I loved the cartoon in yesterdays paper ... DT in the garage, telling the new Woodward what to watch out for, and the new Woodward wanting to know only what Paris Hilton was doing today (or something like that).

Of course, many of my work-mates tell me "All the news I need get comes form Hannity, and I can't believe how uninformed America is."

James, As you can see from the posts on this subject, your coworker is right. Too many people choose Bush BS over hard core evidence. They have been totally brainwashed, prefer darkness or had rather appear ignorant than admit they may have been wrong.

Much ado about nothing.

"Much ado about nothing."

Except 1600 dead Americans tens of thousands of dead Iraqis and no WMDs.

That's a whole lot of nothing!

I didn't think the Downing Street memo was all that shocking. I don't see any comparison to Watergate at all.

The " Downing street memo " has been throughly discredited so why would the press pay any attention to it. Yeah certain America hating Democrats are waving this bloody shirt as a smoking gun particularly the hearsay part that says Bush was fixing the intelligence to match his prospective war plans. Well gee lets see , he must be good because he also had to fix the intelligence of other major powers such as Germany and France.

Kim Winz, sorry but your so called bombshell is a dud.

Actually, far from being "thoroughly discredited" the so-called "Downing Street memo" has been admitted by Tony Blair's office to be 100% legitimate.

Not that this story could possibly GET anywhere. This ain't the America of thirty years ago when Watergate was the top story. Now it's the Michael Jackson trial and Russell Crowe playing "telephone tag" with a hotel desk clerk. The informed citizen has been replaced by the entertained citizen... God have mercy on us all.

Kim, and the rest of the libs are dreaming. Perhaps one day they will wake up and join the real world instead of trying to resuscitate the glory days of the Viet Nam War.

This is a no where story and I hope they ride it off into the sunset.

A "no story" where our Commander-in-Chief distorted facts to mislead the citizenry into accepting a war that is designed to enrich a very few people at the cost of lives?

Really?

Where has this story been discredited? Denials by the Whitehouse don't count.

Perhaps if we could get People Magazine on the case we could get to the bottom of this story. They seem to have the only investigative reporters left.

I've read this memo about 3 times now. I hear there is a lot of smoke here...but can someone tell me exactly what part of this is smoking?

I just cut-n-pasted this from the website:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

In the words of "The Mask"...Smokin'!

Thanks, Doug.

The first thing that jumps out at me is that this was written by a British Intelligence officer. Correct me where I am wrong (I'm way behind on this thing- been on vacation).

But who is this guy? Was he opposed to any military action to begin with? Was he using his own thoughts on this or was he writing in some official capacity quoting those in our government?

The "fix" sounds odd to me in that, it would appear to me, it meant that we were making up the fact that there were any WMD's. BUT, a few sentences later, this same writer is expressing concern that Saddam might use WMD's from the outset. Am I reading that wrong?

As far as Bush having decided to go to war well before the fact- I would certainly hope so. I would vote to impeach him if he hadn't. Do any of you play chess? The middle east is the ultimate chess match (and NO, our troops are not pawns- and real war is not a game). In other words, if you are going to make a move, you sure as hell need to know what your opponent is about to do and have your strategy mapped out.

All this says to me is that Bush expected the rat to eat the cheese. Surprise. But to the U.N. and all that crap....well we know what was going on there and I'm proud that Bush had no faith in them.

Michael,

I admit to being only superficially informed on the matter, but I think the memo writer was a British official in attendance in a meeting in Washington, from which the memo represents minutes for his superiors. I think the website referenced above had a more complete explanation.

I'm not bothered about any long-range planning the administration may have been doing, but these minutes seem to indicate that they were planning to deliberately mislead the public in order to advance their agenda.

I agree. It does. But it is written by someone we know nothing about, his motives, who released it, how accurate it is and so on.

It also contradicts itself and actually goes further to prove that they believed in the WMD's. The "fix" is a very broad statement. Fixing what, exactly?

Put it this way, most on this blog wouldn't believe anything Rush or Fox wrote in blind faith- or even if it were proven. But they are perfectly willing to take the word of a British Intel Officer if it supports their hatred of this president during war time.

Apparently there are not a whole lot of people reading this that have ever had a conversation with a Brit.

The way an American uses the language and the way a Brit use the language is sometimes very different. "Fixed", in the way a Brit would use the word in this context means the following in the way an American would express the same idea, "But the intelligence and facts were being attached to the policy."

The way the Brit was using the word has no relation at all to the implications that are being read into the sentence.

I quote from the Oxford Dictionary:

Fixed: Firmly fastened or stationary, not to be changed or moved.

Sounds quite different when you use English english, huh?

And, Yes Doug, really!

LOL

Good point, Mac.

The wording was "fixed around." I wonder if the English english might've been "fixed to" in your explanation.

Thank you, Mac. I was about to ask that very question- if "fixed" meant the same thing. There are many little differences in the way we speak and I was wondering that but not ready to make that point because I wasn't sure. It just doesn't sound....like it is "official" or "professional" or something.

Reminds me of the story about Bush Sr. getting off a plane in some country (I think in Africa) and he was waving the peace sign to everyone. He was later told that over there it was the same as flipping them the bird.

Doug, how ever the words may be translated, I think the point is clear.

The intent of the memo was not to say that Bush was "fixing" the intelligence and facts in the sense that an American would use the word. Like in "The fix is in." Meaning that the situation has been altered to make the outcome certain.

The intent of the words in the memo are to indicate that the US and the President of the US are working on making sure that the intelligence and facts are properly attached to the policy that would lead to the displacement of Saddam. Or in other words that everything matched up and the facts would fit the policy.

There is no smoking gun here it is simply a bunch of people that are desperate to tear down the President and our government in order to promote their own agenda. Facts be damned!

Point taken, but I will keep my mind open for further information and discussion.

The smoking Gun:

1) Bush said in March, 2002 that he had no intention of invading Iraq.
2) Downing St. Memo states that Bush was fixing intelligence to fit his war proposition as early as March 2002.

If you cannot see that lying to the public, whether it is Bush or Clinton is wrong, then I pity you for your lack of a conscience.

Only extremists have to lie to make people believe in their war.

Jim,

"No intentions of invading Iraq"? How do you negotiate peacefully if you broadcast to the world that you have no hope in the process?

All this says is that Bush was planning for the inevitable. All great leaders do that.

You're reading the memo the way you want to. Like an extremist Al-Jazeera reporter. The fact of the matter is that none of us know the whole story, the meaning and the motives of those who wrote it or released it.

All we know for sure is that you are easy to condemn your country's leadership in war time.

"All we know for sure is that you are easy to condemn your country's leadership in war time."
This sir, is the mark of a true Patriot!
I applaud people like jim that aren't brainwashed by the Bush lies.

Michael,

So what was inevitable about invading a country that wasn't a threat to us or its neighbors, was finally letting the inspectors do their job, had no known connection to terrorism and dare I mention, no WMDs.

That wasn't inevitable. It was irrational.

Great leader???? Snicker!!

Marshall,

it was inevitable that Saddam would not corform to the latest U.N. Resolution. If you know the likelihood of that you prepare for what is next. War.

Saddam was NOT cooperating with the inspectors. He was not allowing them in gates for hours at a time while satellite photos show trucks heading out the back. Inspector Blix didn't see the problem with that but more enlightened people do.

No known connection? Do you watch the news? Do you suppose all these guys just came in for this event like a Woodstock? Oh, that's right.... you guys believe that these used to be nice people until the evil Americans turned them into bad people.

bad Americans, bad, bad, bad.

Sarcasm is the sign of a weak argument.

No. Weak arguments are the sign of a weak argument.

Michael I wax sarcastic when dealing with the ridiculous. Michael you are trying to defend a LIE. WMD was the primary reason given for attacking Iraq - there were none Michael. UN inspectors looked and looked and there were none. Dubya attacks his army looks everywhere for months - no WMD. Dubya says well we really attacked because of the terror threat he posed to US. Dubya's army guys looked for months for a connection - no connection. Dubya says well we really attacked to set the people of Iraq free. Now we all know that dubya is reknowned for his altruism (this is sarcasm Michael)that he is a "compassionate conservative" (more sarcasm Michael). Now the Brits, having been caught in this web of deceit have come up with another lie -to wit: Iraq had to be attacked to stabilize the Arab world. Hoo boy that's better than dubya being compassionate.

Well Michael there you have it- repubs lie. Now if you insist on perpetuating lies you should expect some intolerace and perhaps a bit of sarcasm.

OK Michael
I am going to try get you into a point of discussion and beyond your sarcasm about the stupidity of others points.

You were rather sarcastic about the "known connections". Instead of being sarcastic why not offer proof or something showing us all of the "liberal" misconception we have of sadaam and terrorist connections.

First there were known terrorist camps in Iraq at the moment. But they were groups not aligned with bin laden as they were near the Iranian border and were seen as rivals to bin laden. They were also not aligned to Sadaam for the same Iranian connection but more important they were located in our "No Fly Zone" in general under the eyes of if not indirectly our protection of our air force. Now why we didnt bomb them into instinction you could ask Bush that.
Second the report of the terrorist who was in the Iraqi hospital,even if true, is stretching things greatly to say sadaam was connected to the terrorists.

Now this is what I know so I challenge you to enlighten me on where i stand wrong and what other connections you seem to believe exist
AND do this without sarcasm.

"it was inevitable that Saddam would not corform to the latest U.N. Resolution. If you know the likelihood of that you prepare for what is next. War."

I find it curious that the administration that has the greatest distain for the UN would use failure to conform to UN resolutions as a pretext for war. Watch out Israel.

Saddam would do whatever he needed to survive and was fully cooperating towards the end with inspectors. If gwb had just used our military pressure to accomplish that I would have called that great leadership. Actually going to war was awful leadership.

Yellowdog, Go back and read again. No one has said there were no WMD except the hate America crowd. What has been said is that none have been found. Since Saddam had a year to pack up everything and ship it off to his neighbors in crime it comes as no surprise that they have not been found. And there is ample documentation that is what happened.

It is a fact that Saddam had them and it is a fact that he used them. I don't think anything other than dealing with him in the way that we have was an option.

Mac, Yes, Saadam did have weapons of mass destruction but none that could be a threat to the US. Experts have testified to that on more than one occasion. His WMD were a threat only to his own people and was really none of our business.

But that's where the lie comes in. Bush did say Saadam had weapons of mass destruction that could put the US in peril, that he and his WMD were an imminent threat to the US. And we better get him before he attacked us again (inferring 9/11 was the work of Saadam).

Bush used the fear of the American people after 9/11 to perpetuate his own agenda. Now he is caught in his lie and is telling more lies to try to cover it up. Thank God most of the American people are wising up.

Okay Hayes and others, I'll dispense with the sarcasim and tell you where I am coming from on this. Most of what I believe about the Iraq situation is what I have learned directly from people who would know- those who are priveleged to real information within the U.S. government.

No, they don't share secrets and the like with me and I have rarely gotten them to say anything about their jobs. But I was playing golf with one of these guys one day leading up to the Iraq war. And I just flat out asked him, "does Saddam have WMD's?" He actually said "no". I was quite surprised and asked him if the whole war thing
was just a crock. He said, "uh, well, I don't think he has them right now but that's not to say he's not cooking up something."

So I asked if we should be getting rid of Saddam. He just kinda shrugged and told me he personally didn't want to get involved but if we don't do it now- we'll have no choice in a few years.

My other friend, in another branch of the gov, got the same line of questioning from me. He wouldn't give a yes or no answer but put it this way, "what you have to keep in mind is that all of the chemicals we are looking for could fit in a few double-wide trailers. Iraq is about the size of Texas. Drive from one end of the state to the other and tell me how easy it would be to find a few DW's 30' under the ground."

I asked him about terror connections. He just smiled and said, "Saddam ain't no choir boy. Unless you want to blow the cover (off of us), you'll probably never know the whole story." Not being a W fan at all, he kinda winked and said that W was screwed either way. He can't disclose the whole case and he can't not go. Either way, he'll likely never find the chems he's looking for, about all he can do is disrupt the system and plant a foothold in the middle of the nastiest territory on earth."

I suppose you can take the comments of what these guys said different ways. What I took from it though is that there is a lot going on that we may never know about and you either have to trust Bush or trust Saddam and his boys Uday and Freddie Mercury. I choose Bush. 43851

And by the way all, go back to the State of the Union speech leading up to the war. W outlined about 10-12 reasons why we were going. The media only focused on one. And just like they knew what the conclusion of the Scott Peterson deal would be, they only focused on this one issue because everyone knows that whether they were there or not- they ain't lying around in the open.

Michael
This I can deal with. Lets take what your friends says as true. Dont know him or you really but I have no reason to think you are lying here.

I would raise questions about his points based on these reasons.
Actually one simple logic.
If Bush had any real and hard proof of terrorists connection then why not present them.Considering the beating he has taken on this, yes by people like me, then what does he have to gain by not doing it. He could have such a "I told you so" moment over all his critics. Now if there is a reasonable logic to why not I am all ears or eyes.

An as far as the chemical weapons. My attitude here is more like the OJ simpson trial. Both sides presented enough to raise questions about the others arguement but not enough to prove theirs was correct. BUsh raised good questions but not sufficient answers to Blix points and Blix raised good points but also left me hanging.
But this is only me.

Hayes,

You're right. Absolutely right. Now you can understand why it tees me off when others on this blog want to state all of this mess they believe in as "facts".

As to the "I told you so", I believe it will happen some day. As to why Bush isn't saying everything right now- the only impression I got from my conversations was that some info- if he wanted to make a big detailed case out of it- would easily reveal the sources and they are more valuable where they are. I don't profess to know how all that underworld stuff works, I just know it exists.

But Bush could also just as easily blamed others for stalling the process and giving Saddam so much time to dispense with whatever he had. He hasn't. If he were a liar- it would be such an eeeasy excuse and he could have won political ground.

He also doesn't keep bringing up the fact that we have found some of the weapons we were looking for- but not in stockpiles and until that time he seems comfortable taking the abuse. He is taking a lot of heat and I think it takes a lot of character for him to not just lose his cool and say what he would like to.

All this stuff is going to take time....

Michael,

As you've stated you can take your friends words in a number of ways, you've chosen your way & that's fine, but you don't have any facts either. Nothing they said sounded like a call to war (or much of anything really). Sure Saddam may have had some WMDs when we invaded, but that's a long way from him being a threat & that was the justification that gwb based the war on.

We haven't found any of the weapons that we were looking for except a couple of shells that probably were misplaced.

You're right. This stuff is going to take time, and a lot of dead sons and daughters....

Michael
With the terrorists arguement about protecting the source I can buy into but only question again is this. Lets say for example there was an bin laden and sadaam connection. The impression left out for people to believe was there was one; why not offer some real evidence? There would have to be something general enough but hard in proof he could have presented to the american people without endangering any moles. This is my sticking point here.
And as for the weapons. Yes Sadaam is a bad boy not to be trusted. I believed at the time he either had weapons or was interested in getting them. Would be a liar and hypocrit if I said otherwise. But I did not believe he posed a threat to us but that has been talked about before.
My quesiton here on this is. We had satellite cameras day and night. If we saw the trucks leaving the sites why dont we have pictures showing where they went? If the went into Syria I find it hard that Bush again is refusing to share this with us. Maybe there are reasons.

As far as the sunni and shiite from another blog. All I know is in the late 80's I became very interested in the israeli and palestinian quesiton. I met many arabs and palestinians at this time. They were nothing but super nice to me. Didnt ask if they were sunni or shiite and didn care which. I thought about them after 911. I have heard some of the differences but honestly could not give you one now but would say that one was more extremist than the other doesnt ring a bell.

Hayes,

The one thing I agree and conceed on is that I doubt the threat was...next month or 6 months or whatever. I don't believe anyone in our government knew that for a fact. I believe they believed that it was a matter of time. Bush had a choice of taking the heat now for doing something or taking the heat later for doing nothing. Clinton made that mistake with bin laden and in the post 9-11 era a president has a tough decision to make.

I doubt also that there was a connection between Saddam and bin Laden other than there same attitude towards us. But as I stated before, Afghanistan was about 9-11 and Iraq is prevention of the next 9-11. Was Iraq THEE best target? Don't know. But I do believe that we had no choice but to go after the Saddam's and Zarqawi's of the world. We know now that oceans apart means nothing. We know that many are willing and capable of another attack and we had to go and disturb the nest. Iraq is a logical place because Saddam violated his surrender agreement from the Gulf War. Regardless of whether or not he had any weapons is irrelevant because if we are not allowed in to inspect we have to assume the worst.

Are you a chess player? Pull out a map of the middle east and draw a circle around the area of the greatest concentration of radical Muslims. Look in the middle of that circle. It might offer a new perspective of what is going on.

I'll explain the whole Muslim thing in a minute.

Okay, Hayes, to the Muslim issue. First a little background into the Koran and than I will make my point.

The Koran (I know you know some of this already) was written in the 600's A.D. by a self-proclaimed prophet, Mohammed. It wrote it while going through a series of seizures and claimed he was communicating with Allah. Mohammed was a soldier and a brutal one at that. He and his "disciples" would often brag of how badly they mutilated men, women and even babies. Hardly a Jesus equivalent.

Anyway, the book tells the followers many things including the need for a jihad. Now, your peace-loving Muslims (about 80%) view jihad as an internal struggle to kill the sin within them. They read the scripts as metaphors as to how seriously they must rid themselves of sin. The other 20% take the book literally. They believe that the jihad is just what it says- a commandment to kill infadels.

There are 5 pillars (some claim 7) or commandments that must be obeyed to enter heaven. They include things like giving to the poor, reading the Koran and praying 5 times a day. All these things will "help" you come judgment day. But! the only GUARENTEED way to get to heaven is to kill an infidel.

The only way you can be spared your life if in control of an extremist is to follow the 5 (or 7) pillars AND take up the killing of Jews. They have no reason to negotiate with you because they are not going to turn on their faith and the only thing standing between them and 72 virgins is....you!

These are the people we are fighting. They do not value your life, much less theirs. They believe in brutal killings and the control of others. They are pure animals.

This, is why I laugh when some talk about negotiating with them. This is what is behind the networks in the middle east that are plotting against us. The network is thick, sophisticated and determined.

To be honest with you, I'm not so sure it isn't already too late. The world is infested with these cock roaches. We found some of them on 9-11. Bush has knocked a whole in the wall, so to speak, to try a deal with the problem. We will see if his attempt at exterminating is enough.

Michael
Will raise a very different point here that has not really been discuss about the war and where I criticize Bush.
Many people asked why do many of the Iraqis hate us afterall we freed them from sadaam. One person answered it is like helping a woman from being raped and then setting up house in her home and making her your slave and expecting her to be thankful. Not word for word but I think the point is there

For what ever reasons Bush went in and whether you agree or not why; when he made the comment drawing the line in the sand in Iraq and said "Bring it on" he did a great injustice to the Iraqis. That comment alone turned their country into Bushes personal battlefield against terrorists. I know from reactions, now this was a year ago so cant say if the feelings still linger, but that angered many Iraqis. It is one thing to go into a country after terrorists,ie afghanistan, but to go into a country and turn it into a homebase for a war is not right. And sadly for me this statement the following actions from it to often trumps all the good our troops are doing there.

Sorry hit post before I was ready.
I meant with the trumps as in the eyes of the Iraqis not ours.

Sorry must end this. Six hours ahead makes this bedtime for me.

Enjoyed the civil exchange here.

The simple fact that Saddam attempted to assassinate a President of the United States is reason enough to exterminate him and his kind.

If anyone thinks that Saddam would not supply any and every deadly chemical and germ to any band of terrorists that would do us harm frankly doesn't have their head screwed on tight.

Yes, Hayes, I'm sure some Iraqi's hate us. It's the law of averages. Many have lost loved ones and can hardly feel otherwise. The media has a way of bringing these people out.

But just to give you a thought here...did you know that Sen. Joe McCarthy actually had an 80% approval rating at the height of all that mess? Just goes to show how loudly the minority can yell. But doesn't make it so.

Nighty night.

So Michael, what was wrong with Sen. McCarthy? What he was attempting to do and in a lot of cases succeeded in doing was correct, accurate and needed to be done.

Mac
What exactly did Mccarthy do that was "right,accurate and needed"?

A lot of you flirted with this but here it is straight away. To paraphrase the words of Slick Willie " It all depends on the meaning of fixed ".

Great one Hector.

Mac,

Absolutely nothing was wrong with McCarthy. My point was that he was labled a loon by a small but very vocal group. If you pick up a history book today you are taught that he was an evil, crazed witch-hunter.

Unfortunately, it took too many years to prove him correct.

Can't you just see ole Michael sitting on a bar stool weaving around saying: I no some pretty big men in DC ...hicup...and they tell me....

Here is the last word on Iraq's danger to US.
In the 80's Iraq and Iran warred. Now Iran, practically speaking had no professional army owing to a recent civil war, but in 8 years of fighting Iraq could only manage to fight Iran to a draw. The best Sadaam's mighty army could do was a push. The first Bush, dub senior, wanted a war with Iraq, his poling numbers were falling rapidly, and his son, Neal, was about to be indicted in the Silverado Savings and Loan scandal; so he had some covering up and distracting to do. So he sent in the troups. The iraqis never even fought back they just ran and the slower ones died. THREAT? What threat.

Don't even need an army if all you have to do is push buttons there 'ol yeller. Think outside your butt, er uh, I mean box,

Michael
I feel like I slept through some history here. When and with what was Mccarthey proven correct.

This is a serious question not one of sarcasm.

Hayes,

McCarthy, as you recall, claimed that the Roosevelt and Truman administration (as well as the pentagon) had dozens of communists spies working in it. Even though some were actually arrested-caught red handed- they ridiculed the hell out of McCarthy.

In 1995, the Venona Project (a series of cables confiscated by our gov, decoded and finally declassified) proved that actually McCarthy low-balled the number of spies there actually were. It was well over 300 citizens and government officials that were named in these records. Come to find out that some were actually in the administration- including high ranking advisors.

But today, McCarthyism still refers to something awful and sinister and relates to the original meaning and not what it actually should be.

Thank you Michael. Saved me a whole lot of typing and you are much better at compacting information than my rambling.

And, by the way, we are still living with the legacy of that Communist infiltration of our government.

You want to know about what was going on in that area? Get a copy of David Horowitz's book, "Fortunate Son". If it doesn't open your eyes, nothing will.

Wish there was a way to edit a post here.

CORRECTION. That book is called "Radical Son".

WHEW! I just now read this thread and I must say I don't even know where to begin. Good dialogue by all though. Very good actually....

My new definition of McCarthyism:

Woefully blind to the facts. Enemies agree with you and work with you to lead you down the wrong path. sym: liberalism; misled

We are witnessing an epidemic on this blog...

...and it's name is Michael

only problem joe....facts just don't back you up. When you have no basis to argue the facts, you simply snipe. That's called an Yvonne. All bark- no bite. C'mon back when you have something intelligible to say.

t

Oops. Sorry for that previous post. Not much of a splash here. huh?

Anyway, came across this thread and found it rather fascinating. I've actually learned more on this one today than any other in some while. In fact, I thought this Michael guy was blowing a lot of smoke and have been spending the last couple of hours doing some research to blow him out of the water with.

Gotta say, though, I see this Islam thing in a whole other light. On the McCarthy thing- his facts are right but there seems to be a lot more to the whole story.

Anyway, great thread, will jump in if anyone is still up.

Mac,

Yes " Radical Son " is excellent. So is another book which Horowitz co-authored with Stephen Collier named " Second Thoughts " ( re the war in Viet Nam ).

Back to where all this started ..the " Downing St Memo ". There is just no there there. Settled !

Back to where all this started ..the " Downing St Memo ". There is just no there there. Settled !

Just like WMDs There's just on there there. Settled!