DescentBB

So it's been out for just over a month. And yet no one here has posted anything about it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 07,00.html

So what part of the article is so shocking?

gee, I dunno.... maybe the fact that the iraq war was planned months in advance and sold under false pretenses?

We already know that. It's common knowledge, but nobody seems to care except me.

maybe the fact that the iraq war was planned months in advance

Planning a war in advance of actually going to war seems like a good idea to me.

and sold under false pretenses?

Still with this weak argument?

There was no way to conclusively prove that Iraq had no WMD stockpiles without actually going in. To hold your position, you have to ignore virtually everything that happened in the 1990s. It's ignorant, revisionist bull★■◆●.

1. Free and unfettered access was never granted to UN inspectors. There were always areas that were off limits.

2. There were gaps of several years where no inspectors were in country at all because Saddam had thrown them out.

I agree with Brian. This isn't new news. Though it's pretty damning, it's just confirmation of something that was known. I think it was over a year ago that Bush was quoted in early 2002 as saying something like "★■◆● Saddam, take him out." It should've been front page news here, but our media is liberal, and we all know how the liberal media buries stories might harm Republican Presidents. I mean sh!t, Jacko was on trial and there was a missing white woman!

Birdseye wrote:We already know that. It's common knowledge, but nobody seems to care except me.

Why do you hate America (er ... Britain)?

because I am an unthinking generic liberal bush basher

Birdseye wrote:We already know that. It's common knowledge, but nobody seems to care except me.

I cared, he mentioned 'taking care of unfinished business in the middle east' in a debate with Al Gore before he was ever elected president in 2000 and I thought "Wow, maybe his balls are bigger than his daddy's!" so I voted for him

OK Pebkac, lets all invade teh US - cuz they don't let in inspecters ;p

Birdseye wrote:because I am an unthinking generic liberal bush basher

As the BS flag slowy goes up to wave in the breeze.


Birds we may disagree on Bush but least your opinions carry the weight of thoughts. You always have good posts.

OK Pebkac, lets all invade teh US - cuz they don't let in inspecters

Spoken like someone who spent the 90s in elementary and junior high school. The point totally got past you.

Pebkac wrote: Spoken like someone who spent the 90s in elementary and junior high school. The point totally got past you.

Truly, yours is a dizzying intellect. /wesley

Ferno wrote:gee, I dunno.... maybe the fact that the iraq war was planned months in advance and sold under false pretenses?

Like planned after 9/11?....well no shiat sherlock. Think we're going to go to war and not plan for it?

Pebkac wrote:Still with this weak argument?

There was no way to conclusively prove that Iraq had no WMD stockpiles without actually going in. To hold your position, you have to ignore virtually everything that happened in the 1990s. It's ignorant, revisionist bull****.

1. Free and unfettered access was never granted to UN inspectors. There were always areas that were off limits.

2. There were gaps of several years where no inspectors were in country at all because Saddam had thrown them out.

Evidently all of British Intelligence seems to disagree with you on this so called 'weak argument'.

no chipper. it was planned months IN ADVANCE of 9/11. you would know this had you actually read the memo.

Actually I did read the memo. Perhaps I missed the pre 9/11 indication. The memo itself is dated july 2002 and thus after the WTC attack. So where does the memo allude to pre 9/11 planning?

Also true to form I see the new JFK is calling for Bush's impeachment on the strength of this document. I guess the Dems still think they can do to Bush what they did to Nixon and Failed to do with Reagan

I realize I misspoke in my previous post. What I meant to say was this memo was documented well in advance of the invasion of Iraq.

it is well documented at this point that they had a huge Iraq hard on and it was their first target after 9-11 happened. Check the PNAC document, check Clarke's book (for those that would love to polarize clarke as an anti-bush democrat, you don't know a thing about him most likely) for how they were instantly looking to attack Iraq first before any evidence of who actually did the attack came up. It's clear they formulated an argument for public digestion primarily based around WMD (even saying things like we "know" they have such and such wmd) to get the public to go along with it, not really knowing what they had exactly.

Now you may agree or disagree with their Iraq policy on the macro view, but on the micro level the public was sold a load of ★■◆●. It's not the first time either the government has done something like this or considered it. In fact in government not telling the public the full truth seems more like the norm rather than the exception. I don't understand why it is such a shock to people, maybe some sort of ego-defense. For more evidence of this, check "Gulf of Tonkin" and "Operation Northwood"

Birdseye wrote:it is well documented at this point that they had a huge Iraq hard on and it was their first target after 9-11 happened. *snip rest of quote*

In which part of Afghanistan does Iraq lie?

Stryker wrote:In which part of Afghanistan does Iraq lie?

*blink* *blink*

Stryker wrote:

Birdseye wrote:it is well documented at this point that they had a huge Iraq hard on and it was their first target after 9-11 happened. *snip rest of quote*

In which part of Afghanistan does Iraq lie?

I think what Birdseye is saying is, in spite of the fact we actually went to Afghanastan first, the first thing they decided to do was go through with their plan to invade Iraq knowing the post 9/11 sentiment would make it easier to sell to the public and the world.

If you think about it though, we had much more of a right to invade Iraq than Afghanastan.
Afghanastan as a country wasn't responsible for bin Ladden's part in the attack on America. Afghanastan hadn't broken any ceasefire agreements nor were they in violation of countless U.N. resolutions...

Even after the memo said Iraq was less of a threat than Libya, Iran, or N. Korea? Even after the weapons inspectors themselves told the UN that Iraq had no capabilities left?

you saying you have a 'right' to invade iraq is like me saying I have a right to take a crap on your head.

Also, last I checked Afghanistan is where the Taliban and Bin laden lived.

Ferno wrote:
you saying you have a 'right' to invade iraq is like me saying I have a right to take a crap on your head.

Careful before you drop trow Ferny. We had every right to invade Iraq because the last UN resoulution said we could. You do remember the phrase " Serious Consequences" don't you?

Ferno wrote:Even after the memo said Iraq was less of a threat than Libya, Iran, or N. Korea? Even after the weapons inspectors themselves told the UN that Iraq had no capabilities left?

you saying you have a 'right' to invade iraq is like me saying I have a right to take a crap on your head.

Also, last I checked Afghanistan is where the Taliban and Bin laden lived.

1) The Taliban never did anything to us.
2) If just having a terrorist live in your country is enough reason then Iraq is definitely fair game.

Saddam gave sanctuary to a number of terrorists who were wanted for killing americans and other westerners and he was paying $25,000 bounty to families of suicide bombers who attacked Israel.

As to any statements that Iraq was not a threat it's just not true. Read this timeline of events: linkage
The constant deceit and violations are enough to get anyone busted!
He used chemical weapons on his own people one month after the end of Desert Storm! If that's not a violation nothing is!! In February of '98 inspectors find that Iraq has not fully disclosed his chemical weapons and missile activities...
March of '98 the inspections show that Iraq has not fully disclosed biological weapons programs....
He fired on our aircraft something like 400+ times in less than one year....

The sanctions were crumbling, Saddam was on the verge of being free of them and he would have rebuilt in record time. Russia had a 40 billion dollar oil contract that was contingent on the ending of the sanctions! France and China had similar deals...
Any question as to how they were going to vote regardless of Saddams violations?

Before the sanctions Saddam was their biggest customer, do you think they wanted us to remove him?


It's just silly to say he wasn't deserving of removal or that we didn't have good reason to do it.
With the bribery of the Russian and French vote in the Security Council I could really give a crap about so called 'world opinion'.

Will R. wrote:If you think about it though, we had much more of a right to invade Iraq than Afghanastan.

Afghanastan as a country wasn't responsible for bin Ladden's part in the attack on America. Afghanastan hadn't broken any ceasefire agreements nor were they in violation of countless U.N. resolutions...

I've often wondered about that too.

It's like after 9/11 the world gave us a 'topple one country free' card....

.....but don't take two.

We have the FLQ living in our country Will. Does that mean you can invade Canada at will too?

"As to any statements that Iraq was not a threat it's just not true. Read this timeline of events: linkage"

So let me get this straight.. you're saying Iraq was such a threat to world stability you just had to go in because if you didn't we'd now be living under a 'saddamist' regime?

BTW, your link to the CIA contains entries that some were proven to be outright lies. such as this one: "US SecState Powell presents evidence of Iraqi WMD programs to UNSC"

"
I think what Birdseye is saying is, in spite of the fact we actually went to Afghanastan first, the first thing they decided to do was go through with their plan to invade Iraq knowing the post 9/11 sentiment would make it easier to sell to the public and the world. "


Dead on, will. Hell, PNAC even spelled it out before 9-11 happened. They were just waiting for something like 9-11 to justify the Iraq war. That's why their argument sounded so inconsistent and bizarre. They had a loftier goal of 'modernizing' the middle east but could never outright say that, so we got our load of BS WMD arguments.

Ferno wrote:We have the FLQ living in our country Will. Does that mean you can invade Canada at will too?

No, you are the one who suggested we attacked the wrong country because "last I checked Afghanistan is where the Taliban and Bin laden lived."
I am suggesting the reason to invade Iraq was complex and although the fact that terrorists were there, that alone isn't enough reason.

So let me get this straight.. you're saying Iraq was such a threat to world stability you just had to go in because if you didn't we'd now be living under a 'saddamist' regime?

No, and I don't see how you could, in good faith, come to that conclusion from what I did say.
I am saying that we went in for a combination of reasons.

*Saddam was in violation of ceasefire agreements and U.N. resolutions that were supposed to carry the consequences of military action if he didn't abide by those resolutions.

*He was a terrorist who also gave aid and sanctuary to other terrorists.

*He was firing on our aircraft patrolling the no-fly-zone.

*He was using the oil for food scam to rebuild his army not to feed the people.

*He at one point offered to come clean on his bio-weapons program *if* the U.N. would give him a clean report on his chemical and missile report..which he was not going to pass because they had found violations in that area!
Is that the actions of a cooperative person?

*The U.N. security council was compromised and he was soon to escape the sanctions completely.

*His track record indicated he would be right back in business with full capability in the chemical weapons department very soon, ditto on the bio-weapons if he chose to.

*In the wake of 9/11 we decided that having him with those capabilities was no longer acceptable.

In light of all the above it was justified and prudent to make sure he was removed from power, that's why we didn't want to wait around until he finally realized we were serious because he would then allow real inspections for the first time in 12+ years and then we wouldn't have the cumulative wieght of all those reasons to justify his removal!

That is what I'm saying.

I think you should ahve a look at this then Will.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le9045.htm

Ferno wrote:I think you should ahve a look at this then Will.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le9045.htm

I don't see how that list has anything to do with what I said were the reasons for not letting Saddam go back to being fully armed and free to continue his part in world terror.

did you read the links?

I see no reason to believe this is a real memo.

I regard most of what I read with an eye of scepisism.

Dude.. Saddam was a freekin maniac. I work with from Iran and they said the guy was totally nuts. They admitted that they're own extremist governement (thier words not mine) wasn't all that great and had its share of problems, but Saddam was crazy and they much prefer thier country over his.

Ferno wrote:did you read the links?

Not all of them because they are not relevant to the points I made. For example:

"When doctors sent by France, the United Nations and the Red Cross examined gassed Kurdish refugees in Turkey, what symptoms did the doctors say were exhibited?

Non-lethal tear gas."

It doesn't matter if the link supports the statement because the statement, even if I accept it at face value, does nothing to counter the points I raised!

Even if Saddam did use non-lethal tear gas on some people doesn't mean he didn't use CS gas and mustard gas and other agents to kill some other people!! I don't think the 8 things on my list are disputable. You may choose to say that, in your opinion, they don't warrant an invasion but they definitely happened and/or those conditions definitely existed.

How about take my list of 8 justifications for the war and use anything on your list, or anything at all for that matter, and show me how I'm wrong....

I'm working on it Will.. what you posted will take quite a while to research. I'm not sure if I have the time to do it, but I'll do my best.

Then again, had the Iraq war been sold on what he did instead of selling it on the WMD and links to terrorist thing, I think more people would be on board.

Ferno wrote:
Then again, had the Iraq war been sold on what he did instead of selling it on the WMD and links to terrorist thing, I think more people would be on board.

Your dead right there but I think they all sincerely believed there was no way there wouldn't be a lot more WMD stuff found so they just jumped on the bandwagon and rode it into Baghdad!

Duper wrote:I see no reason to believe this is a real memo.

Quibble: The British have acknowledged the memo is authentic.

Now...

I'm not here to ruffle any feathers so take a deep breath before you hit reply.

The significance of the memo has nothing to do with whether or not it was wise to take out Saddam. It was wise to take out Saddam.

The significance of the memo has no impact on the fact that Saddam was a tyrannical despot who menaced his own people and the region, and that he helped to sponsor terrorism (at least in Israel). Saddam was all these things.

The significance of the memo is that it supports the contention that the Bush administration used the threat of terror and Iraqi WMD to sell a war to the US Congress and American people on false grounds.

Please note that I am not saying there were not true and justified grounds for attacking Iraq. I'm just saying that the Bush administration used BS propaganda tactics to justify the war they prosecuted. Why they did this is another question - perhaps they felt that the real justifications wouldn't be sufficient.

In my case the real justification was sufficient! I was all for taking out Saddam. As I've said before, it's not that we attacked Iraq that bothers me. What bothers me is the way we did it - with BS propaganda and pi$$ poor efforts at a real international coalition.

The D-memo clearly, unequivocally, supports the notion that Bush made up his mind to go to war, and that facts were manipulated to fit policy well before Congress approved the war. As Birds and Vander have stated, some of us have been arguing this all along. The significance is that the D-memo supports it indisputably.

Of course, only time will tell but in my estimation it just doesn't have legs. The Dems are trying to give it legs but I seriously doubt anyone cares at this point except the Hush==Bitler, Gitmo==Gulag cabal that would try to *fix* an impeachment bid if Bush spit on the sidewalk. And no one's listening to their hyperbole anymore anyway.

Beside that, a second *smoking gun* memo from the same source released this/last week regarding post-war planning essentially contradicts the assertion from the first memo that the decision to go to war was already finalized. Plus, the entire third-party interpretive hearsay from a foreign source nature of the memo is pretty weak from an American legal perspective and I just don't see it having enough weight to start any formal proceedings in motion (and let's not forget who controls Congress ). There's just too many obstacles to enlarging this molehill into a mountain.

That said, the Dems deserve a measure of credit for launching their most coherent attack to date fixed around the assertion that BUSH LIED! However, imo, it will fizzle like all the previous reditions of the same song. Because in the end, you know it's a weak case when the Dems had to wait until the Jackson trial finished before launching their DSM offensive just to grab a day or two worth of below-the-fold headlines. Sorry, little liberal dudes, but brace yourselves for another disappointment.

heh. bash... both british and american intelligence don't doubt it's authenticity.

this isn't a rep vs dem thing like you're trying to make it out to be. it's fact, and the people who are saying otherwise are grasping at straws. I'm glad to see you've posted a source to back up what you say.