Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: oboe on June 06, 2005, 08:24:54 AM
-
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?
-
How come no discussion of the Downing Street Memo here?
Liberal media bias obviously. ;)
-
all your memos belong to me!
harr..
-
Maybe first you should ask "Why did it get a great big collective yawn in England just days before the election that Blair won?"
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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).
-
"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.
(http://www.borrowersrecommend.co.uk/images/Revolution-Day.jpg)
-
Flame bait/Troll
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
Since 1998 it has been the policy of the United States to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
-
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.
-
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? ;)
-
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!
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
Don't know but that seems the obvious, quickest and simplest solution.
At the same time, using separate "police investigation" type interrogations, I would ask all the memos addressees David Manning, Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell if they had any direct explanation or expansion on this comment from Rycroft.
Just to see if all the stories match up.
Really though, unless this is done all the discussion in the world about it is pretty meaningless. I'm sure it was clear to Rycroft when he wrote it. Why not ask him? He probably kept notes and/or drafts of it. Those might shed a bit of light as well.
-
Because if it was "fixed" in the mob/gambling/Vegas sense AND Rycroft has the proof, I'd strongly support beginning impeachment proceedings.
-
As long as the meaning of the memo is still unclear, don't rule it out. :)
Actually, do rule it out, because it is unclear.
Someone get Matt on the horn!!
-
Actually, something occured to me. Maybe it's a language barrier. Maybe "were being fixed around the policy" is something the Brits understand. Maybe its meaning is obvious to them due to common usage in similar instances? In that it's a sort of slang? Have any of them weighed in here?
-
Time for a Clinton-style investigation.
Bring forth the witchhunt!
-
Skydancer posted something but as the Brits would say I no longer can be arsed to read his.... stuff.
Sand, I don't think the Brits DO US impeachments.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Sand, I don't think the Brits DO US impeachments.
Ya think?
-
One can certainly understand your frustration, Sandman. But the Iraq war in no way rises to the outrageous level of a couple hundred grand real estate deal. Please - lets maintain some perspective.
-
The impeachment proceedings were about lying under oath. Which he clearly did do.
Let's maintain THAT perspective since it's the correct one.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Ya think?
Ya, I think you won't see the Brits break into a even a damp perspire over this, let alone a sweat. But I appreciate your attempt to change the direction of this thread to something more to your liking.
Anyway since it's not "news" in any sense, there'll be nothing here either.
Unless maybe Rycroft has unassailable evidence that "the fix was in".
-
Originally posted by Toad
The impeachment proceedings were about lying under oath. Which he clearly did do.
Let's maintain THAT perspective since it's the correct one.
Hmmm... Now I'm completely unclear on the definition of "acquitted".
-
Originally posted by Toad
The impeachment proceedings were about lying under oath. Which he clearly did do.
Let's maintain THAT perspective since it's the correct one.
Sure, lets do that.
Lets forget that there was a witch hunt predicated on a measly and proved to be totally legitimate real estate deal, then bust him for obfuscating on the definition of sexual relations.
Now take that and compare it with the obfuscation of the reasons for necessitating dead men.
One of these things does not look like the other.
-
Federal Judge Susan Weber Wright found Clinton in contempt of court for having lied under oath in Paula Jones' sexual harassment lawsuit against the president.
Beyond that, would you yourself say the famous
"I did not have sex with that woman" was a lie under oath?
Or would you quibble and say oral sex was not having sexual relations?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Or would you quibble and say oral sex was not having sexual relations?
Can't we leave the quibbling to the lawyers? I think that's what they do. :)
-
It's goofy.
I have no further comment.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Sure, lets do that.
Lets forget that there was a witch hunt predicated on a measly and proved to be totally legitimate real estate deal, then bust him for obfuscating on the definition of sexual relations.
Now take that and compare it with the obfuscation of the reasons for necessitating dead men.
One of these things does not look like the other.
Indeed, they do not look alike.
In one case, a man was clearly obfuscating on the definition of sexual relations.
In the other case, a man has never, ever been shown to be obfuscating on the reasons for necessitating dead men.
To the contrary; many intelligence services maintained SH had WMD.
...The long-awaited report headed by former senior civil servant Lord Butler found no evidence of deliberate distortion or culpable negligence by the spy services...
..."Butler says Blair acted in good faith but, through no fault of his, the assessment he made about the immediacy of the threat presented by Saddam was based on weak intelligence reports.
"At the time, Britain was not alone in believing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The intelligence services of Russia, China, France, Germany and America believed it too."
I don't think ANYONE believes having oral sex is not having sexual relations though.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Can't we leave the quibbling to the lawyers? I think that's what they do. :)
Well, I guess you would know...........
-
Then there was no reason to send the inspectors back in, then, was there? I mean, they already knew, didn't they?
And when the inspectors told everyone they couldn't find any of the stuff that was all so clearly mapped out for them in Powell's UN slideshow, what happened? They got yanked out of there.
It's all fine to say that "everyone thought it was there." But, nobody really knew (obviously, because it wasn't there).Hence the inspectors.
So my question to you is.... If everyone knew - why the inspectors in the first place? Lastly, why were they yanked upon finding nothing?
-
Originally posted by Toad
I don't think ANYONE believes having oral sex is not having sexual relations though.
Well... according to this report (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6839072/), there are plenty. I wonder where they got the idea?
Is Oral Sex, Sex?
Three-quarters of teens would classify oral sex as “sex” (77%), but less than half (45%) would label touching someone's genitals as “sex”.
SUMMARY TABLE: What teens believe constitutes sex
Kissing someone romantically
12%
Touching someone's genitals or private parts [sex]
45%
Oral sex
77%
Sexual intercourse
91%
Is Oral Sex A Big Deal?
For many teens (43%), oral sex is not seen as being as big a deal as sexual intercourse. Boys and girls see this somewhat differently. While almost half of boys (47%) think that oral sex is not as big of a deal as sexual intercourse, fewer girls feel that way (38%).
This doesn’t mean that teens are dismissive of its significance: Fifty-five percent of teens hold that it is “very important” to be in love before having oral sex. Somewhat more (68%) say it is very important to be in love before having sexual intercourse.
Are Teens Who Have Oral Sex Still Virgins?
While a majority of teens do feel that oral sex is as big a deal as intercourse, it seems oral sex is taken somewhat more lightly than intercourse. More than half (54%) of American teens maintain that teens who only engage in oral sex are still virgins. However, the way in which virginity is defined varies by both their age and where they live:
* Older teens, 15 to 16-year-olds, are more likely to say teens having oral sex are still virgins than are 13 to 14-year-olds (60% vs. 46%).
* Suburban teens (60%) are more likely to say teens who have oral sex are still virgins than teens who live in an urban environment (45%).
-
You're right; I should have said "any intelligent, mature person".
Let's use you as an example.
Do YOU think oral sex is "having sexual relations"?
For example, if you got a BJ from your wife's best girlfriend would you explain to your wife you "didn't have sexual relations with that woman?"
-
Psst... Toad.... Let's forget blowjobs for a sec. I asked a coupla questions. Give me some love.
-
I'll defer to Nash for awhile. I'm beat...
-
Originally posted by Nash
Then there was no reason to send the inspectors back in, then, was there? I mean, they already knew, didn't they?
[/b]
Let's review it as it actually happened.
In October, President Hussein won a referendum on a seven-year extension of his presidency, receiving 100% of the vote according to Iraqi officials. The same month the U.S. Congress approved the use of force against Iraq, and in November the Security Council passed a resolution offering Iraq a “final opportunity” to cooperate on arms inspections. A strict timetable was established for the return of the inspectors and resumption of inspections, and active Iraqi compliance was insisted on. The Iraqi parliament rejected the terms of the resolution, but inspectors were permitted to return, and inspections resumed in late November.
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.
****************
Meanwhile, the United States and Britain continued preparations for possible military action against Iraq.
It's not as cut and dried as you'd like to portray it Nash.
Now, in light of that, what questions do you have that we have not already hashed out ad infinitum?
-
'Cuz it's past my bedtime and I'm busy tomorrow.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I'll defer to Nash for awhile. I'm beat...
Stamina is achieved through the diligent and regular excercise of the portion of the brain that repeatedly gets hit against walls. It doesn't amount to much, other than you develop a high tolerance for it.
-
Originally posted by Toad
[BNow, in light of that, what questions do you have that we have not already hashed out ad infinitum? [/B]
Ah shreck it. :D
-
I graciously and cheefully accept your surrender.
Good night.
-
d'Oh!
-
(http://www.bodybagcatholic.com/images/k/kurdkurd%20genocide%20at%20hand%20of%20Saddam.jpg)
To say Saddam did not have WMD is to deny facts. How does GWB KNOW Saddamn had chemical weapons??
The bastard has the reciept.. we sold 'em to him.
Did GWB intend to take Saddam out, earliest opportunity? Yup.
Did Saddam earn his ass-kickin? Yup.
Fait accompli.. now; lets get the troops the *** outta dodge and home safe asap.
-
To sum up; it is ok for a politician to deceive the public and his own legislature if the end goal is something of which I approve.
And they wonder why people are cynical about democracy.
Oh, and Toad, your wriggling over the interpretation of the word "fixed" is risible, as is citing the Compact edition of the OED as somehow giving the definitive interpretation of the word irrespective of context. I'm not quite sure what you're on, because this:
the intelligence and facts were being fastened securely in position around the policy
makes little or no sense. Are you playing the Chewbacca defense?
But no matter, because the thrust of the passage is clear whichever way you wriggle. Rather than intel driving the policy, the policy was shaping intel. It is not even a particularly new or surprising method; the neo-conservative "Team B" employed exactly the same means to shape US policy towards Russia in the 1970s. Current adminsistration figures such as Elliott Abrams did exactly the same thing with regard to US policy toward Nicaragua and Grenada in the 1980s. Clinton & Co. did it in Kosovo. This memo just confirms what most informed people already knew or suspected.
-
This memo just confirms what most informed people already knew or suspected.
The confirmation was personally important for me. And those who dislike the implications of the memo can always just ignore it.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
To sum up; it is ok for a politician to deceive the public and his own legislature if the end goal is something of which I approve.
[/b]
No one in this thread has said that.
I challenge you to provide a quote from this thread that supports your summary. It's BS.
Oh, and Toad, your wriggling over the interpretation of the word "fixed" is risible, as is citing the Compact edition of the OED as somehow giving the definitive interpretation of the word irrespective of context.
Two points my risible friend.
If you would like to pay for my online subscription to the Oxford, I'll cheerfully use that. However, as I choose NOT to personally pay for it, I use the FREE Compact edition to put the word in context. (You did manage to note that I used each definition in context, did you not? In order to see it "in context"? Surely that did not escape you?
Secondly, if not the Oxford, what dictionary do you suggest for divining and Englishman's intent?
BTW, why don't you post the first two definitions from the FULL Oxford for us?
But no matter, because the thrust of the passage is clear whichever way you wriggle.
[/b]
Hardly. Even Oboe, starter of the thread allows there are various possible meanings as does Nash. I see either one of those as better open, evaluating, debating minds than yours.
Rather than intel driving the policy, the policy was shaping intel.
[/b]
That's quite possible. In all fields of endeavor, people sometime select a desired outcome and work towards "proving" that outcome.
However, ONCE AGAIN, there is NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that intel was deliberately falsified nor is there any proof Bush deliberately lied.
That's where you and your ilk put on your blinders and charge ahead irregardless. Which is exactly what you folks accuse Bush of doing, isn't it?
-
Toad,
Would you agree its possible to deceive the public without deliberately lying?
And just to be sure we are on the same footing here, we both agree that deceiving the public (within the context of the American democracy) is a bad thing, right?
-
Keep dancing Toad, 'tis a shame to see you reduced to the disingenous quibbling over the definition of a word in order to defend an indefensible position.
That's where you and your ilk put on your blinders and charge ahead irregardless. Which is exactly what you folks accuse Bush of doing, isn't it?
No, my view is that Bush always intended to invade but chose to pursue the causus belli that he thought would garner most public support for the policy. I think this is a reasonable view in the circumstances. I also happen to think that Clinton would have invaded if he could have mustered enough domestic support or if a 9/11 type event had given him a suitable pretext.
-
Are you now saying that Bush deliberately deceived the public without lying? Is this now your case?
How would you prove that?
-
"disingenous quibbling " ?
LOL!
I posted a reference from the Oxford Compact in order to define it.
You challenged that since it's not from the Oxford FULL dictionary. Who's quibbling again? When are you going to post the one from the Oxford Full so that we can all see the major difference?
And you say I'm quibbling. :rofl
Go ahead, quote from the Oxford Full.
No, my view is that Bush always intended to invade but chose to pursue the causus belli that he thought would garner most public support for the policy. I think this is a reasonable view in the circumstances.
It's reasonable for YOU. Unfortunately, you can't support it or substantiate it with fact. Heck, you don't even have the support of the intelligence agencies of Britain, Russia, China, France, Germany and America on your side. At least Bush had that.
I also happen to think that Clinton would have invaded if he could have mustered enough domestic support or if a 9/11 type event had given him a suitable pretext.
Just another opinion like the previous lines. You're certainly entitled to that. Interesting that you see your opinion as totally valid without any support but Bush's opinion as invalid despite documented support from the intel agencies of 5 different nations.
OH... I'm still waiting on your support for this statement:
Originally posted by Momus--
To sum up; it is ok for a politician to deceive the public and his own legislature if the end goal is something of which I approve.
Where do you find that in this thread? Quotes please.
Or just admit you overstepped on that statment as well.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Beyond that, would you yourself say the famous
"I did not have sex with that woman" was a lie under oath?
Or would you quibble and say oral sex was not having sexual relations?
Ah yes- whenever a Conservative gets cornered they play the Clinton Lied card, and somehow that card trumps every other card in the deck, so no matter what evidence GWB was predertimined to invade Iraq surfaces it pales in comparison to Clinton getting a (gasp) blowjob in the Oral Office.
Sheeesh Toad, I thought you were bigger than that.
-
Just as the Liberals try to shift lying under oath into "Bill's BJ is no one's business but his and Monica's.
It's not about a BJ, it's about lying under oath. You know it and I expected more from you than that. Sheesh.
If Bill had said "Yeah. We did. Cigars dipped in the honey-pot too... not that it's any busines of yours, so drop it."
I'd have still thought him a sleeze but I'd say the whole thing was no issue. See... it's the lie.
evidence GWB was predertimined to invade Iraq
Maybe he was. Maybe he wasn't.
Where is such irrefutable evidence?
IF there is prior evidence of just cause, would any such "predetermination" be somehow wrong?
Review the thread; I've already said if it can be proven that he lied that I would support impeachment. And further punishment for that matter. If it's proven, I'd like to see him as a Marine grunt in Iraq.
You guys like to paint me as a dyed-in-the-wool Bush supporter. What I am is a dyed-in-the-wool supporter of the truth.
Did Bill lie under oath? Yep. Proven.
Did Bush deliberately lie about causus belli with Iraq? Unproven as yet.
Show me the proof.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Did Bush deliberately lie about causus belli with Iraq? Unproven as yet.
Show me the proof.
The catchword is "deliberate," but if you rephrase your question to "Did the Bush Administration deliberately overstate the urgency of invading Iraq and the danger Sadaam Hussien was to his neighbors," then the answer is yes.
As far as what Clinton did, that's history. Iraq is right now.
BTW, how do you think the war is progressing Toad? Just curious.
-
Originally posted by Toad
However, ONCE AGAIN, there is NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that intel was deliberately falsified nor is there any proof Bush deliberately lied.
WOODWARD (page 189): Repeating the new unequivocal charge about Iraq’s WMD program she had adopted three weeks earlier, Bush said, “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more.” Ratcheting up another notch, he added, “And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given.”
There is a clear lie. Did he do it deliberately? Downing memo indicates he did. Lets put it like this Toad, Has Bush 1 time admitted he was even wrong about WMD, no, I havent seen him say that. He still is sticking with his lie which is what good liars do even in the face of the truth. Here's another little something that lets me know what kind of person bush is.
Bush goes to the Pope's funeral, but he hasn't been to 1 serviceman's funeral.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Just as the Liberals try to shift lying under oath into "Bill's BJ is no one's business but his and Monica's.
It's not about a BJ, it's about lying under oath. You know it and I expected more from you than that. Sheesh.
If Bill had said "Yeah. We did. Cigars dipped in the honey-pot too... not that it's any busines of yours, so drop it."
I'd have still thought him a sleeze but I'd say the whole thing was no issue. See... it's the lie.
Can you show me a similar case where someone was convicted for lying under oath about being adulterous? It's one of those gray area's where people are not prosecuted for lying about it because it is considered "private" and therefore none of the states business. So given that how are you gonna prosecute someone for lying about a question that shouldnt have been asked in the first place.
-
"why the inspectors in the first place?"
the inspectors were not there to play "find the bombs", they were there to verify that the WMD were destroyed, they did not find proof that the WMD had been destroyed as per saddam's agreement with the UN's cease fire.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
"Did the Bush Administration deliberately overstate the urgency of invading Iraq and the danger Sadaam Hussien was to his neighbors," then the answer is yes.
[/b]
It would be yes in hindsight. Significant difference. Unless you can somehow prove Bush KNEW exactly how far along they were and KNEW SH's intentions?
BTW, how do you think the war is progressing Toad? Just curious.
The actual "shooting war" phase was exceptionally well done. The "nation building" phase has been more bloody than I thought. I have to admit I never considered Iraqis would drive carbombs into the funeral processions of other Iraqis.
I feel the election was a giant step forward. I feel there is real progress there.
I feel a major effort has been made to rebuild the country better than it was before and that it will continue. I think it'd be better if Iraqis quite blowing up Iraqi infrastructure.
I think the Iraqi military is finally beginning to assert itself.
I think it's still going to take a long time.
I am certain we can't walk away from the effort.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Can you show me a similar case where someone was convicted for lying under oath about being adulterous?
No but I suspect that's solely because 1) those records would be hard to find in public purview and 2) I'm not going to bother.
I feel pretty certain people have indeed been prosecuted for lying about a question that shouldnt have been asked in the first place.
The oath is to "tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth". Not "tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth unless you don't think the question should have been asked in the first place".
If the question shouldn't be allowed, your lawyer is supposed to object. The bench rules on the objection. That's how that works, as I'm sure you know.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
There is a clear lie.
[/b]
What part of that can you show to be a
1. Clear lie
2. Deliberate lie
Downing memo indicates he did.
[/b]
I read the full text of the memo. I didn't see where it says or shows Bush deliberately lied.
Perhaps you will quote from it and show me the actual lines that show he deliberately lied? Thank you.
Lets put it like this Toad, Has Bush 1 time admitted he was even wrong about WMD, no, I havent seen him say that.
[/b]
So? You have complete proof that they did not have WMD? Can you unassailably show that WMD cannot have been hidden or shipped out to Syria or some other place? I can't.
He still is sticking with his lie which is what good liars do
[/b]
Which is exactly what you are doing in the absence of any proof he lied or lied deliberately.
Note I'm not saying he did or didn't. I'm saying there's no proof that stands up.
Bush goes to the Pope's funeral, but he hasn't been to 1 serviceman's funeral.
Well, let's do a quick check. How many serviceman's funerals did Wilson attend? How many did Roosevelt attend? Truman? Kennedy? Johnson? Nixon?
If they did attend, how many such funerals were of common soldiers that were not awarded significant medals or honors?
Compare apples to apples please.
Further, if Bush went to the funeral of a common service man, how would he choose amongst them? How many and which of the 1500 do you think he should have attended?
-
Squeal all you like Toad, you're still dancing and you know it. You know full well that the author of the memo in question meant that the intelligence was being selectively interpreted in order to support a previously agreed on policy. Wolfowitz is even on record as admitting that they chose to make WMD the main pretext for "bureaucratic" reasons.
..you don't even have the support of the intelligence agencies of Britain, Russia, China, France, Germany and America on your side.
Sure, the support of foreign intelligence agencies was so strong that Bush had no trouble in garnering enough international backing to get a second UNSC resolution authorising force. Umm, hold on...
..that you see your opinion as totally valid without any support..
Well my opinion is supported by the memo for a start, and by the past US history of using dubious intel to support a wider foreign policy objective. It is also supported by a number of statements made prior to the invasion by intelligence figures that the evidence being used was less than reliable, for example by people like Ray McGovern and Greg Thielmann. Senior UN figures like David Kay and Muhammed ElBarade also contradicted some of the wilder assertions made by the hawks. Multiple sources asserted that Iraq had no viable CW capability after 1991.
Also, I would add that if the intelligence was so overwhelming, why did Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz & Co rely so much on material produced by the now almost totally discredited Ahmed Chalabi?
Now, you can take the position that before the war there was unanimity on the WMD issue but that is basically a fantasy.
Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress" Vladimir Putin, October 2002.Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,810611,00.html)
"We are in a period when intelligence is being used as a weapon - but more against ourselves than our enemies." Ex CIA deputy director John McLaughlin.
-
What the heck are "bureaucratic" reasons? Did he really mean "political"?
-
Originally posted by Toad
No but I suspect that's solely because 1) those records would be hard to find in public purview and 2) I'm not going to bother.
I feel pretty certain people have indeed been prosecuted for lying about a question that shouldnt have been asked in the first place.
The oath is to "tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth". Not "tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth unless you don't think the question should have been asked in the first place".
If the question shouldn't be allowed, your lawyer is supposed to object. The bench rules on the objection. That's how that works, as I'm sure you know.
It was at a grand jury inquiry correct? You do realize that they are very different from a trial.But like you said I am sure you know that.
The rules governing grand jury proceedings are very different from those governing trials by (petit) jury. The public is not admitted to hearings, and witnesses can be compelled to testify. The procedure is inquisitorial rather than adversarial: the defense is not allowed to call witnesses, and the prosecutor is not obliged to present both sides of the case. Hearsay and other evidence that might be excluded at a jury trial may be introduced.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Squeal all you like Toad, you're still dancing and you know it. You know full well that the author of the memo in question meant that the intelligence was being selectively interpreted in order to support a previously agreed on policy.
[/b]
No, I don't know that. And in this thread Oboe and Nash have indicated they don't "know" it either.
However, your Amazing Kreskin ability to tell people what they know is ........... let's see, a Euro would call it "arrogant". I'll just call it "laughable".
Well my opinion is supported by the memo for a start,
[/b]
No it isn't.
Multiple sources asserted that Iraq had no viable CW capability after 1991.
[/b]
And multiple sources asserted they did. But of course that doesn't fit your perception, so you discount those.
Now, you can take the position that before the war there was unanimity on the WMD issue but that is basically a fantasy.
[/b]
Haven't said there was unanimity. Again, I challenge you to show the quote that validates your assertion.
And again, I know you won't be able to do so. Just like backing your personal "summary" of this thread with a totally incorrect assessment.
You have zip for proof. Tough to get around that first stumbling block, isn't it?
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.
In short, people with motive, money, skill and brains far in excess of either your or I can't make the case you try to make.
Because the proof isn't there.
-
Tell me... are you sworn under oath at a grand jury inquiry? Can you have legal counsel present at a grand jury inquiry? Can your legal counsel object at a grand jury?
I'm sure you know the anwers to all of these.
-
Originally posted by Toad
What part of that can you show to be a
1. Clear lie
2. Deliberate lie
[/b]
I read the full text of the memo. I didn't see where it says or shows Bush deliberately lied.
Perhaps you will quote from it and show me the actual lines that show he deliberately lied? Thank you.
[/b]
So? You have complete proof that they did not have WMD? Can you unassailably show that WMD cannot have been hidden or shipped out to Syria or some other place? I can't.
[/b]
Which is exactly what you are doing in the absence of any proof he lied or lied deliberately.
Note I'm not saying he did or didn't. I'm saying there's no proof that stands up.
Well, let's do a quick check. How many serviceman's funerals did Wilson attend? How many did Roosevelt attend? Truman? Kennedy? Johnson? Nixon?
If they did attend, how many such funerals were of common soldiers that were not awarded significant medals or honors?
Compare apples to apples please.
Further, if Bush went to the funeral of a common service man, how would he choose amongst them? How many and which of the 1500 do you think he should have attended? [/B]
1) "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."
That tells me that bush was picking and choosing evidence to fit policy. Sorry if you want to debate the meaning of the word "fixed" when its used in this context, but its pretty obvious to everyone what it clearly means. Have you read any of Bob Woodwards books? They are also pretty clear about How Iraq became a target right after 9/11 and then they figured out how/why to go after them. Try reading Bush at War.
2)WMD, its not there Toad. Not the tons of it, not the missiles, not the mobile labs. There has also not been any proof of WMD after what 1994?(by the inspectors)Might be 96 cant remember the year.
3)Funerals...
President Bill Clinton was on the tarmac to receive the dead from the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. Presidents Reagan and Carter attended services for the 241 killed in Beirut and for the troops killed in the failed hostage-rescue in Iran.
Surely Bush could have met the arriving caskets from the first deaths of the war.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Tell me... are you sworn under oath at a grand jury inquiry? Can you have legal counsel present at a grand jury inquiry? Can your legal counsel object at a grand jury?
I'm sure you know the anwers to all of these.
Here you go.
Principal among these is the investigative function, which is served through the fact that grand juries may summon witnesses by process and compel testimony and the production of evidence generally. Operating in secret, under the direction but not control of a prosecutor, not bound by many evidentiary and constitutional restrictions, such juries may examine witnesses in the absence of their counsel and without informing them of the object of the investigation or the place of the witnesses in it.
Lets see that says "compelled to testify, not bound by evidentiary and constitutional restrictions, absence of counsel....
Yes you are under oath.
-
Originally posted by Toad
[/
And multiple sources asserted they did. But of course that doesn't fit your perception, so you discount those.
[/
Since when did The Iraqi National Congress become multiple sources. The INC was after all the ones who led us(the germans first really) to "Curveball". Helluva name for someone supplying bad intelligence huh?
-
Originally posted by Raider179
1That tells me that bush was picking and choosing evidence to fit policy.
Doesn't show a lie of any sort.
Again, you assume you KNOW how Matthew Rycroft meant "fixed". Tell me, it'd be quite simple for the press to ASK him what he meant. Why don't they?
Why haven't they? Because despite your clairvoyance, it isn't clear to either myself or Nash. And I doubt you'd class Nash as a blind Bush supporter.
2)WMD, its not there Toad.
[/b]
The only thing that can be truly said is that they haven't found any. "It's not there" is an unprovable supposition.
Funerals...
[/b]
So you can't find any evidence that Clinton, Reagan or Carter attended individual funerals either? OK.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
1) Sorry if you want to debate the meaning of the word "fixed" when its used in this context, but its pretty obvious to everyone what it clearly means.
Seems obvious to me that Toad was questioning the term "Lie" not "fixed"
-
Did Clinton have counsel with him?
QUESTION: I'm going to talk briefly about your rights and responsibilities as a grand jury witness. Normally, grand jury witnesses, while not allowed to have attorneys in the grand jury room with them, can stop and consult with their attorneys.
But our arrangement today, your attorneys are here and present for consultation. (OFF-MIKE) to consult with them as necessary, but it won't count against (OFF-MIKE). Do you understand that, sir?
CLINTON: I do understand that.
QUESTION: You have a privilege against self-incrimination. If a truthful answer to any question would tend to incriminate you, you can invoke the privilege and that application will not be used against you. Do you understand that?
CLINTON: I do.
QUESTION: And if you don't invoke it, however, any of the answers that you do give can and will be used against you. Do you understand that, sir?
CLINTON: I do.
QUESTION: Mr. President, do you understand that your testimony here today is under oath?
CLINTON: I do.
QUESTION: And do you understand that because you've been sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, that if you were to lie or intentionally mislead the grand jury you could be prosecuted for perjury and/or obstruction of justice?
CLINTON: I believe that's correct.
QUESTION: Is there anything that you -- I have stated to you regarding your rights and responsibilities that you would like me to clarify that you don't understand?
Originally posted by Raider179
Here you go.
Lets see that says "compelled to testify, not bound by evidentiary and constitutional restrictions,
[/b]
QUESTION: You have a privilege against self-incrimination. If a truthful answer to any question would tend to incriminate you, you can invoke the privilege and that application will not be used against you. Do you understand that?
CLINTON: I do.
Gosh, give it up. He had counsel, he was told he could invoke Constitutional protection against self-incrimination.
Instead of doing that, he lied.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Since when did The Iraqi National Congress become multiple sources.
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".
-
Hey, Holden... they don't make stuff up, they have nothing to say.
;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Did Clinton have counsel with him?
Gosh, give it up. He had counsel, he was told he could invoke Constitutional protection against self-incrimination.
Instead of doing that, he lied. [/B]
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. Clinton says yes he did something with monica, he perjurs himself in the Jones Case, Clinton says no they get him for perjury, he takes the fifth, the release all evidence including the dress and the Tripp tapes.
I would like to see Bush go to the grand jury for the same type of investigation on the War. To actually get some answers from him and under oath too. Then see what he really has to say.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Seems obvious to me that Toad was questioning the term "Lie" not "fixed"
Actually he questioned both of them.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 .... ):lol :rolleyes:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
"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.
-
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.
-
I see... your dragon style...of cut and paste is...stronger than...my tiger style.
-
You must........... snatch the......... Ctrl key......... from the keyboard.... and..... become the key.
-
i never had sex with that women, because if i say i did hillary will beat the crap out of me....wild willy clinton.
-
No Oboe.
Its all about lying in court.
Since Bush didnt swear on the bible in a deposition that he was telling the truth, his supporters dont have an issue.
A lie is only a lie if its in court apparently.
-
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.
Keep dancing bubba.
I didn't slam you for not using the full OED, I laughed at you for citing two defintions that made no sense and making the specious claim that the compact OED is somehow definitive in this case irrespective of context.
The definitions you listed don't fit the context and you know it. Complete and utter Chewbacca defense on your part. You just chose the convenient definitions for your argument irrespective of whther they made sense either as they stood or within the context of the piece. Do you contend that the definitions you gave are the only possible ones? I can think of at least a dozen definitions without even referring to a dictionary and only one would make any sense in the context of the piece.
You know full well that the memo indicates that the evidence was being fitted to the policy and not that the policy was being driven by the evidence. Give any other interpretation that fits the form of words used.
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
There was no threat. Just because you stuck your fingers in your ears when you were told that back before the invasion doesn't diminish the fact.
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.
Yes I'm biased in favour of reality as opposed to fantasy, so come back when you have developed the nuts to admit to yourself that you were decieved and that you sucked it up willingly as your overconfident assertions in 2003 indicate.
Nor were the UN inspectors able to prove the total absence of a single NBC weapon before the invasion.
How can you prove a negative? Can you prove to me that you've never sexually interferred with a chicken?
This is what the whole thing boils down to: Do you seriously believe that an administration would blow hundreds of billions of dollars on an invasion and occupation based on less than exceptionally reliable evidence? Or do you think that they figured that one pretext was as good as another as long as the policy went through? That, my dancing friend, is the nub of the argument.