[Krusty]

I find it strange that it wasn't mentioned anywhere on these forums and has kept an amazingly low profile in US media. Basically, its a flat-out confirmation that the US/UK were actively planning to overthrow Iraq and were planning to "fix the evidence" around a WMD/WOT explanation -- Just as a litany of ex-government officials (Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, etc) have already plainly said.

Here is the full text of the memo (dated 7/23/02 sent by British Foreign Policy as "minutes" of a meeting forwarded to the meeting's participants).

Some choice excerpts:

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.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. 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.

[edit] posted same quote twice[/edit]

[zigzag]

I think they must have read one of my posts from 2 1/2 years ago - I was saying essentially the same things, as were many other people who supported the forcible removal of Saddam but think the whole thing was handled badly and dishonestly [/pats self on back but wishes it weren't necessary]. However, I also predicted that if the venture is ultimately successful, this sort of stuff will mostly become footnotes. We won't know for many years to come.

[Eynstyn]

I think it is mainly footnote today, no?

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by zigzag

I think they must have read one of my posts from 2 1/2 years ago - I was saying essentially the same things, as were many other people who supported the forcible removal of Saddam but think the whole thing was handled badly and dishonestly [/pats self on back but wishes it weren't necessary]. However, I also predicted that if the venture is ultimately successful, this sort of stuff will mostly become footnotes. We won't know for many years to come.

There was mention of another memo following 9/11 where something like "this is what we were waiting for" was allegedly written. What was it again?

I remember posting (as angaq0k) a copy of a memo from the CDC re: delivery of some bugs for Saddam Hussein. No one debated it then.

Ah. Footnotes of History ar lost in the rewriting, right?


[pats zigzag on the back]

[bubblewrap]

I wonder if they have the typewriter that produced it too.
I hope this isn't another CBS fiasco.

[Mithras]

Well the Powerline blog doesn't dispute its authenticity, and they would if anyone.
But yeah, this will go down as just another war started on false pretenses. We've had plenty of those, and no one seems to mind. `Ends justify the means' and all that.

[Krusty]

Ditto, my reading of the situation behind it is that is really isn't even being disputed as authentic. Caused quite a brouhaha in England .. though of course our wildly "liberal" media in the US doesn't seem to even bother mentioning it. A few people have taken notice though. Apparently, on May 5th, a group of 88 Congressmen signed a letter to President Bush asking him to explain the statements made in the memo and refute or confirm their veracity. In typical fashion, its pretty much been blown off.

I think Napoleon once said something to the effect. "It's not necessary to lie to the public forever, just long enough so that the truth becomes irrelevant".

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Krusty

Ditto, my reading of the situation behind it is that is really isn't even being disputed as authentic. Caused quite a brouhaha in England .. though of course our wildly "liberal" media in the US doesn't seem to even bother mentioning it. A few people have taken notice though. Apparently, on May 5th, a group of 88 Congressmen signed a letter to President Bush asking him to explain the statements made in the memo and refute or confirm their veracity. In typical fashion, its pretty much been blown off.

I think Napoleon once said something to the effect. "It's not necessary to lie to the public forever, just long enough so that the truth becomes irrelevant".

Yep.

"Mistakes were made, but we have to move on".

Or better yet, keep denial ad nauseam.

Or look at "how things are great now!"

[Athens]

Originally Posted by bubblewrap

I wonder if they have the typewriter that produced it too.
I hope this isn't another CBS fiasco.

why is it so hard to believe? Do you blindly love your presedent so much that he just cant do wrong?

[budster101]

Are you blinded by your hatred of him so much that you have to eat up everything bad?

CBS CBS CBS CBS CBS.

This is what makes me skeptical.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by budster101

Are you blinded by your hatred of him so much that you have to eat up everything bad?

CBS CBS CBS CBS CBS.

This is what makes me skeptical.

budster
Are you blinded by your love of him so much that you have to deny everything bad?

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by budster101

Are you blinded by your hatred of him so much that you have to eat up everything bad?

CBS CBS CBS CBS CBS.

This is what makes me skeptical.

This is what makes me skeptical.

There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest.

Ari Fleisher, WH Press Secretary, 9/6/2002 response to question from press

Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have

George W. Bush, President, Radio Address, 10/5/2002

The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it.

Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary, Response to Question From Press, 12/4/2002

There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. If biological weapons seem too terrible to contemplate, chemical weapons are equally chilling

Colin Powell, Secretary of State, Addresses the U.N. Security Council, 2/5/2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, ABC Interview, 3/30/2003

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Robert Kagan, Neocon scholar, Washington Post op-ed, 4/9/2003

[budster101]

Originally Posted by ironknee

budster
Are you blinded by your love of him so much that you have to deny everything bad?

Hey broken record.
Are you so blinded by your hatred of him that you have to believe everything bad about him?

[lurkalot]

"The Honorable George W. Bush President of the United States of America The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We write because of troubling revelations in the Sunday London Times apparently confirming that the United States and Great Britain had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in the summer of 2002, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority to engage in military action. While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your Administration. However, when this story was divulged last weekend, Prime Minister Blair's representative claimed the document contained "nothing new." If the disclosure is accurate, it raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own Administration.

The Sunday Times obtained a leaked document with the minutes of a secret meeting from highly placed sources inside the British Government. Among other things, the document revealed:

* Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a July 2002 meeting, at which he discussed military options, having already committed himself to supporting President Bush's plans for invading Iraq.

* British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw acknowledged that the case for war was "thin" as "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran."

* A separate secret briefing for the meeting said that Britain and America had to "create" conditions to justify a war.

* A British official "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."

As a result of this recent disclosure, we would like to know the following:

1) Do you or anyone in your Administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?

2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?

3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?

4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?

5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?

We have of course known for some time that subsequent to the invasion there have been a variety of varying reasons proffered to justify the invasion, particularly since the time it became evident that weapons of mass destruction would not be found. This leaked document - essentially acknowledged by the Blair government - is the first confirmation that the rationales were shifting well before the invasion as well.

Given the importance of this matter, we would ask that you respond to this inquiry as promptly as possible. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Members who have already signed letter:Neil Abercrombie Brian Baird Tammy Baldwin Xavier Becerra Shelley Berkley Eddie Bernice Johnson Sanford Bishop Earl Blumenauer Corrine Brown Sherrod Brown G.K. Butterfield Emanuel Cleaver James Clyburn John Conyers Jim Cooper Elijah Cummings Danny Davis Peter DeFazio Diana DeGette Bill Delahunt Rosa DeLauro Lloyd Doggett Sam Farr Bob Filner Harold Ford, Jr.Barney Frank Al Green Raul Grijalva Louis Gutierrez Alcee Hastings Maurice Hinchey Rush Holt Jay Inslee Sheila Jackson Lee Jessie Jackson Jr. Marcy Kaptur
Patrick Kennedy Dale Kildee Carolyn Kilpatrick Dennis Kucinich William Lacy Clay Barbara Lee John Lewis Zoe Lofgren Donna M. Christensen Carolyn Maloney Ed Markey Carolyn McCarthy Jim McDermott James McGovern Cynthia McKinney Martin Meehan Kendrick Meek Gregory Meeks Michael Michaud George Miller Gwen S. Moore James Moran Jerrold Nadler Grace Napolitano James Oberstar John Olver Major Owens Frank Pallone Donald Payne Charles Rangel Bobby Rush Bernie Sanders Linda Sanchez Jan Schakowsky Jose Serrano Ike Skelton Louise Slaughter Hilda Solis Pete Stark llen Tauscher Bennie Thompson Edolphus Towns Stephanie Tubbs Jones Chris Van Hol"
Link

Seem like reasonable questions to ask. Any reasonable responses yet? Pending, perhaps, since the occupant of the address is currently away on business, or does someone forward his mail?

[zigzag]

This was all self-evident in 2002. Nothing had changed on the ground in Iraq since Colin Powell and Condo Rice had declared Saddam to be well-contained. The administration had to hype the urgency of the WMD threat in order to sell the invasion to the public. It was obvious that Bush intended to invade no matter what, and that the U.N. stuff was window dressing. It doesn't mean there were no good reasons to invade - I thought there were - it just means that the reasons given to the public were mostly misleading. I can't believe this is even being debated, it's been so obvious for so long.

The tragedy for me is not the fact of the invasion, it's that it was so poorly conceived.

[bubblewrap]

Originally Posted by Athens

why is it so hard to believe? Do you blindly love your presedent so much that he just cant do wrong?

It's President. I have my own presedent...

Because the MEDIA LIES. The media is nothing more than sensationalist tabloid crap. Nothing more.

And you believe everything you read? Especially on the internet?

[demograph68]

Originally Posted by bubblewrap

It's President. I have my own presedent...

Because the MEDIA LIES. The media is nothing more than sensationalist tabloid crap. Nothing more.

And you believe everything you read? Especially on the internet?

Who do you trust for your information? Do you refer to the media in the broad sense or to a particular medium such as television or radio? I don't think the media lies as much as it ignores. If a certain story hooks people, it means better ratings, more advertising revenue, and so on.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by ironknee

budster
Are you blinded by your love of him so much that you have to deny everything bad?

Because we question? We just don't take it as the 100% truth?

I don't even do that when Bush speaks. Why would I do that about anything else?

Stop being silly.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

This is what makes me skeptical.

There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest.

Ari Fleisher, W <snip>

You forgot this one .

"The president urged Americans to be ready for a possible attack on Iraq, and he warned that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had used biological weapons against his own people -- and would likely use the weapons again unless he were prevented from doing so.


Clinton said Hussein and the Iraqi leadership had repeatedly lied to the United Nations about the country's weaponry.

"It is obvious that there is an attempt here based on the whole history of this (weapons inspections) operation since 1991 to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them and the feedstock necessary to produce them," Clinton said.

The president said that after the Gulf War ended in 1991, Iraq admitted having a massive offensive biological warfare capability, including:

5,000 gallons of Botulinum (causing Botulism)
2,000 gallons of Anthrax
25 biological-filled Scud warheads
157 aerial bombs
Clinton said Iraq still posed a threat to the national security of the United States and the "freedom-loving world."
Hussein, said the president, "threatens the security of all the rest of us."

Clinton was in on it toO!11111!!

Man, and those liberals just ATE IT UP!!!

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

You forgot this one .

"The president urged Americans to be ready for a possible attack on Iraq, and he warned that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had used biological weapons against his own people -- and would likely use the weapons again unless he were prevented from doing so.


Clinton said Hussein and the Iraqi leadership had repeatedly lied to the United Nations about the country's weaponry.

"It is obvious that there is an attempt here based on the whole history of this (weapons inspections) operation since 1991 to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them and the feedstock necessary to produce them," Clinton said.

The president said that after the Gulf War ended in 1991, Iraq admitted having a massive offensive biological warfare capability, including:

5,000 gallons of Botulinum (causing Botulism)
2,000 gallons of Anthrax
25 biological-filled Scud warheads
157 aerial bombs
Clinton said Iraq still posed a threat to the national security of the United States and the "freedom-loving world."
Hussein, said the president, "threatens the security of all the rest of us."

Clinton was in on it toO!11111!!

Man, and those liberals just ATE IT UP!!!

You left out the most relevant part of that story:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. President Clinton said Tuesday that Washington still favors a diplomatic solution to the Iraq crisis, but stressed that any solution must include free and unfettered access for U.N. weapons inspectors.

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/17/iraq.clinton/

Regardless, no one is making the rationlization that because the Bush administration trumped up the WMD numbers that:

A. Hussein was a peacenik. The man is evil, no doubt, perhaps only slightly behind Hitler and Stalin. And the fact that he had used WMD in the past would make it prudent to assume he would use them in the future, if he had them to use.

B. That there were not unanswered questions regarding the Iraqi WMD programs and capabilities. But, as had been argued by many other foreign governments and many people here in the US the weapons inspections, embargo and US led military containment were working. With our presence through air power and a 6000 sized strike force Hussein was deterred from threatening any of his neighbors.

C. As for the threat to the US I guess you can interpret that as you please but in 1998 the threat to the US was not that he would launch one of his decrepit and inaccurate SCUD B missiles on downtown Topeka, it is that he would either:

1. Use them to disrupt the flow of oil, which as a consequence would throw the US economy into a tailspin or
2. Against Israel, prompting a response and throwing the region into conflict, effecting the flow of oil and thus disrupting the US economy.

It's funny your quoting from the media, I thought all you righties were of the impression that the media is just a pack of liers.

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

You left out the most relevant part of that story:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. President Clinton said Tuesday that Washington still favors a diplomatic solution to the Iraq crisis, but stressed that any solution must include free and unfettered access for U.N. weapons inspectors.

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/17/iraq.clinton/

Regardless, no one is making the rationlization that because the Bush administration trumped up the WMD numbers that:

A. Hussein was a peacenik. The man is evil, no doubt, perhaps only slightly behind Hitler and Stalin. And the fact that he had used WMD in the past would make it prudent to assume he would use them in the future, if he had them to use.

B. That there were not unanswered questions regarding the Iraqi WMD programs and capabilities. But, as had been argued by many other foreign governments and many people here in the US the weapons inspections, embargo and US led military containment were working. With our presence through air power and a 6000 sized strike force Hussein was deterred from threatening any of his neighbors.

C. As for the threat to the US I guess you can interpret that as you please but in 1998 the threat to the US was not that he would launch one of his decrepit and inaccurate SCUD B missiles on downtown Topeka, it is that he would either:

1. Use them to disrupt the flow of oil, which as a consequence would throw the US economy into a tailspin or
2. Against Israel, prompting a response and throwing the region into conflict, effecting the flow of oil and thus disrupting the US economy.

Thank you. Most everyone regarded Saddam as potentially dangerous, but it didn't cause them to mount a full-scale invasion. Nor, since nothing on the ground had changed, does it explain why the administration went from publicly declaring him well-contained to engaging in a full-bore ramp-up of WMD rhetoric. The only thing that had changed was 9/11, but that was more of an excuse than a reason - Bush wanted to overthrow Saddam, and 9/11 gave him the political cover.

The point is not that people had no reason to be concerned about Saddam, but that the urgency of the WMD threat was oversold. I supported the overthrow but believe the administration should have been more honest about it and better-prepared for it.

[lurkalot]

Originally Posted by zigzag

Thank you. Most everyone regarded Saddam as potentially dangerous, but it didn't cause them to mount a full-scale invasion. Nor, since nothing on the ground had changed, does it explain why the administration went from publicly declaring him well-contained to engaging in a full-bore ramp-up of WMD rhetoric. The only thing that had changed was 9/11, but that was more of an excuse than a reason - Bush wanted to overthrow Saddam, and 9/11 gave him the political cover.

The point is not that people had no reason to be concerned about Saddam, but that the urgency of the WMD threat was oversold. I supported the overthrow but believe the administration should have been more honest about it and better-prepared for it.

In my opinion it must be pointed out that not only the motives for the ongoing war but also the -alleged- deception in the lead up to this war were disputed by -some- supporters of this war and -some- supporters of this administration. For the point of deception it is necessary to get full and official disclosure along the lines of the questions asked in the letter excerpted above. From the release of official documents these allegations of deception -although perhaps already well known publicly prior to the war- are now confirmed. That should be acknowledged. As a critic of the pre-war policies I selfishly want at the very least that public vindication.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by Krusty

I think Napoleon once said something to the effect. "It's not necessary to lie to the public forever, just long enough so that the truth becomes irrelevant".

Very good quote. I LOVE Mr. Bush. He is smart enogh to lie when he need to lie.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

You forgot this one .

"The president urged Americans to be ready for a possible attack on Iraq, and he warned that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had used biological weapons against his own people -- and would likely use the weapons again unless he were prevented from doing so.


Clinton said Hussein and the Iraqi leadership had repeatedly lied to the United Nations about the country's weaponry.

"It is obvious that there is an attempt here based on the whole history of this (weapons inspections) operation since 1991 to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them and the feedstock necessary to produce them," Clinton said.

The president said that after the Gulf War ended in 1991, Iraq admitted having a massive offensive biological warfare capability, including:

5,000 gallons of Botulinum (causing Botulism)
2,000 gallons of Anthrax
25 biological-filled Scud warheads
157 aerial bombs
Clinton said Iraq still posed a threat to the national security of the United States and the "freedom-loving world."
Hussein, said the president, "threatens the security of all the rest of us."

Clinton was in on it toO!11111!!

Man, and those liberals just ATE IT UP!!!

Mr. Zimphire, you are good American I think.

But Mr. Clinton do NOTHING to stop problem with Saddam. He do NOTHING to change middle east only try for talk with Palestine and Israel. Mr. Bush know problem and see into future what will happen if he do nothing.

I think he looked for reason to attack Saddam. I think Mr. Bush and people look at problem in all ways and understand problem better than liberals. Best way is take out Saddam. Any reason is good.

If Panama Canal is build today liberals will say is bad because, "oh, so many men die. Terrible yellow fever. US take land of other country. or, US build canal FOR other country." Today liberals ride ships and say, "oh look at lovely canal!" Ha!

You liberals can sleep for few years and when everything is finish you can take lovely safe vacation
in middle east and say, "oh look at lovely bagdad!" Ha!

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by zigzag

Thank you. Most everyone regarded Saddam as potentially dangerous, but it didn't cause them to mount a full-scale invasion. Nor, since nothing on the ground had changed, does it explain why the administration went from publicly declaring him well-contained to engaging in a full-bore ramp-up of WMD rhetoric. The only thing that had changed was 9/11, but that was more of an excuse than a reason - Bush wanted to overthrow Saddam, and 9/11 gave him the political cover.

The point is not that people had no reason to be concerned about Saddam, but that the urgency of the WMD threat was oversold. I supported the overthrow but believe the administration should have been more honest about it and better-prepared for it.

Sometimes a bad boy will do bad thing time and again and you hold temper. Then you make decision you say, "If bad boy do one more bad thing I will take big action on him."

Bush give Saddam second chance. On 911 Bush must look at whole picture and see only future headaches from Saddam. Mr. Bush decide Saddam must go. Mr Bush is great president.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

You left out the most relevant part of that story:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. President Clinton said Tuesday that Washington still favors a diplomatic solution to the Iraq crisis, but stressed that any solution must include free and unfettered access for U.N. weapons inspectors.

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/17/iraq.clinton/

Yes, and if you remember, he bombed the crap out of Iraq soon after.

Regardless, no one is making the rationlization that because the Bush administration trumped up the WMD numbers that:

A. Hussein was a peacenik. The man is evil, no doubt, perhaps only slightly behind Hitler and Stalin. And the fact that he had used WMD in the past would make it prudent to assume he would use them in the future, if he had them to use.

B. That there were not unanswered questions regarding the Iraqi WMD programs and capabilities. But, as had been argued by many other foreign governments and many people here in the US the weapons inspections, embargo and US led military containment were working. With our presence through air power and a 6000 sized strike force Hussein was deterred from threatening any of his neighbors.

C. As for the threat to the US I guess you can interpret that as you please but in 1998 the threat to the US was not that he would launch one of his decrepit and inaccurate SCUD B missiles on downtown Topeka, it is that he would either:

1. Use them to disrupt the flow of oil, which as a consequence would throw the US economy into a tailspin or
2. Against Israel, prompting a response and throwing the region into conflict, effecting the flow of oil and thus disrupting the US economy.

It's funny your quoting from the media, I thought all you righties were of the impression that the media is just a pack of liers.

No, I wasn't quoting the media. I was quoting Clinton. He said those same things. There are sound clips there.

My point being, this wasn't something drummed up recently to start a war.

While I am SURE Bush had every intention of finishing what his Daddy didn't and should have (I didn't vote for Bush sr the second time because of this) there was no GRAND conspiracy.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by zigzag

Thank you. Most everyone regarded Saddam as potentially dangerous, but it didn't cause them to mount a full-scale invasion.

Yes, because bombing the crap out of them, and then not doing anything about helping them is SO MUCH better.
You do realize Clinton himself thought that the only way to fix Iraq was start with a new Government from the ground up right?

The point is not that people had no reason to be concerned about Saddam, but that the urgency of the WMD threat was oversold. I supported the overthrow but believe the administration should have been more honest about it and better-prepared for it.

And my point is, if it was "oversold" it was so well before Bush was in office.

Can't deny them facts. I mean, you can try... but..

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

Mr. Zimphire, you are good American I think.

But Mr. Clinton do NOTHING to stop problem with Saddam. He do NOTHING to change middle east only try for talk with Palestine and Israel. Mr. Bush know problem and see into future what will happen if he do nothing.

You don't remember Clinton bombing the crap out of Iraq twice? I give Clinton that. He did at least make an attempt. Even if it was pretty hollow.

You liberals can sleep for few years and when everything is finish you can take lovely safe vacation
in middle east and say, "oh look at lovely bagdad!" Ha!

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

Sometimes a bad boy will do bad thing time and again and you hold temper. Then you make decision you say, "If bad boy do one more bad thing I will take big action on him."

Bush give Saddam second chance. On 911 Bush must look at whole picture and see only future headaches from Saddam. Mr. Bush decide Saddam must go. Mr Bush is great president.

You're missing my point, which is not that Saddam should not have been overthrown, but that the administration was disingenuous about it, and executed poorly. I believe we've paid a rather heavy price for that, and are continuing to pay it. However, I continue to hope for the best, and believe that if it works out, Bush will, in fact, be regarded well by history. I said so before the invasion.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by zigzag

You're missing my point, which is not that Saddam should not have been overthrown, but that the administration was disingenuous about it, and executed poorly. I believe we've paid a rather heavy price for that, and are continuing to pay it. However, I continue to hope for the best, and believe that if it works out, Bush will, in fact, be regarded well by history. I said so before the invasion.

Sometimes big lie is brave good thing, yes? If Mr. Bush try honest we lose something in war on terror.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Yes, and if you remember, he bombed the crap out of Iraq soon after.


No, I wasn't quoting the media. I was quoting Clinton. He said those same things. There are sound clips there.

My point being, this wasn't something drummed up recently to start a war.

While I am SURE Bush had every intention of finishing what his Daddy didn't and should have (I didn't vote for Bush sr the second time because of this) there was no GRAND conspiracy.

We did not bomb the crap out of Iraq in 1998. We took out anti-aircraft sites, radar installations and command post that contributed to attacks upon our aircraft patroling the no-fly zone.

There's a difference between defensive measures such as those and a full fledged invasion.

Bush Senior did not drive on Baghdad for two reasons:

1. He did not have UN authorization to do so, the resolutions for Gulf War I was to remove Saddam's forces from Kuwaiit.

2. He had a better grasp of world affairs or better advisors than his son and knew that Saddam, as evil as he was presented a form of stability in the region. Taking the Baathist out would have done nothing but left a vaccuum to be filled by Islamist or another worse secular regime. I would assume it was this thought process which made him not support the Shia revolt which he had encouraged and led to the slaughter of 10s of thousands of Iraqis.

Blue dye finger waving Iraqis aside Iraq is not a finished story. The central government is weak, the Sunnis are not having any part of it, it is a haven for terrorists and it is a country leaning more closer to the brink of collapse than success.

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Yes, because bombing the crap out of them, and then not doing anything about helping them is SO MUCH better.
You do realize Clinton himself thought that the only way to fix Iraq was start with a new Government from the ground up right?

And my point is, if it was "oversold" it was so well before Bush was in office.

Can't deny them facts. I mean, you can try... but..

I repeat: it was the urgency of the threat that was oversold. Repeat: urgency. The administration went from describing Saddam as being well-contained to being an urgent threat even though nothing had changed on the ground. Indeed, Saddam was under more scrutiny than ever.

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

Sometimes big lie is brave good thing, yes? If Mr. Bush try honest we lose something in war on terror.

Perhaps. As I've said before, Truman may well have lied, or at least exaggerated, when he argued that using the bomb on Japan saved "millions of lives." It's what politicians do - they have to sell their ideas. Bush is no different, although some of his fans think the rules of politics have somehow been suspended for him.

I said when this started that I could support the invasion in principle even though I thought it was being waged under at least partly false pretenses. I appreciate that you're honest enough to admit that such things happen.

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by lurkalot

As a critic of the pre-war policies I selfishly want at the very least that public vindication.

Yeah, saying "I told you so" seems to be human nature. I'm no different. I hang out on a bulletin board and read the paper and think I'm smarter than Don Rumsfeld.

Actually, I still have a soft spot for The Donald.

[olePigeon]

Any more news on this letter/memo? This impeachable material, but I've yet to see anything else about it asside from on this board.

[budster101]

I think it's another scam like on CBS.

[osxisfun]

Originally Posted by budster101

I think it's another scam like on CBS.

Ummm blair's admin ackowledged it.


I know its easier for people to put their head in the sand because it is a scary construct to think that the president lied to the american people and killed 1600 americans, and tens of thousands of iraqies (they count too).

But it happened.

This man wanted war with iraq from 1999 at least. The ghost writer of his bio said so:

http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761

And on Sept. 12 2001 he told Richard Clarke in the oval office:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...604598,00.html

"The President dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this'.....the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said, 'Iraq did this.'" After Clarke protested that "there's no connection," Bush came back to him and said "Iraq, Saddam — find out if there's a connection." Clarke says Bush made the point "in a very intimidating way."

Of course I don't expect the knuckle heads bush fanboys that put party before country to understand any of this...

Except maybe in terms they could understand.... replace "bush' with "clinton" in this conversation and see how you feel.

And for the record, I would feel the same way towards cllinton if he lied and 1600 people died.

Of course, I put country before party...

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

We did not bomb the crap out of Iraq in 1998. We took out anti-aircraft sites, radar installations and command post that contributed to attacks upon our aircraft patroling the no-fly zone.

There's a difference between defensive measures such as those and a full fledged invasion.

He killed a lot of Iraqis in the process of bombing Iraq twice yes or no?

Bush Senior did not drive on Baghdad for two reasons:

1. He did not have UN authorization to do so, the resolutions for Gulf War I was to remove Saddam's forces from Kuwaiit.

No, he had authorization, just like Clinton claimed to have had. You do know Clinton never went to the UN and asked them permission right?

Let me quote this again.

Reacting to Clinton's speech, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz denounced the threat of military action.

"The United States doesn't have authorization by the Security Council to attack Iraq by military means," he told CNN in a telephone interview from Baghdad.

Washington insists U.N. resolutions in effect since the Gulf War provide all the authorization needed for an attack.

Funny how the Left went a long with it then. But not when Bush was in office.

2. He had a better grasp of world affairs or better advisors than his son and knew that Saddam, as evil as he was presented a form of stability in the region. Taking the Baathist out would have done nothing but left a vaccuum to be filled by Islamist or another worse secular regime. I would assume it was this thought process which made him not support the Shia revolt which he had encouraged and led to the slaughter of 10s of thousands of Iraqis.

Did he tell you this himself?
Actually I believed he thought he would have a second term to do what he wanted.

Blue dye finger waving Iraqis aside Iraq is not a finished story. The central government is weak, the Sunnis are not having any part of it, it is a haven for terrorists and it is a country leaning more closer to the brink of collapse than success.

I hope it DOES collapse. Then they can take back their state like they should have in the first place.

And that would be an success.

Either way, it's better than living with Saddam and his sons.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by zigzag

I repeat: it was the urgency of the threat that was oversold. Repeat: urgency. The administration went from describing Saddam as being well-contained to being an urgent threat even though nothing had changed on the ground. Indeed, Saddam was under more scrutiny than ever.

The same URGENCY that Clinton projected that the left never threw a fit about?

Go read that link again.

It sounds like Bush word for word. But it's not.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by osxisfun

Ummm blair's admin ackowledged it.
Of course I don't expect the knuckle heads bush fanboys that put party before country to understand any of this...

What a bunch of crap. It's not the right that is doing this, I assure you.

Except maybe in terms they could understand.... replace "bush' with "clinton" in this conversation and see how you feel.

You haven't been reading. I did just that.

And I agreed with Clinton.

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

The same URGENCY that Clinton projected that the left never threw a fit about?

Go read that link again.

It sounds like Bush word for word. But it's not.

But for the 100th time, Clinton's administration did not engage in a highly-coordinated and escalated rhetorical campaign specifically designed to justify a full-scale invasion, and did not, in fact, conduct a full-scale invasion. That's the difference, and it's a huge difference. It doesn't justify what Clinton did or did not do - I'm not here to defend Clinton - it is simply to describe what this administration did.

All presidents engage in rhetoric about various dangers. The one who escalates the rhetoric and acts on it has to accept both the prospective glory and the prospective blame for doing so.

You keep forgetting that I approved of Bush's strategy in principle, and have always said that he may go down in history as a great leader for it. I'm simply dismayed at the way the administration executed, and fear that we're paying a high price for it. My opinion is shared by many conservatives and Bush supporters.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by zigzag

Perhaps. As I've said before, Truman may well have lied, or at least exaggerated, when he argued that using the bomb on Japan saved "millions of lives." It's what politicians do - they have to sell their ideas. Bush is no different, although some of his fans think the rules of politics have somehow been suspended for him.

I said when this started that I could support the invasion in principle even though I thought it was being waged under at least partly false pretenses. I appreciate that you're honest enough to admit that such things happen.

Truman was right. He no lie. Only silly liberal say A-bombs on Japan are bad.

[TheMosco]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/bri...emo/index.html

So it finally did make the news here:

It quoted Hoon as saying the United States had not finalized a timeline, but that it would likely begin "30 days before the U.S. congressional elections," culminating with the actual attack in January 2003.

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided," the memo said.

"But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

The British officials determined to push for an ultimatum for Saddam to allow U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq to "help with the legal justification for the use of force ... despite U.S. resistance."

Britain's attorney general, Peter Goldsmith, advised the group that "the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action" and two of three possible legal bases -- self-defense and humanitarian intervention -- could not be used.

The third was a U.N. Security Council resolution, which Goldsmith said "would be difficult."

Blair thought that "it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the U.N. inspectors."

"If the political context were right, people would support regime change," the memo said.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by zigzag

But for the 100th time, Clinton's administration did not engage in a highly-coordinated and escalated rhetorical campaign specifically designed to justify a full-scale invasion, and did not, in fact, conduct a full-scale invasion. That's the difference, and it's a huge difference. It doesn't justify what Clinton did or did not do - I'm not here to defend Clinton - it is simply to describe what this administration did.

You can say it 100 more times. Don't matter how many times you say it. If that is all that takes you to make you feel better about it then hey, go ahead with your bad self. I am not that easy.

It also doesn't matter what Clinton DIDN"T DO, you are making apologetic excuses for him bombing and killing Iraqis without UN approval. And then, saying Bush doing it is somehow worse. At least Bush made an attempt to go through the UN. Clinton snubbed them and said he had all the authority he needed (Where was all the outraged liberals then?)

And the only difference between what Clinton did and Bush did, is Bush at least made an attempt to do something about the things going down there.

You do realize Clinton said himself that the only way for Iraq to be truely free and not a threat was to dismantle the Gov and topple Saddam right?

He KNEW what needed to be done, and didn't do it.

Yet Bush knew what needed to be done also, and did it.

So yeah, Bush is the bad guy here.

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

Truman was right. He no lie. Only silly liberal say A-bombs on Japan are bad.

I didn't say he was wrong - I tend to think he was right. I only said that he might have exaggerated the numbers in order to defend it.

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

You can say it 100 more times. Don't matter how many times you say it. If that is all that takes you to make you feel better about it then hey, go ahead with your bad self. I am not that easy.

It also doesn't matter what Clinton DIDN"T DO, you are making apologetic excuses for him bombing and killing Iraqis without UN approval. And then, saying Bush doing it is somehow worse. At least Bush made an attempt to go through the UN. Clinton snubbed them and said he had all the authority he needed (Where was all the outraged liberals then?)

And the only difference between what Clinton did and Bush did, is Bush at least made an attempt to do something about the things going down there.

You do realize Clinton said himself that the only way for Iraq to be truely free and not a threat was to dismantle the Gov and topple Saddam right?

He KNEW what needed to be done, and didn't do it.

Yet Bush knew what needed to be done also, and did it.

So yeah, Bush is the bad guy here. :

You ignored most of my post again. I've never defended Clinton or even mentioned Clinton. I've expressed support for Bush, in principle. I'm capable of recognizing that these issues have multiple facets. That you insist on reducing everything in the world to Bush vs. Clinton is not my concern.

[TheMosco]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

It also doesn't matter what Clinton DIDN"T DO, you are making apologetic excuses for him bombing and killing Iraqis without UN approval. And then, saying Bush doing it is somehow worse. At least Bush made an attempt to go through the UN. Clinton snubbed them and said he had all the authority he needed (Where was all the outraged liberals then?)

Isn't the whole point of memo saying that bush only went through the UN to gain a legal base for invading iraq?

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided," the memo said.

"But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

Like the cnn article says above, Iraq wasn't much of a threat. Bush knew that he wanted to invade iraq regardless of what any evidence said. They then manipulated the UN in order to gain a shaky legal base for invading iraq because they knew none of the other evidence held up. Seems pretty dishonest to me.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by budster101

Are you blinded by your hatred of him so much that you have to eat up everything bad?

CBS CBS CBS CBS CBS.

This is what makes me skeptical.

nope no need for blind hatred of him, the facts speak on to there own.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by bubblewrap

It's President. I have my own presedent...

Because the MEDIA LIES. The media is nothing more than sensationalist tabloid crap. Nothing more.

And you believe everything you read? Especially on the internet?

let me get this straight, when Media says something good about Bush they tell truth, when Media says something bad about Bush they lie? Did I get this right?

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by zigzag

You ignored most of my post again. I've never defended Clinton or even mentioned Clinton. I've expressed support for Bush, in principle. I'm capable of recognizing that these issues have multiple facets. That you insist on reducing everything in the world to Bush vs. Clinton is not my concern.

zigzag, you claimed that what Clinton did was somehow different. Just because he didn't invade.

So, what you are upset about? The invasion? Or all the dead Iraqi people?