Barak says we can't eat and drive and stay warm anymore

[RedWingFan]

Oh yeah he lied along with a half dozen other foreign leaders and doctored intelligence. I keep forgetting. Sorry.

Dude, even Bush's whipping boy Blair admitted recently that the evidence, in retrospect, was not sufficient grounds in of itself for declaring war.

I'd say "in retrospect" are the key words in that sentence, wouldn't you?

[7 Wishes]

I'd say "in retrospect" are the key words in that sentence, wouldn't you?

That's my point. The doctored evidence made a mountain out of a mole hill.

[RedWingFan]

I'd say "in retrospect" are the key words in that sentence, wouldn't you?

That's my point. The doctored evidence made a mountain out of a mole hill.

Doctored? How did Bush plant doctored evidence uncovered by foreign countries while he was governor of Texas?
Anyway, you're saying Hussein wasn't in violation of numerous UN resolutions? Those were also cited as reasons by Bush.

[7 Wishes]

I'd say "in retrospect" are the key words in that sentence, wouldn't you?

That's my point. The doctored evidence made a mountain out of a mole hill.

Doctored? How did Bush plant doctored evidence uncovered by foreign countries while he was governor of Texas?
Anyway, you're saying Hussein wasn't in violation of numerous UN resolutions? Those were also cited as reasons by Bush.

It had already been determined the "evidence" was tenuous at best, and was dismissed by EVERY OTHER INDIVIDUAL NATION in their foreign policy. That includes the "meeting" in the Czech Republic between Al Quaida and Iraqi government officials, the "yellow cake" bullshit, and the "partnership" between Hussein and the Baby Killer.

[RedWingFan]

I'd say "in retrospect" are the key words in that sentence, wouldn't you?

That's my point. The doctored evidence made a mountain out of a mole hill.

Doctored? How did Bush plant doctored evidence uncovered by foreign countries while he was governor of Texas?
Anyway, you're saying Hussein wasn't in violation of numerous UN resolutions? Those were also cited as reasons by Bush.

It had already been determined the "evidence" was tenuous at best, and was dismissed by EVERY OTHER INDIVIDUAL NATION in their foreign policy. That includes the "meeting" in the Czech Republic between Al Quaida and Iraqi government officials, the "yellow cake" bullshit, and the "partnership" between Hussein and the Baby Killer.

How did Bush plant the doctored evidence from his Governor's chair in Austin, Texas?

[Rick]

We're already outsourcing jobs and that needs to stop, as does the war. If the U.S. would mind her own business and stop trying to control the world and other countries resources, those other countries might just give a shit about her.

I guess that would include entering WWII as well? Germany never attacked us, why should we care if they conquer all of Europe? America's interests need to be defended.

What's the difference? We're trying to conquer all of the Arabic nations.

Dude do you realize we are the only nation in the history of the world that has won wars, helped rebuild the nations and given them back?
Way to equate the US with Nazi's by the way.

I'm not equating it, the rest of the world is.

You didn't just type, "What's the difference? We're trying to conquer all of the Arabic nations."

I sure did, but I don't equate us with Nazi's, we're far from behaving like that. But it sure gets thrown up from all around the globe. What does that say about America?

[RedWingFan]

I sure did, but I don't equate us with Nazi's, we're far from behaving like that. But it sure gets thrown up from all around the globe. What does that say about America?

The same people say we are too wealthy, which is why I brought up their desire to have our jobs.
Catching my drift yet?

[Rick]

I sure did, but I don't equate us with Nazi's, we're far from behaving like that. But it sure gets thrown up from all around the globe. What does that say about America?

The same people say we are too wealthy, which is why I brought up their desire to have our jobs.
Catching my drift yet?

You're a good debater RWF.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Oh yeah he lied along with a half dozen other foreign leaders and doctored intelligence. I keep forgetting. Sorry.

Downing Street Memos - end of story (and that's not even the half of it).

Bush could come out tomm. and admit everything and the party faithful would still find away to absolve him of all malfeasance.
For those desperate to educate themselves on the WMD lie, I strongly reccomend reading everything by Col. Larry Wilkerson, a.k.a. Colin Powell's Chief of Staff. He is saying what Powell cannot.

[conversationpc]

Downing Street Memo - end of story.
(and that's not even half of it)

Didn't the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee come to the conclusion that it was false?

[The_Noble_Cause]

Didn't the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee come to the conclusion that it was false?

News to me. I would like to see that if it's true. I will hit the google and see what turns up.

[RedWingFan]

Didn't the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee come to the conclusion that it was false?

News to me. I would like to see that if it's true. I will hit the google and see what turns up.

It's probably filed right next to Dan Rather's "national guard" documents.

[AlteredDNA]

Oh yeah he lied along with a half dozen other foreign leaders and doctored intelligence. I keep forgetting. Sorry.

Downing Street Memos - end of story (and that's not even the half of it).

Bush could come out tomm. and admit everything and the party faithful would still find away to absolve him of all malfeasance.
For those desperate to educate themselves on the WMD lie, I strongly reccomend reading everything by Col. Larry Wilkerson, a.k.a. Colin Powell's Chief of Staff. He is saying what Powell cannot.

Doesn't the DSM also discuss the potential use of WMDs by Saddam?

[The_Noble_Cause]

It's probably filed right next to Dan Rather's "national guard" documents.

The exact hows-and-whys of the selling of the Iraq War should not be a liberal issue.
Anyone who dismisses Downing Street or any leaked intelligence out of hand, clearly puts party loyalty over fidelity to flag or country.

Keep laughing swine.

[conversationpc]

It's probably filed right next to Dan Rather's "national guard" documents.

The exact hows-and-whys of the selling of the Iraq War should not be a liberal issue.
Anyone who dismisses Downing Street or any leaked intelligence out of hand, clearly puts party loyalty over fidelity to flag or country.

Keep laughing swine.

Having a skeptical attitude about these and other issues doesn't make one a "swine". One could get the same picture of you if they only took into account what they see on this forum.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Doesn't the DSM also discuss the potential use of WMDs by Saddam?

Briefly. But that pales in comparison to the "facts being fixed around the policy" and the "fake U.N. plane" revelation.
DSM Memo aside, you have Knight Ridder Newspapers doing the journalistic heavy lifting outside of the Beltway, that called this for the lie it was before we invaded. So too did investigative journalist Walter Pincus of the W. Post, only to be relegated to the back pages.
Not to mention all that's come out since from Col. Wilkerson, Spanish Prime Minister Aznar etc.

This war is a loser. If McCain's knows what's good for the party, he would cut anchor and turn the page.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Having a skeptical attitude about these and other issues doesn't make one a "swine".

Right wingers, with the exception of the Ron Paulbots, haven't displayed healthy American skepticism when it comes to this, but an outright denialist lockstep mentality. Mitt Romney went so far as to trumpet the "buried in Syria" canard.

[Tito]

They're ALL (with the exception of a very, very few) full of sh-t.

Ron Paul rules. He is one of those exceptions.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Didn't the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee come to the conclusion that it was false?

I cannot find this.

[RedWingFan]

If McCain's knows what's good for the party, he would cut anchor and turn the page.

Yeah, that's what they told Nixon. How many millions were slaughtered after we pulled out? Innocent Iraqi's who've embraced freedom probably need a thinning out anyway, huh? Just turn the page.

[AlteredDNA]

Doesn't the DSM also discuss the potential use of WMDs by Saddam?

Briefly. But that pales in comparison to the "facts being fixed around the policy" and the "fake U.N. plane" revelation.
DSM Memo aside, you have Knight Ridder Newspapers doing the journalistic heavy lifting outside of the Beltway, that called this for the lie it was before we invaded. So too did investigative journalist Walter Pincus of the W. Post, only to be relegated to the back pages.
Not to mention all that's come out since from Col. Wilkerson, Spanish Prime Minister Aznar etc.

This war is a loser. If McCain's knows what's good for the party, he would cut anchor and turn the page.

You can't have it both ways - you use the Downing Street Memo as the Holy Grail ("end of story") to accuse Bush et al of cherry picking and ignoring facts to make the case for WMDs, while that very same document puts forth the assertion that Saddam could use WMDs.

[RedWingFan]

Doesn't the DSM also discuss the potential use of WMDs by Saddam?

Briefly. But that pales in comparison to the "facts being fixed around the policy" and the "fake U.N. plane" revelation.
DSM Memo aside, you have Knight Ridder Newspapers doing the journalistic heavy lifting outside of the Beltway, that called this for the lie it was before we invaded. So too did investigative journalist Walter Pincus of the W. Post, only to be relegated to the back pages.
Not to mention all that's come out since from Col. Wilkerson, Spanish Prime Minister Aznar etc.

This war is a loser. If McCain's knows what's good for the party, he would cut anchor and turn the page.

You can't have it both ways - you use the Downing Street Memo as the Holy Grail ("end of story") to accuse Bush et al of cherry picking and ignoring facts to make the case for WMDs, while that very same document puts forth the assertion that Saddam could use WMDs.

Ummm....errrr.....uhhhhhh......well..........let's see....................Bush hates black people!

[Saint John]

Didn't the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee come to the conclusion that it was false?

I cannot find this.

Why hasn't the Downing Street Memo garnered more attention in the mainstream media? It claims that intelligence regarding WMDs in Iraq was being "fixed around" the Bush Administration's desire to go to war in Iraq. Doesn't the memo prove that Bush lied to take us to war?

Not really.

James S. Robbins of the American Foreign Policy Council shows why (see here). Here are the crucial paragraphs:

"Dearlove's comments include the intriguing passage noted above, '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.' To the president's critics, the meaning is clear — the WMD intelligence was being faked to support the rationale for intervention.

"This passage needs some clarification. Maybe Rycroft or Dearlove could elaborate; by 'fixed around' did they mean that intelligence was being falsified or that intelligence and information were being gathered to support the policy? There is nothing wrong with the latter — it is the purpose of the intelligence community to provide the information decision-makers need, and the marshal their resources accordingly.

"But if Dearlove meant the former, he should be called upon to substantiate his charge. It can be weighed against the exhaustive investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on prewar intelligence assessments in Iraq. The committee examined this very question, whether the White House had pressured the intelligence community to reach predetermined conclusions supporting the case for war. The investigation found no evidence that 'administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities' or that 'the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.' One would think that the Senate investigation would have somewhat more weight than the secondhand impressions of a foreign intelligence officer, but if Mr. Dearlove is able to elaborate, one hopes he will."

So, the reason that the Downing Street Memo has not garnered more mainstream media attention is that (1) its substance is old news and (2) its allegation, if that is what "fixed around" really is, has already been thoroughly investigated and refuted.

[RedWingFan]

Didn't the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee come to the conclusion that it was false?

I cannot find this.

Why hasn't the Downing Street Memo garnered more attention in the mainstream media? It claims that intelligence regarding WMDs in Iraq was being "fixed around" the Bush Administration's desire to go to war in Iraq. Doesn't the memo prove that Bush lied to take us to war?

Not really.

James S. Robbins of the American Foreign Policy Council shows why (see here). Here are the crucial paragraphs:

"Dearlove's comments include the intriguing passage noted above, '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.' To the president's critics, the meaning is clear — the WMD intelligence was being faked to support the rationale for intervention.

"This passage needs some clarification. Maybe Rycroft or Dearlove could elaborate; by 'fixed around' did they mean that intelligence was being falsified or that intelligence and information were being gathered to support the policy? There is nothing wrong with the latter — it is the purpose of the intelligence community to provide the information decision-makers need, and the marshal their resources accordingly.

"But if Dearlove meant the former, he should be called upon to substantiate his charge. It can be weighed against the exhaustive investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on prewar intelligence assessments in Iraq. The committee examined this very question, whether the White House had pressured the intelligence community to reach predetermined conclusions supporting the case for war. The investigation found no evidence that 'administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities' or that 'the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.' One would think that the Senate investigation would have somewhat more weight than the secondhand impressions of a foreign intelligence officer, but if Mr. Dearlove is able to elaborate, one hopes he will."

So, the reason that the Downing Street Memo has not garnered more mainstream media attention is that (1) its substance is old news and (2) its allegation, if that is what "fixed around" really is, has already been thoroughly investigated and refuted.

Good job Dan. It was filed right next to the Dan Rather documents wasn't it?

[Saint John]

Good job Dan. It was filed right next to the Dan Rather documents wasn't it?

Ironically, yes.

[The_Noble_Cause]

You can't have it both ways - you use the Downing Street Memo as the Holy Grail ("end of story") to accuse Bush et al of cherry picking and ignoring facts to make the case for WMDs, while that very same document puts forth the assertion that Saddam could use WMDs.

The memo proves beyond questionable doubt that Bush was agressively angling for a way to takes us to war, going so far as to even invent unused provocations. Bush maintains that he exhausted all diplomatic options and had no choice but to invade - a claim he clings to to this day.
This idea has been poo-pooed by more insider testimonials and even some admninistration officials than I care to get into.

By now, if after all the mounting evidence, you still wish to remain willfully blind and braindead that is not my problem.

[The_Noble_Cause]

If McCain's knows what's good for the party, he would cut anchor and turn the page.

Yeah, that's what they told Nixon. How many millions were slaughtered after we pulled out? Innocent Iraqi's who've embraced freedom probably need a thinning out anyway, huh? Just turn the page.

We're already complicit with Muqtada al-Sadr's ethnic cleansing anyways.
You may think The Surge (c) is responsible for any quells in violence, just pray Muqtada doesn't call off his ceasefire.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Why hasn't the Downing Street Memo garnered more attention in the mainstream media? It claims that intelligence regarding WMDs in Iraq was being "fixed around" the Bush Administration's desire to go to war in Iraq. Doesn't the memo prove that Bush lied to take us to war?

Not really.

James S. Robbins of the American Foreign Policy Council shows why (see here). Here are the crucial paragraphs:

"Dearlove's comments include the intriguing passage noted above, '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.' To the president's critics, the meaning is clear — the WMD intelligence was being faked to support the rationale for intervention.

"This passage needs some clarification. Maybe Rycroft or Dearlove could elaborate; by 'fixed around' did they mean that intelligence was being falsified or that intelligence and information were being gathered to support the policy? There is nothing wrong with the latter — it is the purpose of the intelligence community to provide the information decision-makers need, and the marshal their resources accordingly.

Semantics.

"But if Dearlove meant the former, he should be called upon to substantiate his charge. It can be weighed against the exhaustive investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on prewar intelligence assessments in Iraq. The committee examined this very question, whether the White House had pressured the intelligence community to reach predetermined conclusions supporting the case for war. The investigation found no evidence that 'administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities' or that 'the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.' One would think that the Senate investigation would have somewhat more weight than the secondhand impressions of a foreign intelligence officer, but if Mr. Dearlove is able to elaborate, one hopes he will."

So, the reason that the Downing Street Memo has not garnered more mainstream media attention is that (1) its substance is old news and (2) its allegation, if that is what "fixed around" really is, has already been thoroughly investigated and refuted.

Whitewash.

[Saint John]

just pray Muqtada doesn't call off his ceasefire.

Like most liberals, I'm guessing that you hope he does.

[Tito]

Shouldn't this be in the politics thread?