How come no discussion of the Downing Street Memo here?

[Toad]

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.

[Toad]

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...........

[Nash]

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?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Toad

I don't think ANYONE believes having oral sex is not having sexual relations though.

Well... according to this report, 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%).

[Toad]

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?"

[Nash]

Psst... Toad.... Let's forget blowjobs for a sec. I asked a coupla questions. Give me some love.

[Sandman]

I'll defer to Nash for awhile. I'm beat...

[Toad]

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?

[Toad]

'Cuz it's past my bedtime and I'm busy tomorrow.

[Nash]

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.

[Nash]

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.

[Toad]

I graciously and cheefully accept your surrender.

Good night.

[Nash]

d'Oh!

[Hangtime]

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.

[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.

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.