How come no discussion of the Downing Street Memo here?

[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. 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

"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.

[oboe]

What the heck are "bureaucratic" reasons?    Did he really mean "political"?

[Raider179]

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.

[Toad]

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.

[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.

[Raider179]

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.

[Raider179]

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.

[Raider179]

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?

[Toad]

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.

[Holden McGroin]

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"

[Toad]

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.

[Toad]

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".

[Toad]

Hey, Holden... they don't make stuff up, they have nothing to say.

[Raider179]

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.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Seems obvious to me that Toad was questioning the term "Lie" not "fixed"

Actually he questioned both of them.