was Bush just a patsy?

135

Comments

  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    OffHeGoes29 wrote:
    I guess it isn't so secret if you can find it. Don't believe everything that posted, take it with a grain of salt.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo
    The "Downing Street memo" (occasionally DSM, or the "Downing Street Minutes"), sometimes described by critics of the Iraq War as the "smoking gun memo",[1] is the note of a secret 23 July 2002 meeting of senior British Labour government, defence and intelligence figures discussing the build-up to the war, which included direct reference to classified United States policy of the time. The name refers to 10 Downing Street, the residence of the British prime minister.

    The memo recorded the head of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) as expressing the view following his recent visit to Washington that "[George W.] Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." It also quoted Foreign Secretary Jack Straw as saying that it was clear that Bush had "made up his mind" to take military action but that "the case was thin", and the Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith as warning that justifying the invasion on legal grounds would be difficult.

    The contents of the memo were leaked to the UK press in 2005.


    The minutes were meant to be kept confidential and were headed "This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents."
  • OffHeGoes29
    OffHeGoes29 Posts: 1,240
    I heart Scout Niblett wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    and air strikes don't occur next to crowded mosques or packed markets.

    Tell that to the people of Fallujah whose city was leveled.

    Anyway:

    http://www.truthout.org/article/burying-lancet-report
    'Their most significant finding was that the vast majority (79 percent) of violent deaths were caused by "coalition" forces using "helicopter gunships, rockets or other forms of aerial weaponry," and that almost half (48 percent) of these were children, with a median age of 8.'


    according to the documentary 'Why We Fight' and the pilots of the mission of the first 4 smart bombs dropped to open this invasion 3 missed their targets and hit residential areas.....

    In what part of the movie?
    BRING BACK THE WHALE
  • OffHeGoes29
    OffHeGoes29 Posts: 1,240
    Byrnzie wrote:
    OffHeGoes29 wrote:
    I guess it isn't so secret if you can find it. Don't believe everything that posted, take it with a grain of salt.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo
    The "Downing Street memo" (occasionally DSM, or the "Downing Street Minutes"), sometimes described by critics of the Iraq War as the "smoking gun memo",[1] is the note of a secret 23 July 2002 meeting of senior British Labour government, defence and intelligence figures discussing the build-up to the war, which included direct reference to classified United States policy of the time. The name refers to 10 Downing Street, the residence of the British prime minister.

    The memo recorded the head of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) as expressing the view following his recent visit to Washington that "[George W.] Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." It also quoted Foreign Secretary Jack Straw as saying that it was clear that Bush had "made up his mind" to take military action but that "the case was thin", and the Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith as warning that justifying the invasion on legal grounds would be difficult.

    The contents of the memo were leaked to the UK press in 2005.


    The minutes were meant to be kept confidential and were headed "This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents."

    don't forget this part....

    "Following the advice of company lawyers, Michael Smith, the journalist who first reported on the Downing Street Memo, has said that he protected the identity of his source by reproducing all documents and returning the 'originals' back to the source. In some cases, a document was retyped from a photocopy, and the photocopy destroyed.[41] This has led some to question the document's authenticity, but no official source has questioned it, and it has been unofficially confirmed to various news organisations, including the Washington Post, NBC"
    BRING BACK THE WHALE
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    I heart Scout Niblett wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    and air strikes don't occur next to crowded mosques or packed markets.

    Tell that to the people of Fallujah whose city was leveled.

    Anyway:

    http://www.truthout.org/article/burying-lancet-report
    'Their most significant finding was that the vast majority (79 percent) of violent deaths were caused by "coalition" forces using "helicopter gunships, rockets or other forms of aerial weaponry," and that almost half (48 percent) of these were children, with a median age of 8.'


    according to the documentary 'Why We Fight' and the pilots of the mission of the first 4 smart bombs dropped to open this invasion 3 missed their targets and hit residential areas.....

    ok, I believe that. thats horrible. but your boy bzyine will have you believe thats all we did for 6 straight years. and thats just not true.

    deaths peaked during civil war and were at their lowest when we had the MOST troops on the ground. thats a fact.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    OffHeGoes29 wrote:
    I don't know, I wasn't inside the white house during his 8 years in office. I do know however that none of us are really in the position to state facts like we know what really happened, all the "facts" that are posted on here are from the internet or The Daily Show, not always that creditable.

    You may also like to read the following if you have any genuine interest in what was discussed during the build-up to the war:

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... full.story
    New Memos Detail Early Plans for Invading Iraq
    British officials believed the U.S. favored military force a year before the war, documents show


    The six documents are available in PDF form from the Think Progress web site

    http://thinkprogress.org/2005/06/13/bri ... predicted/

    British Knew Iraqi WMD Were Not a Threat: “There is no greater threat now that [Saddam] will use WMD than there has been in recent years, so continuing containment is an option.” [Iraq: Options Paper]

    Evidence Did Not Show Much Advance In Iraq’s Weapons Programs: “Even the best survey of Iraq’s WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years on [the] nuclear, missile or CW/BW fronts: the programmes are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up.” [Ricketts Paper, 3/22/02]

    Evidence Was Thin on Iraq/Al Qaeda Ties: “US is scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al [Qaida] is so far frankly unconvincing.” [Ricketts Paper, 3/22/02]

    “No Credible Evidence” On Iraq/Al Qaeda Link: “There has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL and Al Qaida.” [Straw Paper, 3/25/02]

    Wolfowitz Knew Supposed Iraq/Al Qaeda Link Was Weak: Wolfowitz said that “there might be doubt about the alleged meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker on 9/11, and Iraqi intelligence (did we, he asked, know anything more about this meeting?).” [Meyer Paper, 3/18/02]
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    OffHeGoes29 wrote:
    don't forget this part....

    "Following the advice of company lawyers, Michael Smith, the journalist who first reported on the Downing Street Memo, has said that he protected the identity of his source by reproducing all documents and returning the 'originals' back to the source. In some cases, a document was retyped from a photocopy, and the photocopy destroyed.[41] This has led some to question the document's authenticity, but no official source has questioned it, and it has been unofficially confirmed to various news organisations, including the Washington Post, NBC"

    Don't forget this part:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_St ... ite_note-5

    '...One of the first articles on the memo to appear in the US media quoted "a former senior US official", who, speaking on condition of anonymity, called the memo's account "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during the senior British intelligence officer's visit to Washington.[43] UK Prime Minister Tony Blair denied that anything in the memo demonstrated misconduct and said that it added little to what was already known about how British policy on Iraq developed, also commenting that "that memorandum was written before we went to the United Nations".[44]

    * White House spokesman Scott McClellan, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw did not confirm or deny the accuracy of the memo when questioned about it.[citation needed]
    * George W. Bush has not responded to questions from Congress regarding the memo's accuracy.
    * When asked about the contents of the memo by Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price in the House of Commons on 29 June 2005, Blair again refrained from disputing the document's authenticity, saying only "[…]that memo and other documents of the time were covered by the Butler review. In addition, that was before we went to the United Nations and secured the second resolution, 1441, which had unanimous support."[45]
    * According to CNN, currently classified documents which were dated at the same month as the Downing Street memo, March 2002, were uncovered in Iraq, and contained evidence that Russian intelligence notified Iraq about the "determination of the United States and Britain to launch military action."
  • OffHeGoes29
    OffHeGoes29 Posts: 1,240
    I think you guys are missing the point here...

    Just because its on the internet or the news, doesn't always mean its 100% true. Any one can shit out a artical and post it on the internet or in the papers.

    I'm sure you can go to any right wing based board or media outlet and find ref. that swings 180, but what makes them any more or less creditable then what you have here?
    BRING BACK THE WHALE
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    OffHeGoes29 wrote:
    I think you guys are missing the point here...

    Just because its on the internet or the news, doesn't always mean its 100% true. Any one can shit out a artical and post it on the internet or in the papers.

    Actually, I think it's you that's missing the point. These are not articles. These are copies of memo's of meetings held between the top brass of the U.S and Britain in the run-up to the war. They weren't created on the internet. They were copied from original documents/memo's of meetings and then published on the internet. I don't see what your problem is here?
  • OffHeGoes29
    OffHeGoes29 Posts: 1,240
    Byrnzie wrote:
    OffHeGoes29 wrote:
    I think you guys are missing the point here...

    Just because its on the internet or the news, doesn't always mean its 100% true. Any one can shit out a artical and post it on the internet or in the papers.

    Actually, I think it's you that's missing the point. These are not articles. These are copies of memo's of meetings held between the top brass of the U.S and Britain in the run-up to the war. They weren't created on the internet. They were copied from original documents/memo's of meetings and then published on the internet. I don't see what your problem is here?

    Yeah, I guess I am then. I'll start believing everything thats out there then, I mean if its on the internet, it must be true, right?
    BRING BACK THE WHALE
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    edited September 2009
    OffHeGoes29 wrote:
    Yeah, I guess I am then. I'll start believing everything thats out there then, I mean if its on the internet, it must be true, right?

    These memo's have nothing to with the internet.

    Here, check this shit out. It'll blow your gourd:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/memorandum

    memorandum

    1. a short note designating something to be remembered, esp. something to be done or acted upon in the future; reminder.
    2. a record or written statement of something.
    3. an informal message, esp. one sent between two or more employees of the same company, concerning company business: an interoffice memorandum.
    4. Law. a writing, usually informal, containing the terms of a transaction.
    5. Diplomacy. a summary of the state of an issue, the reasons for a decision agreed on, etc.
    6. a document transferring title to goods but authorizing the return of the goods to the seller at the option of the buyer.


    You see? It says nothing about the internet, or Newspapers. How freaky is that? :P
    Post edited by Byrnzie on
  • slightofjeff
    slightofjeff Posts: 7,762
    Byrnzie wrote:
    I wasn't stunned, and neither was anybody I know.

    Congratulations. Maybe you should run for office.

    In the meantime, I think most intelligence agencies throughout the world expected there to be WMD in Iraq. Saddam had used them before. Hell, we GAVE him the weapons in the first place. There's a reason the UN voted for sanctions in Iraq. He had them at one time, and it was well known to everyone.

    All I'm saying is, I think Bush was incompetent, but not a liar. It's not like I'm defending him. At least not very well.
    everybody wants the most they can possibly get
    for the least they could possibly do
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    slightofjeff wrote:
    All I'm saying is, I think Bush was incompetent, but not a liar. It's not like I'm defending him. At least not very well.

    Oke doke ;)

    Personally, I don't think Bush lied either. I don't think he knew what he was talking about. You have to be aware of the truth in order to lie. I don't think that Bush had a clue what was going on one way or the other. The people behind his back just told him what to say and he said it - though often he'd forget what he was told to say and so just start giggling like a silly little freak.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A
  • g under p
    g under p Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,237
    Byrnzie wrote:
    slightofjeff wrote:
    All I'm saying is, I think Bush was incompetent, but not a liar. It's not like I'm defending him. At least not very well.

    Oke doke ;)

    Personally, I don't think Bush lied either. I don't think he knew what he was talking about. You have to be aware of the truth in order to lie. I don't think that Bush had a clue what was going on one way or the other. The people behind his back just told him what to say and he said it - though often he'd forget what he was told to say and so just start giggling like a silly little freak.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A

    Agreed, Maybe he should just listen to THE WHO *We Won't Get Fooled Again* and then he'll get it.

    Peace
    *We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti

    *MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
    .....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti

    *The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)


  • OffHeGoes29
    OffHeGoes29 Posts: 1,240
    Byrnzie wrote:
    OffHeGoes29 wrote:
    Yeah, I guess I am then. I'll start believing everything thats out there then, I mean if its on the internet, it must be true, right?

    These memo's have nothing to with the internet.

    Here, check this shit out. It'll blow your gourd:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/memorandum

    memorandum

    1. a short note designating something to be remembered, esp. something to be done or acted upon in the future; reminder.
    2. a record or written statement of something.
    3. an informal message, esp. one sent between two or more employees of the same company, concerning company business: an interoffice memorandum.
    4. Law. a writing, usually informal, containing the terms of a transaction.
    5. Diplomacy. a summary of the state of an issue, the reasons for a decision agreed on, etc.
    6. a document transferring title to goods but authorizing the return of the goods to the seller at the option of the buyer.


    You see? It says nothing about the internet, or Newspapers. How freaky is that? :P

    I might take you seriously if you acted like an adult.

    Read what ever you want, but not everyone is going to blindly believe everything they read as truth, even more so with copy of a copy of a copy of a top secret memo.
    BRING BACK THE WHALE
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    edited September 2009
    OffHeGoes29 wrote:
    Read what ever you want, but not everyone is going to blindly believe everything they read as truth, even more so with copy of a copy of a copy of a top secret memo.

    So do you believe the memo to be a fake? If so, why?

    It must be pretty difficult to go through life not believing anything you see or hear. I can imagine it must cause untold problems, especially in places such as supermarkets: "The label says these are pickled Gherkins, but how can I be sure? They may be small cucumbers disguised as pickles". :?
    Post edited by Byrnzie on
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    OffHeGoes29 wrote:

    I might take you seriously if you acted like an adult.

    Read what ever you want, but not everyone is going to blindly believe everything they read as truth, even more so with copy of a copy of a copy of a top secret memo.


    what about if he uses pretty red colors? can you be convinced then? (serious question)
  • OffHeGoes29
    OffHeGoes29 Posts: 1,240
    jlew24asu wrote:
    OffHeGoes29 wrote:

    I might take you seriously if you acted like an adult.

    Read what ever you want, but not everyone is going to blindly believe everything they read as truth, even more so with copy of a copy of a copy of a top secret memo.


    what about if he uses pretty red colors? can you be convinced then? (serious question)

    Green is more convincing.
    BRING BACK THE WHALE
  • OffHeGoes29
    OffHeGoes29 Posts: 1,240
    Byrnzie wrote:
    OffHeGoes29 wrote:
    Read what ever you want, but not everyone is going to blindly believe everything they read as truth, even more so with copy of a copy of a copy of a top secret memo.

    So do you believe the memo to be a fake? Is so, why?

    It must be pretty difficult to go through life not believing anything you see or hear. I can imagine it must cause untold problems, especially in places such as supermarkets: "The label says these are pickled Gherkins, but how can I be sure? They may be small cucumbers disguised as pickles". :?

    You can't put 100% into everything you read, people aren't perfect and their is always a slight squed truth to anything you read as news. I'm not saying that your super secret memo isn't based on some fact, but nothing in it really spells out anything that shocking. It just takes a bunch of loose facts that were already known at the time and twist them to get people to make conclusions they aren't educated enough in to make.
    BRING BACK THE WHALE
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    OffHeGoes29 wrote:
    I'm not saying that your super secret memo isn't based on some fact, but nothing in it really spells out anything that shocking.
    Nothing in the memo is shocking? Like the fact it says that 'Military action was now seen as inevitable', and 'the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy'.

    So, am I right in thinking that you regard it as acceptable that the war had been decided as early as July 2002, and that the reasons which were later given for the invasion were fixed around a decision that had been made one year before?

    And the following, is it not shocking?:

    '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.'

    These are the people in charge of making the decision to go to war. A war that resulted in the deaths of over a million Iraqi's and thousands of Americans. Those responsible for the war admitted a year prior to the invasion that there was no justification for the invasion re: WMD's.
    And this isn't shocking to you?
    OffHeGoes29 wrote:
    It just takes a bunch of loose facts that were already known at the time and twist them to get people to make conclusions they aren't educated enough in to make.

    Really? The facts were twisted were they? Where's your evidence to support this statement?
  • OffHeGoes29
    OffHeGoes29 Posts: 1,240
    Byrnzie wrote:
    OffHeGoes29 wrote:
    I'm not saying that your super secret memo isn't based on some fact, but nothing in it really spells out anything that shocking.
    Nothing in the memo is shocking? Like the fact it says that 'Military action was now seen as inevitable', and 'the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy'.

    So, am I right in thinking that you regard it as acceptable that the war had been decided as early as July 2002, and that the reasons which were later given for the invasion were fixed around a decision that had been made one year before?

    And the following, is it not shocking?:

    '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.'

    These are the people in charge of making the decision to go to war. A war that resulted in the deaths of over a million Iraqi's and thousands of Americans. Those responsible for the war admitted a year prior to the invasion that there was no justification for the invasion re: WMD's.
    And this isn't shocking to you?
    OffHeGoes29 wrote:
    It just takes a bunch of loose facts that were already known at the time and twist them to get people to make conclusions they aren't educated enough in to make.

    Really? The facts were twisted were they? Where's your evidence to support this statement?

    I'll tell you this much, as early as the summer of 2002, the military was getting ready for war. I know this because I was a part of it. It wasn't a secret, infact it was well known by everyone and their families. The WMDs are very much real, maybe not a threat on the international level, but very much a regional threat. Its well known that they had N.B.C. related weapons, most of which would be fired by SCUD into neighbering countries. I'm sure to some level facts were squed by the administration to make a case, does it make it right? Absolutly not. Was Iraq a sideshow of whats really important? Absolutly. Did this have an effect on my voting in 04...yes.

    The problem I have with the far left as I do with the far right is the picking and choosing of facts to paint a different picture of the truth. War is absolutly a horrible thing, and these situations are far from cut and dry, black and white. What drives me nuts are people with little concept on how the world works, instead some redneck talks about turning the region in a glass parking lot and the hippie talks about making love not war. But honestly its none of that, the reality of it is hard for people to deal with, so they choose their facts (like this memo) and run with it in a direction thats far from reality...which is the truth.

    So back to the memo, I'm sure there is some element to truth to it, but I wouldn't use it as absolute evidence into matters that none of us have a real understanding of. We don't know the insides to Washington, nor are we experts in forgien policy.
    BRING BACK THE WHALE

Categories