixed" is much more likely to be "fastened" than "inflexible", particularly with the use of "around the policy".

I think you make to much of the term "fixed" which I do not believe is as ambiguous as you seem to believe.

Be interesting if someone actually asked Matthew Rycroft what he meant by "fixed", don't you think?

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Toad
No, it didn't say that unfavorable information was being ignored.

It said:



Now, to your concern about "fixed":

From the Oxford English Dictionary, the one I think is most appropriate for a memo written in England by and Englishman.

fixed

  • adjective 1 fastened securely in position. 2 predetermined or inflexibly held. 3 (fixed for) informal situated with regard to: how are you fixed for money?

Note the FIRST defintion. As in:

Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fastened securely in position around the policy.

Fits the thrust of the argument pretty well in its context.

The second definition?

Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being inflexibly held around the policy.


I suggest to you that in this context, "fixed" is much more likely to be "fastened" than "inflexible", particularly with the use of "around the policy".

I think you make to much of the term "fixed" which I do not believe is as ambiguous as you seem to believe.

Be interesting if someone actually asked Matthew Rycroft what he meant by "fixed", don't you think?

You actually need the full context of the paragraph to get what he means by "fixed". It is obvious that he means they were overplaying the WMD/terrorism connection to justify the invasion.

Heres the whole memo.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html



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.

[Nash]

Originally posted by Toad
Note the FIRST defintion. As in:

Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fastened securely in position around the policy.

Fits the thrust of the argument pretty well in its context.

Then why the word "but?"

Originally posted by Toad
The second definition?

Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being inflexibly held around the policy.

Though you seem to disagree, I think this is as damaging.

When it comes to the definition of "fixed," one you left out that I happen to like is that of "fixed" Las Vegas style. As in, "the fix was in." Like it as I do, I doubt a British memo was actually getting gangster in its language. So too bad for me.

But whatever the exact definition, it doesn't speak well of intentions here.

"Be interesting if someone actually asked Matthew Rycroft what he meant by "fixed", don't you think? - Toad

Can't believe this hasn't occured to anyone. Certainly didn't occur to me. Has this been done? Is Matt at liberty to say?