Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The memo that hasn't made news in the US

The memo that hasn't made news in the US (Page 5)
Thread Tools
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2005, 10:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by SimpleLife
To stay stuck arguing about the past events is totally pointless, in my mind, and in light with actual events. What is done is done. What are we going to do about now?
No. Analysis of process is essential; it stops us repeating the same mistakes again in the future.

And of course, it doesn't prevent anyone from dealing with the on-going war in Iraq.

(a war being fought against 'good and honest' Iraqis, as one US Major General recently put it)
( Last edited by nath; Jun 12, 2005 at 10:15 AM. )
     
SimpleLife
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2005, 10:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by nath
No. Analysis of process is essential; it stops us repeating the same mistakes again in the future.

And of course, it doesn't prevent anyone from dealing with the on-going war in Iraq.

(a war being fought against 'good and honest' Iraqis, as one US Major General recently put it)
I agree, but I doubt this thread is the best place to do it. I used to believe like you do, but found myself stuck with too many questions and too few answers, and worse, too few means to get these answers.
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2005, 10:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by SimpleLife
I agree, but I doubt this thread is the best place to do it. I used to believe like you do, but found myself stuck with too many questions and too few answers, and worse, too few means to get these answers.
I doubt any thread on a Mac messageboard is the best place to solve any kind of problem, other than what kind of RAM to get for your Powerbook, etc. But it is somewhere for people who own Macs to discuss these issues.
I don't see why that should apply any more or less to future conduct of the war, than to discussing the dubious reasons for starting it in the first place.

Also, this thread is specifically about a memo that my post was related to. Maybe you should start a thread about how Iraq should be sorted out. I'd be interested to see if you get any useful ideas other than 'let's kill teh terrists' from Pacman and co.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2005, 10:49 AM
 
OK, nath, I read your latest article. It says no more than what we already knew. US policy had been to effect regime change. That had been the policy since the Clinton Administration. Regime change would take care of all potential threats from Iraq, including WMD. That was the US government's position, and we knew that all along.

The author of the British memo held that regime change could only be at best a byproduct of a policy focussed around WMD, and that regime change couldn't be the overt goal. This was a basic disagreement between the US and the UK however much they agreed on other issues. The UK government took a much narrower view of international law and what the UK government felt it could do within it. Specifically, it is pretty obvious that the UK government saw the whole thing through the traditional lens of an imminent threat, which, you will recall, the US government overtly rejects. Bush said so quite clearly in his State of the Union speech. This is also understood (dispite a disingenous campaign to rewrite history on that point).

What is also understood is that the attempt to get a new resolution was driven primarily by concerns held by the British government. The US government position was that a new resolution wasn't necessary. The memo transcript reflects that too.

Hence all these memos simply reflect the British government's thinking, and a British problem with the policy. All this squirming simply becomes a non-issue viewed the way the US government and public sees the matter. This issue simply doesn't resonate here. Your government and our government simply argued the issue differently, and thus the public reaction is different.

Beside that, of course, you still have a political campaign ahead of you within the Labour Party when Brown tries to force Blair out. That's what all this is really about. Here, however, the matter was settled in the election and unlike the UK, the ruling party that won the election is quite comfortable with the Iraq war. The matter was debated in the election, and Bush's side won the domestic argument. I don't know what you are expecting to happen as a result of all these "revelations" but they really are a non-issue here. It's a different country with different domestic politics, or haven't you noticed?

FYI, John Conyers is a Democratic Congressman, not a senator. He is not particularly influential even in the Democratic Party. You might recall that he was the one who wanted a draft to protest the war. He got two votes for that project. Not even his own party in Congress agrees with him.

And finally, before you too much into the weeds of specific text in the memo, make sure to read the disclaimer:

The following is a transcript rather than the original document in order to protect the source.
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2005, 11:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
OK, nath, I read your latest article. It says no more than what we already knew. US policy had been to effect regime change. That had been the policy since the Clinton Administration. Regime change would take care of all potential threats from Iraq, including WMD. That was the US government's position, and we knew that all along.

The author of the British memo held that regime change could only be at best a byproduct of a policy focussed around WMD, and that regime change couldn't be the overt goal. This was a basic disagreement between the US and the UK however much they agreed on other issues. The UK government took a much narrower view of international law and what the UK government felt it could do within it. Specifically, it is pretty obvious that the UK government saw the whole thing through the traditional lens of an imminent threat, which, you will recall, the US government overtly rejects. Bush said so quite clearly in his State of the Union speech. This is also understood (dispite a disingenous campaign to rewrite history on that point).

What is also understood is that the attempt to get a new resolution was driven primarily by concerns held by the British government. The US government position was that a new resolution wasn't necessary. The memo transcript reflects that too.

Hence all these memos simply reflect the British government's thinking, and a British problem with the policy. All this squirming simply becomes a non-issue viewed the way the US government and public sees the matter. This issue simply doesn't resonate here. Your government and our government simply argued the issue differently, and thus the public reaction is different.
This is crazy talk, and none of it really addresses the post in any sense. The Bush position right up until they went back to the UN to try and authorise force was that weapons inpectors should be left to finish to job. Then that changed. Both memos demonstrate that the decision was taken far earlier. Ergo, Bush 'liiieeeed'.

FYI: the website I posted to registered 1.6m hits on one day last week. Along with the number of signatories to the petition, that's a staggering achievement.

And do you really consider a 48/51 popular split a conclusive victory for public opinion?
( Last edited by nath; Jun 12, 2005 at 11:26 AM. )
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2005, 11:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by nath
This is crazy talk, and none of it really addresses the post in any sense. The Bush position right up until they went back to the UN to try and authorise force was that weapons inpectors should be left to finish to job. Then that changed. Both memos demonstrate that the decision was taken far earlier. Ergo, Bush 'liiieeeed'.

FYI: the website I posted to registered 1.6m hits on one day last week. Along with the number of signatories to the petition, that's a staggering achievement.

And do you really consider a 49/51 popular split a conclusive victory for public opinion?
The election was decisive and Bush will be the president for the next three years. If a Democrat wins in 2008, it will probably be someone like Hillary Clinton who on this issue agrees with Bush. Or it will be another Republican, who will also agree with Bush. It will not be someone like Conyers, who represents only the left wing of a left wing party that doesn't hold power. This issue has no meaningful traction here. Not even the liberal media gives a sh1t. This is a storm in a British teacup, not an American one. Two very different political universes.

On the fact that regime change was the policy, and that nothing short of that was acceptable, we've been over this I don't know how many times. You have made the arguments, I have responded. Nothing has changed, and there is no point in repeating the debate now. Go use the search engine if you want to relive the glories.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Jun 12, 2005 at 11:36 AM. )
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2005, 11:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
The election was decisive and Bush will be the president for the next three years. If a Democrat wins in 2008, it will probably be someone like Hillary Clinton who on this issue agrees with Bush. It will not be someone like Conyers, who represents only the left wing of a left wing party that doesn't hold power. This issue has no meaningful traction here. Not even the liberal media gives a sh1t. This is a storm in a British teacup, not an American one.

On the fact that regime change was the policy, and that nothing short of that was acceptable, we've been over this I don't know how many times. You have made the arguments, I have responded. Nothing has changed, and there is no point in repeating the debate now because nothing has changed. Go use the search engine if you want to relive the glories.
So between half a million and a million Americans signing a petition is of no interest to you? That seems a lot to me, even in a Big Country with such Big Teacups as yours. 89 Congressmen writing to the President asking for an explantion of the intial document? That's 20% of Congress. Again, must be my little teacups making it seem insignificant.

Regarding the election, America was split down the middle and you know it. if 48% are voting for the 'Senator with most left-wing voting record', I think it's you that don't really understand your country, when you portray this as argument as over or even won.

'All that has changed' is that significant documentary evidence has begun to appear, for whatever reason. A victory for freedom of information due to sniping between a Prime Minister and his Chancellor? Hell, I'll take that.

And Simey - getting all coy now and telling me to read your posting history, after making such a long-winded and detailed initial reply has the faintest whiff of post-and-run.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2005, 11:57 AM
 
Uh, Bush won more of the percentage than Clinton ever did in both his terms.

And the dems acted like it was a LANDSLIDE victory.

I guess it only matter if the pres is a Democrap.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2005, 12:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by nath
So between half a million and a million Americans signing a petition is of no interest to you? That seems a lot to me, even in a Big Country with such Big Teacups as yours. 89 Congressmen writing to the President asking for an explantion of the intial document? That's 20% of Congress. Again, must be my little teacups making it seem insignificant.

Regarding the election, America was split down the middle and you know it. if 48% are voting for the 'Senator with most left-wing voting record', I think it's you that don't really understand your country, when you portray this as argument as over or even won.

'All that has changed' is that significant documentary evidence has begun to appear, for whatever reason. A victory for freedom of information due to sniping between a Prime Minister and his Chancellor? Hell, I'll take that.

And Simey - getting all coy now and telling me to read your posting history, after making such a long-winded and detailed initial reply has the faintest whiff of post-and-run.
It's not post and run. It's just that this is repetitive. We've been here before, over and over.

Conyers and his friends are a faction, no doubt about it. They are the same people who fell in love with Howard Dean. But notice that Dean didn't win a single vote in his party's nomination. You are making the mistake of thinking that all Democrats think the way Conyers does, and that simply isn't so.

The election is simply over, and this issue is dead.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2005, 12:07 PM
 
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2005, 12:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
The election is simply over, and this issue is dead.
Front page of Fox News, today.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159287,00.html

Seems like the issue is of interest to many Americans, if not to you.

But still you keep replying. If only to point out how uninteresting and irrelevant it is.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2005, 05:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by nath
Front page of Fox News, today.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159287,00.html

Seems like the issue is of interest to many Americans, if not to you.

But still you keep replying. If only to point out how uninteresting and irrelevant it is.
On FOX News no doubt. I'm glad they managed to fit in the part about "manipulating" (let's face it, flat out lying) the data to gain support for the war... even if it was a tag at the end.

In any event, I hope this gets even more press coverage.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2005, 01:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by nath
Front page of Fox News, today.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159287,00.html

Seems like the issue is of interest to many Americans, if not to you.

But still you keep replying. If only to point out how uninteresting and irrelevant it is.
Nope, it's irrelevant and uninteresting here. Here's the Washington Post's Dana Milbank on Conyers' mock hearings.

As Conyers and his hearty band of playmates know, subpoena power and other perks of a real committee are but a fantasy unless Democrats can regain the majority in the House. But that's only one of the obstacles they're up against as they try to convince America that the "Downing Street Memo" is important.

A search of the congressional record yesterday found that of the 535 members of Congress, only one -- Conyers -- had mentioned the memo on the floor of either chamber. House Democratic leaders did not join in Conyers's session, and Senate Democrats, who have the power to hold such events in real committee rooms, have not troubled themselves.
The rest makes clear what a farce this all was and how little impact this kind of far-left posturing is having. It's preaching to the converted, and nothing more.

And just in case you think otherwise, Milbank is far from a Bush fan. In fact he is a frequent target of GOP ire.
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2005, 04:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

It's weirdly fervid and editorialised. Is that what passes for a respectable newspaper in the States? It reads like The Sun...on bad acid.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2005, 05:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by nath
It's weirdly fervid and editorialised. Is that what passes for a respectable newspaper in the States? It reads like The Sun...on bad acid.
That's why conservatives get so irritated at Milbank. It's fun seeing him turn on his own though.

It must have been quite an absurd meeting to provoke that reaction. Then again, do you know much about the participants? Maxine Waters is a loose cannon at the best of times, and so is Conyors. Jim Moran is a local congressman best known for recent anti-semitic remarks, beating up his wife so that she had to get a restraining order (twice!), and also for receiving a series of very favorable loans from a constituent (he paid them back when they became public). Most Democrats I have talked to even in his district are pretty embarrassed by him. And having met him, I'd say he's just not all that bright.

Of course to be fair, there is Barney Frank (who I have also met) who is very bright. He's very liberal, but usually fairly sensible. I'm surprised to find him in that crowd, especially when they started making conspiritorial comments about Israel. Frank is Jewish and pretty outspokenly pro-Israel. He's the one who exposed and criticized a CNN bureau chief for making scurrilous and unsupported accusations that the US military has been assassinating US journalists. So he is no conspiracy monger.

Anyway, I suspect Milbank is so upset because to the extent anyone will notice this at all, it comes across as an own goal. But I told you this is fringe stuff here. It's the hard left, and ONLY the hard left that still wants to reopen a matter from 2003 that was debated and put to bed in the 2004 election.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2005, 06:40 PM
 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFr...58-524,00.html

Item #6: 6. Although no political decisions have been taken, US military planners have drafted options for the US Government to undertake an invasion of Iraq. In a 'Running Start', military action could begin as early as November of this year, with no overt military build-up. Air strikes and support for opposition groups in Iraq would lead initially to small-scale land operations, with further land forces deploying sequentially, ultimately overwhelming Iraqi forces and leading to the collapse of the Iraqi regime. A 'Generated Start' would involve a longer build-up before any military action were taken, as early as January 2003. US military plans include no specifics on the strategic context either before or after the campaign. Currently the preference appears to be for the 'Running Start'. CDS will be ready to brief Ministers in more detail.

Note those words at the beginning of it: 'Although no political decisions have been made'

This document is from Jul 21 2002. So the Downing St. Memo conclusion that war in Iraq was already decided is in error. This document shows that while a plan was assembled (and this is no surprise, the Pentagon plans for tons of contingencies) no political decision had been made.
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2005, 07:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
Nope, it's irrelevant and uninteresting here. Here's the Washington Post's Dana Milbank on Conyers' mock hearings.
Am I the only one bothered by the notion that McGovern was in intelligence, and the best he could come up with was 'the Jews made us do it' ?

Bah.
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2005, 11:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks
Am I the only one bothered by the notion that McGovern was in intelligence, and the best he could come up with was 'the Jews made us do it' ?

Bah.
McGovern was referring to Israel's wish for the removal of Saddam, a way of bringing security to the region, and the United State's will to do so.. He did not say it in the manner which you are referring.

It is worth watching on c-span to further clarify what was actually said.
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2005, 03:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
But I told you this is fringe stuff here. It's the hard left, and ONLY the hard left that still wants to reopen a matter from 2003 that was debated and put to bed in the 2004 election.
So the fervid and sweaty editorial says.

Of course on their round-up page you get a much more balanced view of what people are saying, and it's really not as dismissive. They do include a line of Milbank's article as 'the alternative view' at the bottom though.

Conyers and a half-dozen other members of Congress were stopped at the White House gate later Thursday when they hand-delivered petitions signed by 560,000 Americans who want Bush to provide a detailed response to the Downing Street memo. When Conyers couldn't get in, an anti-war demonstrator shouted, 'Send Bush out!' Eventually, White House aides retrieved the petitions at the gate and took them into the West Wing.
edit: I've got to say actually that you're doing a better job of stonewalling these questions that poor Mr McClellan. Maybe you should apply for his job.

No Response Necessary

From yesterday's briefing:

"Q Scott, on another topic, has the President or anyone else from the administration responded to the letter sent last month by Congressman John Conyers and signed by dozens of members of the House of Representatives, regarding the Downing Street memo? Has the President or anyone else responded?

"MR. McCLELLAN: Not that I'm aware of.

"Q Why not?

"MR. McCLELLAN: Why not? Because I think that this is an individual who voted against the war in the first place and is simply trying to rehash old debates that have already been addressed. And our focus is not on the past. It's on the future and working to make sure we succeed in Iraq.

"These matters have been addressed, Elaine. I think you know that very well. The press --

"Q Scott, 88 members of Congress signed that letter.

"MR. McCLELLAN: The press -- the press have covered it, as well.
Nice going, Scott!!
( Last edited by nath; Jun 18, 2005 at 04:11 AM. )
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2005, 07:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by nath
So the fervid and sweaty editorial says.
I'm not sure that I understand your point. Are you saying that the fact that Conyors got 500,000 names on an internet petitition is somehow impressive? Bush already knows that there is a left fringe out there, and so do we all. That's not particularly noteworthy. Are you saying that it's a showstopper that 88 members of Congress signed it? Bush already knows what the makeup of Congress is. Yes, the Democrats have a left wing who don't like Bush. Is this supposed to be news?

Or are you swooning at the idea that there were protesters outside the White House? Lately I have been walking past the White House every day. There are quite often a handful of protesters outside its gates. In fact, it's often the same handful. And by handful I do mean handful. Yesterday there were 4 of them plus the person with her anti-nuclear display who has been in Lafayette Park continuously since at least the early 1980s. That's 4 protesters, and several hundred tourists. Oh, and there was also some nuttly guy wandering around a couple of blocks away with a sign about Dick Durbin. And on Tuesday there was a group of about 20 from International ANSWER protesting (mostly in Spanish) in front of the White House in favor of Cuba and Venezuela's governments. Do you think they change any minds?

This is just the normal political background noise in any democractic capital city. It's insignificant.
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2005, 08:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
I'm not sure that I understand your point.
The point is that the 'show-stopping' article you used to support your point seems to be somewhat isolated in it's view point. Much like your own.

I don't think 88 members of Congress writing to the President demanding an explanation is necessarily significant in and of itself. What's significant, and quite illuminating, is the White House's reluctance to answer the questions in that letter. As McClellan's floundering illustrates quite nicely.


edit: I should emphasise that I do think the future for Iraq is more important at this point in time. How the administration goes about forming an exit (or escape) strategy without losing face in the same way as the you did when leaving Vietnam will be interesting.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2005, 08:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by nath
The point is that the 'show-stopping' article you used to support your point seems to be somewhat isolated in it's view point. Much like your own.

I don't think 88 members of Congress writing to the President demanding an explanation is necessarily significant in and of itself. What's significant, and quite illuminating, is the White House's reluctance to answer the questions in that letter. As McClellan's floundering illustrates quite nicely.
Actually, the fact the White House won't respond is NOT significant. That way of dealing with an issue is pretty much common practice. If there is something you don't want to address you just ignore it and hope it goes away. It doesn't have to be something as potentially troubling as the Downing Street Memo, either. There are lots of little stories/issues the White ouse doesn't want to deal with because it detracts from their core focus. With the increasing media saturation of everyday life, the trick of ignore-it-until-people-forget-it will frequently work. Your average citizen is inundated by so much media content that only the die-hard news junkies (like us) will "hold on" to an issue in hopes of it staying near the top of people's news consciousness.

PS: I don't know a whle lot about John Conyers but Jim Moran is a wack-job. I voted against him in the last few elections when I lived in his district. He's a little too shady and pretty dumb . . . even by your typical dumb-politician standards.
( Last edited by dcmacdaddy; Jun 18, 2005 at 08:40 AM. )
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2005, 08:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by nath
The point is that the 'show-stopping' article you used to support your point seems to be somewhat isolated in it's view point. Much like your own.

I don't think 88 members of Congress writing to the President demanding an explanation is necessarily significant in and of itself. What's significant, and quite illuminating, is the White House's reluctance to answer the questions in that letter. As McClellan's floundering illustrates quite nicely.


edit: I should emphasise that I do think the future for Iraq is more important at this point in time. How the administration goes about forming an exit (or escape) strategy without losing face in the same way as the you did when leaving Vietnam will be interesting.
OK, so your point is that the White House should sing to the tune of their opponents' position? Why should they? There is no public or political pressure on the White House, so why should they help their persistent opponents inflate an issue with which to attack the White House?

I can understand the frustration, and I realize how much you desperately want to believe that this is as big an issue politically in the US as it has been in the UK, but it isn't. Not even anti-Bush papers like the New York Times is giving this any prominence. McCurry is right -- the country has moved on. Those who haven't are a fringe.
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2005, 10:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
OK, so your point is that the White House should sing to the tune of their opponents' position? Why should they? There is no public or political pressure on the White House, so why should they help their persistent opponents inflate an issue with which to attack the White House?
If 88 elected representatives write to the President regarding an issue on which he has campaigned, I'd say he should probably reply. Out of courtesy if for no other reason. If it's the non-issue that you suggest then he could even say so in his letter.

Of course he doesn't want to, because he'd have as many problems answering those questions as you have.

BTW, half a million US citizens signing a petition on any issue constitutes public pressure, even in the land of Big Teacups.(c) And you may not have noticed, but this thread is now 5 pages long, with many contributions from those based in the US. Pretty impressive going for a 'non-issue'.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2005, 11:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by nath
If 88 elected representatives write to the President regarding an issue on which he has campaigned, I'd say he should probably reply. Out of courtesy if for no other reason. If it's the non-issue that you suggest then he could even say so in his letter.

Of course he doesn't want to, because he'd have as many problems answering those questions as you have.

BTW, half a million US citizens signing a petition on any issue constitutes public pressure, even in the land of Big Teacups.(c)
No he doesn't have to reply to members of the minority party in another branch of the government. He doesn't answer to them, or even through them. He answers directly to the American people at election time. He's not obligated to answer their questions, not even out of "respect." And of course, they aren't obligated to show him much respect either ( which they aren't, they are calling him a liar).

This isn't Britain, nath. It's a different country and it isn't a Parliamentary democracy. We have three entirely separate branches of government, not just one. Each branch is co-equal and entirely separate. No branch answers politically to the other the way the government answers to Parliament in your country. It is not like the front bench in Parliament answering to the back benches.

Let me repeat that so it sinks in. The president doesn't answer to Congress the way a British government answers to Parliament. That is especially the case when you are talking about the minority in Congress. Congress as an institution speaks through its majority, not cliques of its minority. If the Democrats had been the majority, then they could hold REAL hearings on Capitol Hill that might be effective (though they could still not demand answers of the president, their subpoena power does not go that far). But they can't hold such hearings because they aren't in the majority. This was nothing but empty theater. That was what Milbank was mocking.

If these were people that the president in a horse-trading sense needed to vote for his program, then he might choose to meet them. But they aren't ever going to vote for him or any of his programs and his best political decision is to ignore them. Anything else just gives a platform to a fringe that can't command a platform on their own on an issue that is only exciting committed Bush haters. Even writing a letter to them calling them what they are would just be given them a platform. Since the president can simply rise above their fringe accusations by ignoring them, that is what any sensible president (of any party) would do in a similar situation. This is essentially what I think dcmacdaddy was also telling you.

It's a different country, nath, with different political traditions. You might want to remember that occasionally.

Originally Posted by nath
And you may not have noticed, but this thread is now 5 pages long, with many contributions from those based in the US. Pretty impressive going for a 'non-issue'.
Not really. I just checked. 42 posts are by Eynstyn, and 29 are by Zimphire. Troll and SVass contributed 20 each. Those 4 posters alone contributed just under half the entire thread's posts. Our bickering back and forth doesn't indicate anything of significance about the country as a whole.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Jun 18, 2005 at 11:59 AM. )
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2005, 12:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy
Actually, the fact the White House won't respond is NOT significant. That way of dealing with an issue is pretty much common practice. If there is something you don't want to address you just ignore it and hope it goes away. It doesn't have to be something as potentially troubling as the Downing Street Memo, either. There are lots of little stories/issues the White ouse doesn't want to deal with because it detracts from their core focus. With the increasing media saturation of everyday life, the trick of ignore-it-until-people-forget-it will frequently work. Your average citizen is inundated by so much media content that only the die-hard news junkies (like us) will "hold on" to an issue in hopes of it staying near the top of people's news consciousness.
I guess so, and it's depressing as hell.

What I was hoping for is that some of Bush zealots would come out and actually defend the lies and misdirection that led to the ongoing nightmare that is post-invasion Iraq. Nobody wants to do that of course, especially in light of the evidence that is coming out now. The best you'll get by way of a defence is "let's move on", or endless waffle about procedure.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2005, 11:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by osiris
McGovern was referring to Israel's wish for the removal of Saddam, a way of bringing security to the region, and the United State's will to do so.. He did not say it in the manner which you are referring.

It is worth watching on c-span to further clarify what was actually said.
Well, you might be surprised, but I'm not alone in finding McGovern's position to be wholly repulsive.

What will really knock your socks off (and believe me, it did mine) is that Howard Dean agrees with me.

Yes, that Howard Dean. The same one who said "I hate the Republican Party and all it stands for" and "The Republican party is a party of white Christians" (do the logical math, he hates white Christians?)

According to an AP article published today, Saturday the 18th, says:

According to Dean material distributed within the conference room implied that Israel was involved in the Sept.11 2001 terrorist attacks.

'One witness, former intelligence analyst Ray McGovern, told the House Democrats that the war was part of an effort to allow the United States and Israel to "dominate that part of the world," a statement Dean also condemned.

"As for any inferences that the United States went to war so Israel could 'dominate' the Middle East or that Israel is in any way behind the horrific September the 11th attacks on America, let me say unequivocally that such statements are nothing but vile, anti-Semitic rhetoric," Dean said.


So basically, Dean gets it right (for once).

Thanks anyway, osiris.
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2005, 10:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks
Well, you might be surprised, but I'm not alone in finding McGovern's position to be wholly repulsive.
Perhaps a more thorough investigation into the Memo and the countries involved will reveal the truth, however repulsive that truth may be.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2005, 06:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by osiris
Perhaps a more thorough investigation into the Memo and the countries involved will reveal the truth, however repulsive that truth may be.
Are you agreeing with McGovern, and do you believe as he does that

A) Israel was behind Sept 11 2001 attacks

and

B) Israel and the United States wish to dominate the Middle East?
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
     
von Wrangell
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2005, 06:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks
Are you agreeing with McGovern, and do you believe as he does that

A) Israel was behind Sept 11 2001 attacks

and

B) Israel and the United States wish to dominate the Middle East?
A) Not a chance.

B) Yes, absolutely.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2005, 07:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks
Are you agreeing with McGovern, and do you believe as he does that

A) Israel was behind Sept 11 2001 attacks

and

B) Israel and the United States wish to dominate the Middle East?
I agree with McGovern's want of a thorough investigation into the Memo.

&

B) Israel and the United States wish to dominate the Middle East.

But I do not agree with his perceived anti-Semitism (that you and others pointed out). I detest racism, just to be clear.
( Last edited by osiris; Jun 19, 2005 at 08:03 PM. )
     
Krusty  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Always within bluetooth range
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2005, 08:13 PM
 
Well, to add yet another echo'd sentiment:
Originally Posted by vmarks
Are you agreeing with McGovern, and do you believe as he does that

A) Israel was behind Sept 11 2001 attacks

and

B) Israel and the United States wish to dominate the Middle East?
A) I doubt it, but if we can roll 200k troops into Iraq to figure out that there aren't any WMDs left, then an investigation of this matter is probably at least as worthwhile (and not nearly as expensive in terms of lives and money). If anything, it can positively debunk any such theories assuming they are false.

B) Of course they (we) do. The only question is whether we do it with "hot" war, covert war, economic pressure, and/or diplomacy. This has been the policy of our government for decades and it nothing new nor even a secret.

Just a heads-up, we seek to dominate any region we possibly can just like every powerful country on earth does. Do you play the game of "Monopoly" with the intent of grabbing a couple of neighborhoods and then just try to maintain the status-quo ? No. Politics is the same way. No matter what the current situation is, you always seek "just a little more" advantage tomorrow than you had yesterday.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2005, 03:11 PM
 
So if this "memo" is real, and not Dan Rathers Part 2: The Revenge, it just seems so... well, impeachable. I don't know if it's against international law, much less U.S. law, but to purposely deceive your people and country on a threat just to go to war?

I'm not saying the Bush administration is the only one (hell, I KNOW they're wasn't the only one), but this is the first time it's on actual paper.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2005, 04:07 AM
 
More detail on the source behind the memo, and the continuing fall-out...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...9292_1,00.html

This part is particularly interesting...

The focus turned to what may ultimately be the most important part of the memo: the point where Hoon said that the US had already begun “spikes of activity to put pressure on the regime”.

Ministry of Defence figures for the number of bombs dropped on southern Iraq in 2002 show that virtually none were used in March and April; but between May and August an average of 10 tons were dropped each month, with the RAF taking just as big a role in the “spikes of activity” as their US colleagues. Then in September the figure shot up again, with allied aircraft dropping 54.6 tons.

If this was a covert air war, both Bush and Blair may face searching questions. In America only Congress can declare war, and it did not give the US president permission to take military action against Iraq until October 11, 2002. Blair’s legal justification is said to come from UN Resolution 1441, which was not passed until November 8, 2002.
How do Americans feel about the 'softening up' of a military target before the proper authorisation has been granted?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:54 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,