How come no discussion of the Downing Street Memo here?

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Toad
Pretty much HAD to have been when the the intelligence agencies of Britain, Russia, China, France, Germany and America said the same thing.

Just a guess based on my understanding of "multiple".

Have you seen anything that says where they got their information from? Or do you just say multiple because they are different countries all using the same wrong source.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Raider179
Actually he questioned both of them.

Actually, I questioned "lie" and have gotten absolutely no proof of the assertion.

I pointed out that "fixed" has several meanings, the first two defined ones being the most applicable in this case AND that no one except Rycroft knows for certain. Further that it seems odd with a situation of this magnitude in the balance (possible impeachment) that no one seems to want to ask Rycroft.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Raider179
Have you seen anything that says where they got their information from? Or do you just say multiple because they are different countries all using the same wrong source.

Believe it or not the intel agencies of Britain, Russia, China, France, Germany and America didn't give me a copy of their reports. I am incredulous at this slight.

I have not seen their reports or any "source" info.

I will say I find it a huge leap on the order of tinfoil hats to say that the intel agencies of Britain, Russia, China, France, Germany and America colluded to present incorrect information OR that they all have exactly the same sources and used exactly the same source for the reports. It defies credibility.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Raider179
so what was this? He was allowed counsel, he could invoke the fifth, Doesn't sound like a grand jury investigation it sounds like the trap that it was.

LOL. Now it's a trap? You do understand that Clinton and his attorneys dictated the terms for his appearance?

You understand they negotiated protections for Clinton that would not normally be available in a Grand Jury inquiry?

And it's a trap? Well, a trap designed by Clinton and his attorneys then.

However, apparently you don't understand the "self-incrimination" protections he had. On ANY question.. Monica or Paula or Tripp all he had to say is "I choose not to answer" using the grounds of self-incrimination. No lying, no culpablility, no admission of guilt.

[Skydancer]

Thrawn my apologies I thought you were accusing me of flame baiting and trolling. Turns out your post was deleted for flame baiting and trolling.

( I'll get the hang of this BBs one day .... )

[Momus--]

Toad,

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.

I don't really see how you can mistake the meaning of this passage. The decision for war was made in advance. The justification was to be terrorism and WMD. Wolfowitz has confirmed elsewhere that this pretext was chosen for reasons other than that of an imminent threat. It's not as if this the first time that this has been alleged either.

And multiple sources asserted they did. But of course that doesn't fit your perception, so you discount those.

No, I discount them because they aren't supported by any evidence that stands up to scrutiny. I held this opinion before the invasion and I think it has been vindicated. You on the other hand, said this in 2003:

When the war does happen, Iraq (most likely Republican Guard Units) will use either chemical or biological weapons currently prohibited by the UN against the US forces. If not, it will be clearly shown on worldwide media AFTER the war that Iraq had stockpiles of these weapons that WERE NOT known to the UN inspectors prior to the war. In other words, that they're lying through their teeth about not having this stuff.

Excuse me if I view your judgement on this subject to be slightly less than reliable.

Well, don't feel alone. People that are far smarter, far richer and much more "connected" in the political arena and judiciary have been unable to prove the charges you make against Bush.

Bush may have engaged in a direct lie or he may just have been economical with the truth. Either is to practise deception to a greater or lesser extent, which is a habit common to all politicians irrespective of ideology. I don't really care either way other than to dislike seeing otherwise intelligent and reasonable people swallow the propaganda time after time.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Momus--
I don't really see how you can mistake the meaning of this passage.

[/b]

Actually, that's pretty easy. You see "fixed" has more than one meaning.

Why don't you post the definition of "fixed" from the Complete Oxford English Dictionary? Then we'll discuss some more.

The decision for war was made in advance. The justification was to be terrorism and WMD.

[/b]

You here make the assumption that there was no justification. Clearly, they felt they had intel justifying an invasion coupled with failure of the Iraqis to comply with UN resolutions. Remember the unanimous SC vote on "material breach"?

From their information, it may well have been justified. See what I'm saying? And you have yet to prove or show in any way that they falsified information/intel. There's your problem.


And yeah, I did say that in 2003. And I've said I was wrong right here on this BBS too. So your point is?

Bush may have engaged in a direct lie or he may just have been economical with the truth. Either is to practise deception to a greater or lesser extent, [/B]

Even you use "may". You admit there's no proof. Next you say he "may" have been "economical with the truth".

Hey... he may not have engaged in a direct lie or he may not just have been economical with the truth.

There's this little requirement to be proven guilty.

He hasn't been.

You can't do so.

People with a whole lot more motive to "get Bush", more smarts, more resources and more money have been unable to prove him guilty.

One of the tenets of this country's judcicial system is "innocent until proven guilty".

You may not like him. I don't like everything about him. I think the war, in hindsight, was a mistake.

But that doesn't make him guilty.

Feel free to rant on... because that's all your doing.

[Skydancer]

I can't be arsed to read Toads pompous claptrap either though I occasionaly scan it to see if he has gained the ability to admit that he isn't right about everything!  I don't do Ignore anymore!

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Toad




[/b]

You here make the assumption that there was no justification. Clearly, they felt they had intel justifying an invasion coupled with failure of the Iraqis to comply with UN resolutions.

From their information, it may well have been justified. See what I'm saying? And you have yet to prove or show in any way that they falsified information/intel. There's your problem.

 [/B]

1) Justifcation is given as WMD and Terrorists according to the Memo.

2) No proof of either Al-qaida (pre-invasion) or WMD  has been found in Iraq.

3) The memo makes no reference in saying the violation of the UN resolutions would be sufficient as a reason to go to war.

4)So you are saying they might have information that justifies the war that we havent seen yet? Doesn't the Public have a right to know that information? Like it exists. lol

5)Everything is pointing to Bush and his posse picking and choosing evidence to support a policy that was created before all the evidence was considered or even collected. Lie, very possible, deception, you bet it was.

[Thrawn]

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld  (09.19.02)

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."  President Bush (09.26.02)

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . It has developed weapons of mass death"  President Bush (10.02.02)

"There's a grave threat in Iraq.  There just is."  President Bush (10.02.03)

"There are many dangers in the world; the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place.  President Bush (10.07.02)

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace." President Bush (10.16.02)

"There is a real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to America in the form of Saddam Hussein."  President Bush (10.28.02)

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."  President Bush (11.01.02)

"Today the world is...uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq."  President Bush (11.01.02)

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."  President Bush (11.23.02)

In January 2003, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett, when asked “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests”; he replied “Well, of course he is.”

In February 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said “[t]his is about [an] imminent threat.”

In May 2003, Ari Fleisher was asked “Didn’t we go to war because we said WMD’s were a direct and imminent threat to the U.S?” He responded, “Absolutely.”



"Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate.

They never said there was an “imminent” threat.  Rather, they painted an objective assessment for our policymakers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests."


-George Tenet , Feb 5, 2005.

[Momus--]

Well Toad, you can construct a convenient smokescreen around the meaning of a specific word if you like but I'm not playing; I guess the significance of the passage in question is lost on you; so be it.

Clearly, they felt they had intel justifying an invasion coupled with failure of the Iraqis to comply with UN resolutions. Remember the unanimous SC vote on "material breach"?

Well, "clearly" the intel in question was erroneous. Why exactly have Perle, Wolfowitz & Co severed ties with their previous INC golden boy? Embarrasment? Guilty concience?

Point me to the UNSC ruling that recognised the imminent danger to US national security and authorised an invasion.

From their information, it may well have been justified

This would be the information that was held by many to be suspect at the time, that originated from a special office at the Pentagon rather than from conventional intelligence sources and that was at odds with the views of people best qualified to assess it, i.e. senior UN figures intimately involved in the disarmament process. Information originating from a known fraudster (Chalabi) who had been suckling at the US teat for years, promoted by a group of ideologues with a history of exagerating intelligence to promote their agenda.

Have you asked yourself why Wolfowitz was recently excluded from the centre of power and packed off to the World Bank?

So your point is?

That you didn't get it then and you still don't get it now.

One of the tenets of this country's judcicial system is "innocent until proven guilty".

Very emotive; let me know when you start applying the burden of proof to foreign affairs, because last time I checked you didn't prove the existence of a single NBC weapon before the invasion.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Raider179

4)So you are saying they might have information that justifies the war that we havent seen yet? Doesn't the Public have a right to know that information? Like it exists. lol

[/b]

No you misunderstand. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying in the entire period BEFORE the invasion... election onward.... the information they were getting/using from various agencies/countries MAY have convinced them action was "justified".

Note that the memo plainly says they can't rule out Iraqi use of WMD against an invasion:

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began?

 
That's from the guy that wrote the memo you are all parsing so assiduosly. Clearly, HE thought SH might have WMD when he wrote the memo.

In the aftermath, they have not found the WMD so the justification is clearly questionable, possibly actionable. I've said that before right here on this board.  The problem is you have to have proof of deliberate lying. There isn't any.

1) Justifcation is given as WMD and Terrorists according to the Memo.

[/b]

Exactly. What I'm saying is they MAY have felt they had the necessary proof to justify their actions. (See above for Rycroft's comment on SH use of WMD.)

Just as you apparently feel you have the necessary "proof" that he was lying.

In the aftermath of the war, no WMD have been found. A-Q connections remain, at least to me, a possibility, particularly the meeting in Czechoslovakia.

Now, what proof do you have in the aftermath? Proof that would stand up in court?  None.

3) The memo makes no reference in saying the violation of the UN resolutions would be sufficient as a reason to go to war.

[/b]

REALLY? NO KIDDING?

You know the date on the memo right? 23 July 2002 in case you don't.

You know the date on UN SC 1441, "Material Breach"? 8 November 2002.

Let's see... when the memo was written, the UN resolution hadn't been passed yet.

So is it surprising the memo doesn't mention the resolution that threatened Iraq with " serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;"?

5)Everything is pointing to Bush and his posse picking and choosing evidence to support a policy that was created before all the evidence was considered or even collected. Lie, very possible, deception, you bet it was. [/B]

1. Again you have no actual proof they did so.

2. It's not a "lie" if they did so, especially if, to the best of their knowledge, the evidence they chose was believed to be correct. Intelligence analysts do that ALL the time. They gather all the information they can, keep what they believe to be correct and weed out that which doesn't fit while trying to make some sense of it.

Basically, you continue to foam and rant with nothing that is proven to support your tirades.

[Toad]

Hiya Thrawn!

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

[Toad]

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Gosh, that was fun.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Momus--
Well Toad, you can construct a convenient smokescreen around the meaning of a specific word if you like but I'm not playing; I guess the significance of the passage in question is lost on you; so be it.

[/b]

LOL! You slam me for not using the FULL Oxford English dictionary adn then you tell me I'm the one playing around with the meaning of the word "fixed"?

Why don't you post from the Full dicitonary? I'll tell you why... because the first two entries are exactly the same and clearly show the word, as used by Englishmen has two different meanings.

You're blowing a pretty nice smokescreen out your anal vent.

Point me to the UNSC ruling that recognised the imminent danger to US national security and authorised an invasion.

[/b]

Isn't one. Just 1441 that threatens serious consequences.

Now you point me to the part in the US Presidential oath that says the President will defend this country and protect the Constitution but can't take military action until the UN agrees with him about the threat.

That you didn't get it then and you still don't get it now.

[/b]

I clearly get that you assumptions and no proof; all you have is suspicion (and bias). And that you'll continue to whine about it for decades.
 

Very emotive; let me know when you start applying the burden of proof to foreign affairs, because last time I checked you didn't prove the existence of a single NBC weapon before the invasion.

Nor were the UN inspectors able to prove the total absence of a single NBC weapon before the invasion.

An official Iraqi declaration (December) that it had no weapons of mass destruction was generally regarded as incomplete and uninformative. By Jan., 2003, UN inspectors had found no evidence of forbidden weapons programs, but they also indicated that Iraq was not actively cooperating with their efforts to determine if previously known or suspected weapons had been destroyed and weapons programs had been ended.