email: abramoff knew of iraq war one year before it started

DPrival78

http://www.unknownnews.org/061006fd-1003SirJ.html

but, but.. i thought the war in iraq wasn't premeditated? and we just had to go in there to prevent the mushroom clouds from popping up in the u.s. since saddam didn't want to play the diplomatic game?

anyone else need any more proof that this war is bullshit, and has absolutely nothing to do with keeping you safe?

ledvedderman

I guess it's nothing we didn't already know, but it's still nice to see proof in black and white. thanks

chromiam

DPrival78 wrote:

http://www.unknownnews.org/061006fd-1003SirJ.html

but, but.. i thought the war in iraq wasn't premeditated? and we just had to go in there to prevent the mushroom clouds from popping up in the u.s. since saddam didn't want to play the diplomatic game?

anyone else need any more proof that this war is bullshit, and has absolutely nothing to do with keeping you safe?

read it again.. "the war in iraq" was never mentioned but the war ON Iraq is what was stated. That makes a big difference. Could mean any of a thousand things which doesn't involve troops.

ledvedderman

chromiam wrote:

read it again.. "the war in iraq" was never mentioned but the war ON Iraq is what was stated. That makes a big difference. Could mean any of a thousand things which doesn't involve troops.

What else would there be a "War on Iraq" for?

chromiam

Could have involved political pressure or war between ideas of how to handle the situation in Iraq (ie Israeli and others concerns about Iraq). Nothing in this specifically points to military action.

floyd1975

ledvedderman wrote:

What else would there be a "War on Iraq" for?

Sanctions intended to marginalize a dictatorial regime that could not and would not live up to their burden of proof of the destruction of all WMD's.

ledvedderman

Poor wording on his part...

chromiam

ledvedderman wrote:

Poor wording on his part...

or the correct wording.

hippiemom

Oh, come on ... it's an email, not a real estate contract. You don't use precise language in your emails either. If people want to pretend there's some genuine question here regarding what he was REALLY talking about, fine, go ahead, just be careful not to breathe in too much sand while you're down there.

ledvedderman

I hardly recall any e-mail I have wrote than mentioned the "upcoming war on"anything without it meaning an actual war. Like when I wrote about thinking about what I was going to have for dinner that night as "the upcoming war on bratwurst"

DPrival78

chromiam wrote:

Could have involved political pressure or war between ideas of how to handle the situation in Iraq (ie Israeli and others concerns about Iraq). Nothing in this specifically points to military action.

i think that's a bit of a stretch. "war" to me sounds like it means, well, war.

let's not forget about the infamous july 2002 downing street memo, which said:

"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."

fixing facts and intelligence around the policy.. how do you interpret that one?

the war was planned long in advance.

floyd1975

ledvedderman wrote:

I hardly recall any e-mail I have wrote than mentioned the "upcoming war on"anything without it meaning an actual war. Like when I wrote about thinking about what I was going to have for dinner that night as "the upcoming war on bratwurst"

Are you surprised that not everyone, even government officials and K St. lobbyists, writes their emails exactly like you?

floyd1975

DPrival78 wrote:

i think that's a bit of a stretch. "war" to me sounds like it means, well, war.

let's not forget about the infamous july 2002 downing street memo, which said:

"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."

fixing facts and intelligence around the policy.. how do you interpret that one?

the war was planned long in advance.

You're right. The large scale military action of the War on Drugs has been amazing.

This is not the smoking gun everyone wishes it was.

ledvedderman

zstillings wrote:

Are you surprised that not everyone, even government officials and K St. lobbyists, writes their emails exactly like you?

It surprises me to no end. If you really think he meant sanctions, than good for you. Like we all know, the decision was made long before 9/11 that Iraq was going to happen. Dick Clarke was told on Sept. 12, 2001 to find a way to tie 9/11 to Iraq, and the plans were already laid out for an invasion of Iraq. He then replied that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but was still told to "make it happen".

Why would there be any reason to think this email meant anything other than the actual combat war in/on Iraq.

hippiemom

zstillings wrote:

You're right. The large scale military action of the War on Drugs has been amazing.

This is not the smoking gun everyone wishes it was.

You and I both know that when someone talks about a war on a country, they're not talking about some war of ideas.

You guys are grasping. You remind me of Clinton wanting a precise definition of the word "is."

chromiam

ledvedderman wrote:

Why would there be any reason to think this email meant anything other than the actual combat war in/on Iraq.

Because you don't have war on a country, you have war in a country. You conduct a "war" on an issue or topic.
And just because you know or rather like to believe that all this was thought of ahead of time... I'm open to read and judge on all the evidence I can get my hands on. Not just the rantings and innuendo of people who claim to know everything. And yes, the way something is written or spoken can change the meaning, regardless of what some may think.

ledvedderman

chromiam wrote:

Because you don't have war on a country, you have war in a country. You conduct a "war" on an issue or topic.
And just because you know or rather like to believe that all this was thought of ahead of time... I'm open to read and judge on all the evidence I can get my hands on. Not just the rantings and innuendo of people who claim to know everything. And yes, the way something is written or spoken can change the meaning, regardless of what some may think.

The evidence is all over the place that this was planned years before the actual invasion happened. I know this email isn't a smoking gun, but you're getting quite picky on the wording. The "Downing Street Memo" though, that is the smoking gun

floyd1975

ledvedderman wrote:

It surprises me to no end. If you really think he meant sanctions, than good for you. Like we all know, the decision was made long before 9/11 that Iraq was going to happen. Dick Clarke was told on Sept. 12, 2001 to find a way to tie 9/11 to Iraq, and the plans were already laid out for an invasion of Iraq. He then replied that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but was still told to "make it happen".

Why would there be any reason to think this email meant anything other than the actual combat war in/on Iraq.

The original question asked for other possible answers. I gave one. I don't try to grasp for things just to make the President look bad.

There are many uses for the word "war." I do not try to throw out all meaning behind language and logical reasoning while joyously jumping to conclusions just to fit my own political agenda. That is the reason to think this email means anything other than combat.

ledvedderman

zstillings wrote:

The original question asked for other possible answers. I gave one. I don't try to grasp for things just to make the President look bad.

There are many uses for the word "war." I do not try to throw out all meaning behind language and logical reasoning while joyously jumping to conclusions just to fit my own political agenda. That is the reason to think this email means anything other than combat.

There's no "grasping" about it, you can't say anything about the President without him looking bad.

I will surrender, just because it won't end, it's lunchtime, and I have an upcoming war on a turkey sandwich

RainDog

zstillings wrote:

The original question asked for other possible answers. I gave one. I don't try to grasp for things just to make the President look bad.

There are many uses for the word "war." I do not try to throw out all meaning behind language and logical reasoning while joyously jumping to conclusions just to fit my own political agenda. That is the reason to think this email means anything other than combat.

I know you're in full court press mode this time of year, but in light of all other evidence out there - proven beyond a reasonable doubt or not - "liberal" or not - you can't pretend this means nothing. War "on" Iraq means exactly what most here think it means; a war on a country called Iraq. Considering we went to war with Iraq - and "on" Iraq - I'd say Abramoff wasn't using any euphemisms.

Besides, I find the term "in" to be inaccurate anyway. It implies that Iraq itself doesn't have anything to do with the war; they just happen to be unlucky enough to be around where the war is taking place.

floyd1975

RainDog wrote:

I know you're in full court press mode this time of year, but in light of all other evidence out there - proven beyond a reasonable doubt or not - "liberal" or not - you can't pretend this means nothing. War "on" Iraq means exactly what most here think it means; a war on a country called Iraq. Considering we went to war with Iraq - and "on" Iraq - I'd say Abramoff wasn't using any euphemisms.

Besides, I find the term "in" to be inaccurate anyway. It implies that Iraq itself doesn't have anything to do with the war; they just happen to be unlucky enough to be around where the war is taking place.

That may be your definition. The question was asked as to what else it could possibly mean. I answered with another possibility.

RainDog

zstillings wrote:

That may be your definition. The question was asked as to what else it could possibly mean. I answered with another possibility.

So what is the definition of "is"?

floyd1975

RainDog wrote:

So what is the definition of "is"?

In what context?

I know what you are saying, I was just giving another possibility in light of the "war on drugs," "the war of ideas," "The War of the Roses," ect...

RainDog

zstillings wrote:

In what context?

I know what you are saying, I was just giving another possibility in light of the "war on drugs," "the war of ideas," "The War of the Roses," ect...

Oh, I know. I'm just saying, considering we did invade Iraq, there's more to be said about Abramoff being literal. And to be fair, the war on drugs has involved military action in the past.

floyd1975

RainDog wrote:

Oh, I know. I'm just saying, considering we did invade Iraq, there's more to be said about Abramoff being literal. And to be fair, the war on drugs has involved military action in the past.

It can be taken that way. I take it as the tensions that we saw between the White House and Iraq even before the invasion.

The War on Drugs has involved military action in the past but not to the scale people here are talking about war.

WMA

It is humerous to see the definition of 'on' dissected like this.

Reminds me of a Carlin bit.

“get on the plane, get on the plane,” I say, “Fuck you, I’m getting in the plane! In the plane! Let Evil Knievel get on the plane, I’ll be in here with you folks in uniform. There seems to be less wind in here!”

RainDog

zstillings wrote:

It can be taken that way. I take it as the tensions that we saw between the White House and Iraq even before the invasion.

The War on Drugs has involved military action in the past but not to the scale people here are talking about war.

"It can be taken that way." Man, you are always on. I like that.

And to retort, how do you know on what scale people here are talking about? I mean, yeah, we're specifically talking about the war on Iraq; but some wars are on a bigger scale and some wars are on a smaller one.

Truthmonger

Forget about the War In/On Iraq debate, there is other proof that the U.S./Bush admin. lied about when the war started. It lies in the Downing Street Memo and in the statements by an American general(Moseley ?) about when the real war began - which, by the way, was well before March, 2003.

WindNoSail

come on people....

Don't we expect our govt to plan wars before they are executed? On one hand we blame the govt for not knowing how to stop 911 or plan for Katrina but we don't want them to consider for a moment the possibility of war with Iraq ahead of time, and Iraq was dealing blows the revered UN for 10+ years???

And then, the whole thing of actually going to war didn't happen til 2003 and that was 1.5 years after 911 and the advent of terrorism on our political scene, so it seems likely that they would have been discussing it by 2002, right?