For those who read (or write) the blogs and wonder, “why bother?”… well, here’s another great example of how persistent blogging can move the MSM: “Web puts ‘Downing Street Memo‘ in spotlight.”
The issue of the “Downing Street Memo,” as it has come to be known — and what it does or does not prove about the actions of the Bush administration before the 2003 invasion of Iraq — burst suddenly into the open last week.
President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair were asked about it at their joint news conference in London. The topic was raised by interviewer Gwen Ifill when Blair appeared on PBS’ “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer” show. Tim Russert, the host of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” asked Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman on June 5.
…
The story has been kept alive in the United States largely by Internet sites. Organizers of the sites say the memo proves Bush lied to Congress and the American public when he denied having made a decision to go to war.
I blogged on the topic way back on May 2, and again several times since. While I don’t claim to have been personally influential in forcing the MSM to address this issue, I was part of the larger cacophony of dissent that did.
Tomorrow, amidst growing media scrutiny, Rep. John Conyers (MI), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, will hold a “forum” on the memo. Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) has not only refused to hold a formal hearing, he’s refusing to allow Democrats to use any committee hearing rooms. This is exactly the sort of arrogance of power that led the Bush administration to invade Iraq on a lie.
We all need to keep up the pressure on both the MSM and Congress, so that circumstances behind this war can be properly investigated, and the truth revealed to the American people.
There are some confictiing stories going around, but evidently Sensenbrenner blinked (probably on the “advice” of the GOP leadership), and the Dems can use a hearing room. The flap over his ham-handed tactics made this a bigger story than it would have been if he had done nothing. Thanks Jim!
AND we need to press C-SPAN to broadcast the hearings tomorrow. Apparently they have stated that they will not be doing that. Write them: http://www.c-span.org/about/contact.asp?code=About
Rep. Dave Reichert also recently found out about Republican “heavy handedness” when he was accused by GOP representative Frank Wolf of Virginia of “…being willing to allow terrorist groups and drug gangs to run rampant across America.” ( Seattle Times–6/15/’05 ) I’ll bet Dave’s constituents are shocked and awed by this revelation.
I think our right-wing friends should be encouraged to sit down and read these documents — both the “memo” itself as well as the various briefing papers that have been leaked in the intervening weeks, and then provide us with a rational response. I personally don’t see how there could be any defense of the Bush administration in light of these documents, but am open-minded entertain other points of view. Prove me wrong on this one.
It is interesting to note that the usually vapid TROLLS are not jumping into this conversation.
I am sure they know how deadly this is to the neo-con dream. They are rightly very frightened.
God, you’re stupid.
Fix on Downing Street
About that supposed smoking-gun memo.
Let me help the Terri Schaivo libs amongst us (you know who you are little brain dead and blind libs)with some of the relevant quotes:
“There we have it in black and white: Bush lied about WMD and cooked the intelligence to support his position. At last, proof enough to start the impeachment proceedings.
Except, of course, that the folks peddling this story have long been convinced that Bush lied and cooked the intelligence. The question is: What have they got that will persuade someone who is not already a member of the ne plus ultra Bush-hating left?
The answer is nothing. In describing the leaked document in the terms above, I have been faithful to the way in which left-wing bloggers, activists, and assorted hangers-on have described its contents–which is to say, as inflammatorily as possible. But such a tendentious description comes at the expense of fidelity to what the document actually records.
For smoking-gun enthusiasts, the key to the plot is that word “fixed,” as in, the fix is in. As in, the intelligence and facts weren’t what Bush needed, so he fixed them. The problem with this analysis, if you can call it that, is quite simple: If what is being described is chicanery and wrongdoing in the form of the Bush administration fabricating intelligence, how come nobody in the room with Blair when C drops this bombshell is sufficiently perturbed to do so much as ask a follow-up question? How come Blair’s “sofa cabinet” just goes on earnestly discussing the military options?
It’s striking that the Times’s story hyping the memo makes no mention of the “fixed” passage until roughly its 26th paragraph, where the term goes unremarked. Far be it from me to suggest that the Brits have done a better job as custodians of the English language than Americans. But the Brits do at least know how they speak it.
As far as the “inevitable” charge goes, we have been down this road over and over again. It’s a pity C didn’t tell the Quai d’Orsay about his conclusions that summer. The semi-official line from the French foreign ministry is that officials there didn’t conclude the war was inevitable until January 2003. Yes, some in the Bush administration thought from early on that war would be the only way to take care of the Saddam problem. But the decision isn’t made until the president says he has decided. That’s what makes it a decision.
At the Bush-Blair press briefing last week, a Reuters correspondent did ask the two about the memo–without consequential result. But the good ol’ “mainstream media” had it about right in concluding that there is nothing in the document but more proof for partisans already persuaded.
Scream on Bush haters, you know it’s your only reason to exist.
H. Lucy,
I’ve actually been impressed with Dave Reichert’s willingness to dissent from the crazies in the GOP. I hope he can keep that up.
It’s all coming clear to me now. Remember the Rather-Gate memo? It was leaked by Karl Rove to create these “unfounded” memos so that if the British memos ever got into the MSM, they could just blame it on the liberal bias media, again.
Karl Rove, you bastard!
Hey everybody The Fucking Easter Bunny d/b/a Toothe Faera LLC posed a funny joke on the Bill Huennekens thread! :D
Heh heh — that’s a good ‘un.
Donneggdon @ 5: I’ve commented several times on this topic, and I really don’t feel like getting into it again. I will say that just as the Rossi folks found out, repeating charges over and over again don’t make them true. Use the evidence first to come to conclusion, not the other way around.
Howcan…(get a shorter name) @ 6:
Excellent point. If the intelligence truly was being fabricated, why would Blair go along with the charade, especially knowing that “the truth” would be found out? I thought he was the “smarter” of the two.
IncrediblyStooopid @ 6 “But the decision isn’t made until the president says he has decided. That’s what makes it a decision.”
Yes, and he decided in October 2001. Then he started on the road to “fix” the data. Supporting leaked memos further show that the decision to invade was made BEFORE the data was looked at, and BEFORE the data was fixed for that policy.
Understand IncrediblyStupid? You ain’t gonna spin yerself outta this one.
ON TO THE HAGUE!
Jon @ 11 ” Use the evidence first to come to conclusion, not the other way around.”
How ironic you would say that. Because that is exactly what happened, and that is exactly why the neo-con platform is tumbling.
ON TO THE HAGUE!
Jon @ 11
The answer is simple: Bush has video of Blair and Mayor Jim West in a drunken stupor pulling a train some sheep after Dubya showed them how at his Crawford ranch.
“BAAAAA! BAAAAA! Who’s your prime minister!! Who’s your mayor!! Who wants a job in Spokane!! Who’s your president!! BAAAA BAAAA”
Goldy wrote –
“Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) has not only refused to hold a formal hearing, he’s refusing to allow Democrats to use any committee hearing rooms. This is exactly the sort of arrogance of power that led the Bush administration to invade Iraq on a lie”.
Sensenbrenner’s attempt to prevent an official examination of the facts reminds me of this recent statement –
“The one thing that neo-cons loath more than they loath liberals – – – is the truth”. (Bill Moyers)
Without the truth, the American People are left to wander in the great unknown wasteland of Republican lies, facing Weapons of Mass Distraction and Plutocratic Propaganda, while our “leaders” – – – Karl Rove and Dick Cheney – – – perpetrate the largest catastrophe in American History; the Bankrupting of America.
Then why are both Bush and Blair denying the memo instead of just explaining it away as a misunderstanding of the word”fix”? Now we know what is , is. Or do we?
The bookie “fixed the race.” What do you suppose the word “fix” means in that context? Does it mean that the race was repaired? What what what ???? Dummy!!!
6
Please. Lindberg’s article hinges on his parsing of the verb “to fix”:
“Fix” here is clearly meant in its traditional sense, in the sort of English spoken by Oxbridge dons and MI6 directors–to make fast, to set in order, to arrange.
That would be an intentional fallacy. Lindberg conveniently ignores the suggestion the document makes that the policy came first, the case came second.
Read the rest of the documents and get back to me. Lindberg doesn’t even address them.
11
We’re not making charges here, but demanding an investigation. These documents — whose authenticity has not been contested — are evidence of possible malfeasance on part of the US and UK administrations. Given the gravity of the situation, it seems just and fair that an investigation be undertaken.
The GOP’s make-believe world is unraveling rapidly. Their ideology depends on science being wrong, facts not being true, and truth not catching up with them. The shit’s hitting the fan.
I say give bush a fair impeachment and then send him to Gitmo.
GBS @ 19 I think we owe the world a more public and international trial.
Maybe somehwere in Holland? I hear The Hague has some high rafters to swing nooses around.
AND we need to press C-SPAN to broadcast the hearings tomorrow. Apparently they have stated that they will not be doing that.
The following was just posted at Daily Kos:
Thanks for your inquiry about C-SPAN’s coverage of Thursday’s meeting with John Conyers regarding the Downing Street Memo. We recognize that there is a great deal of interest in the meeting, which is why we are carrying it live on as many C-SPAN platforms as we can: C-SPAN3, C-SPAN.org, and C-SPAN radio, which you can hear on XM and Sirius satellite Radio. This program is scheduled to re-air on Friday, June 17th at 8pm ET on C-SPAN2. Please check our TV Schedules at c-span.org for programming information (please remember the schedule is subject to change).
C-SPAN and C-SPAN2 remain committed to live coverage of the U.S. House and Senate on a week when the Congress is dealing with several major pieces of legislation. But this is exactly the reason why C-SPAN3 was created. So, if you have an opportunity, please tell your satellite or cable provider that you want C-SPAN3.
Thank you for your interest in the C-SPAN Networks.
If you’ve got C-SPAN3, you can watch it live. If you’ve got the Deuce, you can catch a replay Friday at 5 Pacific.
You know what Donnageddon? I agree with you 100%. Except maybe we should send him to walk the streets of Bagdad. I hear from the America Hatin’ neocons that the Iraqi’s just Looooooooove Bush over there for all the freedom and deomocracy he’s brought to them.
Yeah, let him be where he’s truly loved: The Middle East.
another tj@21–
Yeah, I just read about this. I think you can watch it live on-line via http://www.c-span.org/watch/in.....38;Code=CS. Click on C-SPAN3. Sometimes intense pressure from lots of people through the internets does pay off!
The lid’s off. The Repukians can no longer keep it contained. Like Watergate, the unraveling of the Bush presidency is gathering momentum and can no longer be stopped. Notice that Mary Carey, the Linda Lovelace (of “Deep Throat” fame) of our time, was at Bush’s fundraiser yesterday. The irony is delicious (even if what Mary eats isn’t). Which reminds me of something: All you right wing trolls out there — bite me.
Every two-term president has some sort of serious political trouble in their 2nd term. Bush’s reckoning is coming.
Dr. E @ 17: “We’re not making charges here…”
Goldy said: “This is exactly the sort of arrogance of power that led the Bush administration to invade Iraq on a lie.”
Sounds like a charge and a conclusion to me.
So the bi-partisan Senate Commission that concluded last year that “The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to change their judgements related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilites” isn’t good enough? Don’t you think that if pressure or “fixing” could have been found, the Democrats on the committee would have been screaming about it, especially in July of last year?
Do you hear that? Of course not. It’s the sound of the dead horse your beating, and you call the Rossi folks sore losers.
True, but only two of them committed impeachable offenses. Both Republicans.
Storm the parapets! Capture the leaders! Start oiling the guillitines!
Oops, I should’ve said three. I momentarily forgot about Reagan and Iran-Contra. My bad. Presidents who committed impeachable offenses:
Democrats – None
Republicans – Nixon (Watergate burglary and coverup), Reagan (Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages swap), Bush (Memogate).
Jon @ 26
The evidence was still in-hiding last July. There is no statute of limitations for Crimes against Humanity
And Jon, the only dead horse you hear being beaten is the Bush SS stump speech.
@ 26
Was Bush interviewed under oath?
Baby Bush is in trouble. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....0vs%20Bush
Lowest approvals ever. Shows just how STUPID you have to be to support Bush!
@ 26
Don’t you think that if pressure or “fixing” could have been found, the Democrats on the committee would have been screaming about it, especially in July of last year?
Remember the Dems on the the committee made a deal to put off talking about it until after the election.
Worst.President.Ever.
i’m sorry, what were you fags saying?
CABLE NEWS RACE
TUES NITE 6/14/05
[VIEWERS]
FOXNEWS O’REILLY 2,722,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY/COLMES 2,016,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 1,864,000
FOXNEWS SHEP SMITH 1,563,000
CNN LARRY KING 1,277,000
CNN AARON BROWN 751,000
CNN ZAHN 718,000
CNN COOPER 618,000
CNNHN NANCY GRACE 583,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 459,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 330,000
MSNBC SCARBOROUGH 325,000
MSNBC TUCKER CARLSON** 231,000
What are the numbers for ABC, NBC, and CBS? The U.S. population is nearly 300 million, if fewer than 3 million are watching right-wing “news” shows that’s less than 1%.
33
Yeah I am sort of worried. I saw that Bushes approval rating was at 46%. That is only 3% higher than what President Clinton won with in 1992.. Holy shit thats low. Yeah Bush better be worried.
Jon@26
>Sounds like a charge and a conclusion to me.
Okay, I won’t speak collectively here, although I don’t see how anything in my post could be constured as a charge. I do think, as has been written about amply elsewhere, that there were many issues with true independence (and bi-partisanship) of the 9/11 Committee. Be that as it may, these documents had not yet come to light, and since they have, further investigations are certainly warranted.
As for your comment on Rossi, I don’t see how it’s germane.
chardonnay@36
What’s your point?
29
You forgot Rathergate too. It has been a long drought for you donks hasnt it.. I mean 32 years.
RUFUS, do you know the difference between “Approval Ratings” and Election Results?
I didn’t think you did.
You moron.
Cheapwine @ 36
Thanks, this helps to explain why there are so many illinformed crackers out there.
A kid is walking down the street kicking a can, spies a democratic party pin in the ditch. Curious as kids are he retrieves the pin, looks at it and pins it to his shirt and keeps walking. Next an Escalade pulls over and asks the kid if he needs a ride, to the kids dismay it is Micheal Jackson, so trusting as the kid is he says sure and jumps right in. As they are rolling down the road, Mike asks the kid “so little boy do you ever play with yourself”? The little boy moves closer to the door. Mike asks the kid “have you ever been laid”? Nevrous the boy moves even closer to the door and starts looking for the handle. Mike asks another question “so little boy have you ever been screwed in the ass”? Finally the kid, realising the problem pipes up “Mr. Jackson, before this conversation continues, I am not really a Democrat, I simply found this pin in the ditch”!
42
Of course I know the difference. Approval ratings for sitting presidents are always usually higher than that of the election results. That is why I said bush should be worried. I was just using the Clinton election total to illustrate how far he is from a crisis. Fun fact time
Did you know most presidential losers got a higher percentage of the popular vote than Clinton had in 1992.. It is ture, look it up.. An incredible statitic and food for thought.
Jesus returns to Earth. He walks down the street and sees a man crying. “Why are you crying, my son?” “My Wife left me, I lost my job and my children are hooked on crack!” Jesus waved his hands and said “Your job is waiting for you, your wife has returned, and your kids are clean and A+ students now.” The man lifted his head and said “Praise Jesus!”
Jesus walked further down the street and found a woman crying. “What troubles you my child?” The woman wiped her tears on her sleeve and says “I have cancer, my Mom has diabetes, and my children are asthmatic!” Jesus place his hands on her head and says “all the illness in your family is now cured, go and be with them.” The woman jumps up and says “Halalueia!”
Jesus walks further down the street and sees a young boy crying. Why are you crying my young one?” The bow looks up with tears on his cheeks ” My father is a Republican!”
Jesus sits down next to the boy and cries.
meanwhile more anti-american puke coming out of the mouths of democrats-Senator Dick Durbin says he won’t apologize for comments comparing American interrogators at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Nazis and Soviet gulags.
um, why Turbin Durbin? these prisoners want to kill Americans is a good thing?
Cheapwhine @ 47 ” these prisoners want to kill Americans is a good thing?”
Examples of any convicted convicted of trying to kill Americans? Or are you talking out of you well poked ass?
Don at 46
sound like you are a christian
CheapWhine @ 49
Nope, Just an admirer.
OH, you admire me? I am so not flattered.
Cheapwhine. Now you are Jesus?
Uh… stay calm. The people in the white coats are your Friends. They are here to help you.
47
Did you actually read Durbin’s statement? Or, are you suggesting that, since these people are alleged to have killed/tried to kill (conspired to kill/thought about killing/etc.) Americans that anything goes?
Count on Greg Palast to deliver the goods again. This time, the timeline of governmental malfeasance, as yielded by his investigations.
http://www.gregpalast.com/deta.....#038;row=0
If you were watching Newsnight on an occasional basis, much of this wouldn’t be new to you, but then, we’re in the wrong country for that.
Dr. E You are a real Kill joy! CheapWhine is sitting in her formica Kitchen smoking cigarettes and feeling that she is a Patriot, becouse she believes the 43rd Riechs lies.
I am sure she believes anyine who does not look/think like her is guitlty of something worthy of imprisonment.
I envy Cheapwhine’s shallow belief system. She must be in Redneck Nirvana.
Who brought the mop and bucket? Chard-braincells is vomiting again!
Ya need to settle down there, chard, ya might pull out our feeding tube thrashing around statistics like that.
55
You know what I don’t like about Chardonnay? We’ve taken a perfectly respectable French varietal and oaked the heck out of it, so it just ends up all astringent and nasty and tasting like turpentine.
Ooops, sorry, off topic there.
What I would like to know, however, is why some people find it hard to believe that our government (by Big Business and for Big Business) might actually behave unethically AND tell the occasional lie? But hey, just the messenger here…
Be-u-tiful, Dr.E!!!
Have to agree with DamnageD, Dr. E had the best post of the day!
I actually like Chardonnay “the wine”. Chard the poster is corked.
!!UPDATE !!
DON/cybil/alan/PVS, GOOD NEWS,
Americans grappling with mental illness are more likely to be treated for it now than they were 10 years ago, according to a landmark government-backed survey.
The rate of mental illness has remained the same, but researchers believe that with more treatment inroads in the future, rates should eventually start to drop.
“I think things are going to move in a good direction, but we’re sort of in the midst of it,” said study leader Ronald Kessler, a sociologist at Harvard Medical School.
However, a more troubling possibility, some experts acknowledged, is that treatment too often fails to work (on liberals)— and that’s why the rate of illness has held steady. Higher cases found in King County, mostly Seattle.
Thanks for the “news” Chard. Uh.. Do you have children?
oh and Don/cybil/alan/Prickinvegetativestate,
I recommend you make those Hospice reservations now, check with the KCME as well to donate that pea brain. They will sure get a laugh at that.
chared…
If your gonna cut and paste storys, at least post your resourses so we can get the rest of the story (aka, the truth). We most certantly KNOW you didn’t compose that on your own….
3
64- a little known web site called Y A H O O! heard of it?
is that you Iq or the number of natural teeth left in your mouth?
what a couple of dumbasses, well more than a couple, don = more personalities than the real cybil.
it’s called a URL hyperlink, try using one
what am I to Y A H O O? stupid random posts about crap?
Chard, your posts are getting more and more… uh… how to put it… crazy. Yes, that is the word!
Take a breathe and realize that the “figments of your imagination” are not going to hurt you.
And then, check into a hospital. The nice people will help you.
They are your friends.
Donna…
thers nothing more they can do for Chard except make sure they keep pouring mush into her feeding tube.
LOL, you spiders stay up all night and watch the web ok?
DamnageD, I think the local neo-con freaks have it set in their minds that we are the same person. I admire your posts, but I think we have some differences.
Are we the same!!! I think we may need to appear in the same shopping mall for a picture to prove it…
Nuts on that. I hate shopping malls. Let the freaks keep their paranoia.
donna? lol I guess don could be a donna since the plumbing doesn’t work anymore. lmao
don, do you wear a bikini to the pool? Oh please, I can just see everyone laughing as you strut by with the potato stuffed down the front hoping it doesn’t fall out while you adjust your hair piece. Hillaryous.
Hillaryous?
gawd, and I thought I made some bad spelling errors.
Say, Donna?
I was going to graciously decline, cause malls make me convulse…but now I have to wonder, are we the same?
Maybe its that cheep wine….
Hillary-ous ! Get it?
it’s old now, like you.
At lease spiders get the honor of catching those little bugs in their web and saving them as a tasty snack! You know which bugs I talk of…the itty-bitty, no seeums that make ya crazy with their incessant high piched WINE…
Don, I bet you spend hours searching for the perfect potato in the produce section. The staff must really think your a winner. It must be difficult(hard) to part with it once it rots, lol, afterall it becomes sorta like an extention of YOU! good night sweetheart.
…those little, unorgional gnats…
The ones ya find dead in your glass of WINE…
38, 45
Clinton got 67% of the electoral votes in 1992 — the only votes that count. The 1992 popular vote isn’t a valid basis of comparison because there was a strong 3rd party candidate who siphoned off 20% of the vote. If Bush’s approval rating equated to votes, he would be decisively defeated in a two-candidate race held today. Of course, it doesn’t as some voters who disapprove of a president still vote for him. More ominous for Bush is the defection of GOP congressmen in today’s vote to repeal certain Patriot Act provisions.
Comment on 52
Move along folks. There’s nothing to see here.
Comment on 58, 62
“Chardonnay” is a fraud. Somebody switched the labels.
Cheapwine
is turpentine
masquerading as
a nectar divine.
Reply to 63
I’ve arranged a cranial exam for you at the U.W. Physics Lab. Think of your contribution to science! For the first time scientists will be able to study a perfect vacuum.
Charred is completely fucking nuts tonight.
Clinton got 67% of the electoral votes in 1992 – the only votes that count. The 1992 popular vote isn’t a valid basis of comparison because there was a strong 3rd party candidate who siphoned off 20% of the vote. -Comment by Roger Rabbit— 6/16/05 @ 1:22 am
Dear dumb ass, Clinton never got anywhere near a majority popular vote in 1992, (unless of course the “new math” tells you that 43% is a majority) – He won one, one little 3rd rate state by more than 50% and that was Arkansas – and did marginally better in 1996 (nope, 49.2% isn’t a majority either!).
Are you a shining example of the public school system or just suffering from KoolAid poisoning?
Oh and you want to allocate Perot’s 20% to Clinton??? You must be a mind reading shining example of KoolAid poisoning…
Is it ,Ti Pi, or, Tee Pee? Navajo or Navaho? Moslem or Muslim? Koran or Quran? Mohammedan or Musselman? Republican or greasy Asshole? Hey, did you know that JFK’s back from outer space with a great new diet? I read about it in “The Star”, a magazine for Republican intellectuals.
meanwhile more anti-american puke coming out of the mouths of democrats-Senator Dick Durbin says he won’t apologize for comments comparing American interrogators at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Nazis and Soviet gulags.
um, why Turbin Durbin? these prisoners want to kill Americans is a good thing?
Well, someone’s got her talking points. Perhaps you haven’t read what Durbin acually said. So that everyone can make up their own minds, instead of relying on the talking points of the chicken hawks, here is Durbin’s statement:
“When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred here [at Guantanamo Bay]–I almost hesitate to put them in the [Congressional] Record, and yet they have to be added to this debate. Let me read to you what one FBI agent saw. And I quote from his report:
“On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. . . . On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.
“If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime–Pol Pot or others–that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.”
Roger Rabbit@81
In case you arent aware of it but the 3rd party siphoned off his 20% from the conservative vote.
86
I think the point pretty clearly was the number of electoral votes, not the popular vote. You’ll remember that W lost on the popular vote in 2000, but even in so doing, one can still win on electoral votes. As long as we have a deferred democracy in this country (as opposed to a representative one) the relevance of discussing the significance of the popular vote in presidential elections will be limited–as will its significance in presidential campaigning strategies.
Dr. E @ 39: “Be that as it may, these documents had not yet come to light, and since they have, further investigations are certainly warranted.”
My apologies for attributing Goldy’s comments to your thoughts; you haven’t made “charges”, so you are correct on that point. That said, I place a lot more credibilty in a bi-partisan committee that interviewed dozens of people who knew what actually happened, after the fact, as opposed to a British government official’s opinion several months before the event.
I would direct you to Tim Cavanaugh’s editorial here where he states:
“It presents hearsay evidence from a British politician. Outside of Tom Sneddon, it’s hard to imagine the prosecutor who would consider this to be incontrovertible evidence. (Not that that’s stopping believers from considering it exactly that.) In some of the less-frequently cited portions of the DSM, we find other UK officials qualifying these assertions (“It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind…”—my italics), hedging bets (“No decisions had been taken…”) and seemingly contradicting the above paraphrase (“The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced it was a winning strategy”)….
But to respect the much-lauded American People as sentient actors, you have to give them credit for being able to act with malice aforethought. Most Americans already know what’s in the Downing Street Memo. They knew it before the memo was even published. And they don’t care…
The Downing Street Memo is here. It couldn’t be starved to death by media inattention. It couldn’t be smothered under a manure of Brangelina and Runaway Brides. It’s escaped into the open—to die of natural causes.
Please note that Cavanaugh thinks the war is/was a mistake, but he thinks (and I agree) that this story doesn’t have legs.
Love these flame wars, Goldy. This is the most free exchange of opinion I see on the blogs. Good job EVERYBODY (even you Chard/Pud/Cyn-Irr/Jon/WrongOn/etc.)!
Too bad “jaws” won’t allow FREE EXCHANGE of ideas on HIS site.
A lot like the chimp’s regime…toe the party line, or else.
We already know that the WMD stuff was a lie. It’s about peak oil production and putting the US in a position to guard her interests in a world with declining oil reserves and production. Al-Qaida unwittingly gave the US the excuse it needed to establish a permanent presence in the Middle East, thereby assuring that we can not be squeezed for oil in a world built around oil products by forces that are opposed to the US. When looked at in that light, our actions make perfect sense. Even Dems. say that as long as we are in Iraq, we are “morally obligated” to finish the job. The great part for Dems is that the Reps ultimately will take all the heat for this war and we will politically benefit from the fact that the neo-cons are lying bastards who have no respect for the intelligence of the American public.
“Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin.” We can see and read the writing on the wall. Make no mistake about that.
Word, Lucy.
Jon @ 91
Thanks for the link to the editorial. Cavanaugh’s argument is certainly more cogent than Lindberg’s, which was posted here yesterday. I would agree with both you and Cavanaugh that the document as it stands is hearsay (insofar as official cabinet meeting minutes are hearsay, which technically I suppose they are), and that it is not incontrovertible evidence, given there has been no investigation of the points contained within. Nor has there been any further inquiry into the other documents that have been leaked in the intervening weeks; indeed neither of these authors address their existence. But that’s precisely the problem — we shouldn’t have to be struggling to get these documents into the public view. That’s the media’s job, and to take six weeks for this to even begin receiving attention is, well, pathetic.
That’s where I disagree with Cavanaugh:
“The Downing Street Memo is here. It couldn’t be starved to death by media inattention. It couldn’t be smothered under a manure of Brangelina and Runaway Brides. It’s escaped into the open—to die of natural causes.”
Sorry, but there was media inattention. To the extent that the DSM was reported in the days immediately following the document’s appearance on the front page of the Times (which is certainly not a liberal paper by British standards), it was buried somewhere deep in those American papers that chose to mention it, and then framed as a British political issue. A responsible media would at least investigate. They haven’t. At least try to find out why they were leaked — and I’d probably start with Robin Cook.
An ethical government would investigate. At least prove the docuements (not just the DSM at this point) to be false or totally irrelevant — or just make some slight effort to do so. They haven’t.
The DSM and other recently leaked papers are undoubtedly only the tip of the iceberg. The story is bigger than the documents themselves or their contents. Where’s the media on all this?
86
“Dear dumb ass, Clinton never got anywhere near a majority popular vote in 1992”
Did I say that? Show me where I said that. Maybe I’m only a poor little uneducated dumb bunny wabbit, but I know rocks who can read better than you.
89
No chuck. Perot got votes from both sides — including mine.
Live coverage of the Conyers hearings on the DSM right now on CSPAN3/CSPAN radio.
Dr. E @ : “given there has been no investigation of the points contained within.”
I, again, respectfully disagree. We’ve had a year long investigation on those same points. From the Senate’s report here:
“Committee staff interviewed more than 200 individuals including intelligence analysts and senior officials with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Department of State, National Ground Intelligence Center, the Air Force, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Staff also interviewed former intelligence analysts, National Intelligence Officers, operations officers, collection managers, signals intelligence collectors, imagery analysts, nuclear experts with the International Atomic Energy Agency, Ambassadors, former United Nations inspectors, Department of Defense weapons experts, State Department officials, and National Security Council staff members.”
Again, the committee looked at this whole “fixed” issue and concluded there was none. It’s a very critical report, released in plenty of time for the voters to consider back in November. As Cavanuagh said “…they don’t care”. This report came out less than a year ago; what has changed in the outcome of the WMD in Iraq? This is what Cavanaugh was referring to in his editorial: the DSM is old news.
Jon @ 99
Curious that the titles President and Vice President are missing from this list? I wonder, why is that?
Well, let’s see…I commented in Goldy’s last post on the unlikely case made by the leftist blogs regarding the DSM and the other memos. I even put it in context with the Clinton Whitewater Brigade led by Starr. The bar has been set pretty high from my perspective when parsing what constitutes a scandal. Even Michael Kinsley ignores the outright hyperbole emanating from blogs on this subject, choosing to focus on a real positive side of this…
We Americans love a good scandal. In fact, my guess is the only people who love scandal more is the nation from which we are separated by a common language, the British. To read a British paper, tabloid, or other means of information dissemination is to read scandal typeset in its highest form. We in America will never achieve such an august presentation as they in Britain have.
Which makes it all the more interesting that the British press has not covered this story. Hell, the election is over, Blair and Labour won. Why are they so silent? The truly rageblind would say, “Because they are complicit!”
Take a deep breath, have a drink, crack your knuckles and let’s figure this out for what it truly is:
Nothing…
It sucks that we went to war. It is painful when we lose our young men and women in such a useless pursuit (though how useless is debatable). I don’t need a British memo to know that. Nor do I need one to tell me that policy can shape intelligence. You guys should know that by now…
Oh, hope you enjoy watching Conyers
panderinginvestigatingOhiothe DSM. I’m sure I will read about it here…99
Jon, we know you Republicans would like to sweep the Downing Street Memo and other recent revelations about the President’s “disassembling” on Iraq under the carpet, but like the Watergate burglary, the toothpaste is now out of the tube and it’s going to be very hard to put it back in the tube.
Jon @99,
Do you believe completely that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, etc.. have acted above-board and told no lies regarding our motives for the Iraq situation? Do you think the bi-partisan committee have absolved them of any and all doubt regarding their actions?
I believe you’re asking the questions and countering the arguments sincerely so I’m not asking to provoke you. I think more than enough evidence has surfaced to put Bush and his cronies away. The possibility of his having planned this all up in advance does not seem farfetched to me when I look at how he and his brother got him into the job in the first place. Look at the evidence at Greg Palast’s site regarding 2000. Why give money away to people who don’t need it? Why deny the very real evidence of global warming? Why did he work sooooo hard to convince the American people of the need to go to war when there never was a strong reason? WMD? He didn’t have enough intelligence to take that action. It was never a certainty. Why is there so much evidence of Bush’s interest in Iraq long before 9/11? So I don’t find it incredible that the memo is legitimate and accurate.
I wonder what it would take to create doubt in your apparent complete belief in this administration? While I do not doubt your sincerity, it seems strange to me you don’t appear at all skeptical of Bush, et.al..
GBS @ 100: You know darn well that no Congressional Committee (no matter who is in power) is going to haul the President and Vice President up in front of them (no matter who is in power), as they can’t (.
Even if they could, what would you expect them to say besides “We sincerely thought, believed, and acted on the intelligence that we had that clearly showed Saddam had WMD and the ability to deliver it to terrorist groups, a belief that was shared by my predecessor”.
Addedum to 104: I was trying to get this link to appear regarding presidential immunity from Congressional testimony.
msc @ 103: “I wonder what it would take to create doubt in your apparent complete belief in this administration? While I do not doubt your sincerity, it seems strange to me you don’t appear at all skeptical of Bush, et.al..”
Because of the facts of the situation. I’ve posted on this before, so my apologies for repeating….
1. If Bush et al were lying, why not plant evidence showing SOME (heck, ANY) WMD? If you have no moral quandary sending people to die for a lie, why not cover your behind with some “evidence” after the fact?
2. It defies all political, moral, practical, and just plain simple logic to go to war 18 months before an election on the basis of a lie, KNOWING you will be found out way before the election.
3. Why did Britian go along with this “charade”? They have their own intelligence services. Tony Blair knew he’d have to face the voters, so #1 and #2 go for him too.
I’d be more suspicious if they HAD “conveniently” found WMD. The fact that we haven’t shows me that this administration didn’t lie; nobody is that stupid.
Bush’s approval rating is now 42.
That is a damn shame.
LOL!!! YEEEEHAAAAA
ON TO THE HAGUE!
JOn @ 106 “I’d be more suspicious if they HAD “conveniently†found WMD. The fact that we haven’t shows me that this administration didn’t lie; nobody is that stupid.”
Wrong, this stuff can be fingerprinted by GC/MS analysis. They knew if they planted WMD, the world would know they planted it. They, I believe, felkt they wouold find some small morsel of a chemical or Biological weapon.
Your argument crumbles to the graound. It is not too late, return to the world of reason and light.
W. Bush, this man is a war criminal, and we will see that he is brought to trial.
Donnageddon:“They knew if they planted WMD, the world would know they planted it.”
How, without outside analysis? And if, for the sake of argument, it would be impossible to plant WMD, then they’re even BIGGER fools than YOU believe them to be. Again, why would Bush risk his election and even impeachment over a lie????
“Your argument crumbles to the graound. It is not too late, return to the world of reason and light.”
Once you can give credible (excuse me, I’ll lower that: PLAUSIBLE) answers to all of my questions, then we’ll talk.
Occam’s Razor, Donneggedon. Stop assuming so much.
Occam’s Razor just stlit your throut! You are the person who stated (I will post it again for you) “1. If Bush et al were lying, why not plant evidence showing SOME (heck, ANY) WMD? If you have no moral quandary sending people to die for a lie, why not cover your behind with some “evidence†after the fact?”
Yopur argument is completely based upon what you know find “foolish”
Jon, I have always admired your posts, even as I disagreed with them, but now you are resorting to twisting reality on a string.
And as for outside verification, do you REALLY think the world communitywould not DEMAND to test the chemicals or biological agents found?
Jon, it would be better for you to admit that you are wrong that twist a lie that is so obvious.
All these Repulican liars… Yeah there are different rules when one of their cronies are in troubleI remember all the crap that was spewed in the White Water Investigation. Evryone knows that the Clinton didnt tell Susan McDougal to “lie in that deposition”. It is obvious they meant “lie in that position” Repulican assholes!!!!
112
Excuse me, but Whitewater involved how many deaths? I think the seriousness of this situation renders such comparisons (to borrow a term from Gonzalez) “quaint”.
113
Which dead are you talking about.. the 1700 american soldiers or the 3,000 american citizens on 911?
113
What’s your point? I think it’s pretty clear which dead are being referred to, i.e. American soldiers and Iraqi civilians killed since the American invasion. So, again, how many deaths occurred as the result of Whitewater?
My point is pretty simple… we went to war and 1,700 died to prevent another 3,000 American citizens or more from dying. As for the Iraqis being killed that is too bad… but Iraqis have been being killed for the last 15- 20 years. I hope the people and that nation get it right with the second chance they have been given. The main point is that we invaded Iraq because it was in our best interet to do so… not to give the Iraqis freedom. Hopefully Iran and Korea are scared enough not to do something stupid.
Come on, that’s a bullshit argument and you know it. What proof do you have that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 or any future attack? There’s a word that accurately describes the intellectual merit of your last post: VACUOUS.
Jon @106
What is overlooked in your argument is
Even if the Congressional report is an honest assessment, which I do not believe, the President took America into a pre-emptive war based on an analysis of Iraq’s capabilities. He had no certain proof. To go to war and risk so much (death, pollution with depleted uranium, international relations, incitement of terrorist retaliations) is not rational under those circumstances.
I think a better question is what was so urgent about Iraq? We know there was no connection between Al Qaida and Hussein, as Cheney knew when he made it sound imminent. We now know the Iraqi’ were not working on a nuclear program, as Bush knew when he sounded the alarm over it in his ’03 SOU speech. They were not threatening any of their neighbors. They were not threatening us. If you are going to invade another country, why not prepare for the period after you’ve won and there is no domestic civil authority? Doesn’t any of it make you think something doesn’t smell right?
forgot this paragraph:
Oil, and a strong military presence already in the Middle East when the fight for the last of the oil seems a more plausable explanation. It doesn’t mean we can absolutely prove Bush, et. al. planned this in advance for the reasons I’m arguing. But this explanation fits with the facts (14 permanent bases in Iraq, a policy of torture that seem aimed at generating more terrorist attacks (why humiliate Muslims and desecrate their religious icons)? A close examination it seems to me would make one doubt the true motivations of this whitehouse and make it entirely plausible they were planning it early for some of the reasons I’ve offered.
R @116
“we invaded Iraq because it was in our best interet [sic] to do so… not to give the Iraqis freedom.”
Arguing that we invade because we can and by implication that we should do so when our interests are involved is immoral and indefensible. What gives us the moral justification to kill what the bystanders in Iraq or elsewhere? Your answer: if they have something we need or if by doing so we further our own interests it is justified. This sounds familiar. This sounds like, hmmm, let’s see. Oh, perhaps a rationale for acts of terrorism? It might go something like this. “If some innocent people die when I blow up a bomb that is too bad. But it will further the cause so I am justified.” Pathetic.
If anyone reads any posts from that dispicable, lying, piece of shit Pudster “Wounded Knee” tell him I’ve responded to his post on the Shiavo Autopsy thread @ 269.
Thanks,
GBS
Donneggedon @ 111: I’ll repeat myself:”And if, for the sake of argument, it would be impossible to plant WMD, then they’re even BIGGER fools than YOU believe them to be. Again, why would Bush risk his election and even impeachment over a lie????”
I’m sorry, I think that’s a rational question, and I was agreeing with you for the sake of your argument, so I don’t see how’s agreeing with you is twisting reality.
Why is it so difficult to accept that the intelligence was just plain bad? It’s the simplest explanation, without having to resort to these Sith-like conspiracies about world/oil domination. Do you honestly think that this administration is that dumb?
msc 118 & 119: Well thought-out post, even if I don’t agree with your conclusions.
“2.The drive to control oil and have a large, unchallengeable presence in the Middle East as we enter the end of the Petroleum Age outweighs any simplistic argument such as a fear an election 18 long American political memory months away.”
The US already had a tremedous presence in the area. Kuwait, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Quatar have/had (in the case of Saudi Arabia) significant US military presence, so why not “leave well enough alone?” As Goldy posted regarding the Senate vote on Maria Cantwell’s bill:
“that’s because Bush’s financial patrons make a butt-load of money importing oil… so we wouldn’t want to do anything to upset the status quo.”
War upsets the status quo. If oil was the prime driver, then why not make a deal with Saddam?
Also, your dissmissal of the ’18 month’ argument would counter all this ‘Bush dynasty’ talk. One of the supposed driving forces of this Bush is not to be like his father and only have one term, so again, why would he risk that? Why go into politics just to lose it all over a lie when he could have stayed in Texas in the oil business?
“Using this argument, one could easily argue no one has ever waged wars of aggression because it would not have made sense.” No, wars of agression were made, usually, for naked desire for conquest/empire, which made sense to the agressor, who usually wasn’t accountable to anybody. Big difference.
“4.If one assumes that oil is the reason, this war of aggression makes more sense than positing the notion there were any greater political, practical, or logical (what logical reasons you don’t suggest) reasons to prevent it.
5.North sea oil production has already peaked. They produce less each year than the year before. Britain has a long history of invading other lands and taking what they wanted. It doesn’t seem out of character for them.”
Well, you’re assuming a lot in your first sentence (and #5), again, there’s much easier ways to get the oil, and trying to say the Britian of 2003 is the same as the Britian of 1903 is a giant stretch. You might as well say Germany and France are about to embark on a war of conquest, as it’s not “out of character” for them either.
“He had no certain proof. To go to war and risk so much (death, pollution with depleted uranium, international relations, incitement of terrorist retaliations) is not rational under those circumstances.”
When would any president ever have certain proof when it comes to WMD capabilites? What constitutes certain proof? Use of WMD against the US or allies? I certainly hope you are as critical of LBJ for the Tonkin Gulf incident, by the way.
“why not prepare for the period after you’ve won and there is no domestic civil authority? Doesn’t any of it make you think something doesn’t smell right?”
Actually, if you think about it, the wrong intelligence and assumptions that we had about the war’s aftermath bolsters the case for bad intelligence as opposed to out and out lying. I’m not defending the lack of planning for the post-war period, but it shows that many assumptions about Iraq were wrong. You can be wrong without being a liar. It’s the simplest explanation, which is usually the correct one, so why is it so hard to accept?
Jon, you are obviously woefully confused on this issue. Your desire to believe this administration has strangled your ability to reason.
Let’s investigate the memo’s that have leaked and see where it takes us. If they are innocent: Fine. But if they are guilty of illegal conduct in planning a war of aggression against an unarmed and soverign nation.
Then let them HANG!
And by the way, Jon, overuse of Occam’s Razor, only leaves you blinded from the truth.
When we had weapons inspectors in Iraq, they found NOTHING! The obvious implication is that NOTHING was to be found. But the Bush administration dazzaled everyone with these wild mechanations of “mobile labs” “Buried Fortresses” Literaraly TONS of Anthrax, Poison Gas and UMAV Pointed to the USA!
What does Occam’s Razor instruct you about this, Jon.
WE WERE LIED TO!! AND THEY NEED TO PAY FOR THE DEATH AND DESTRUCTION THEIR LIES HAVE BROUGHT UPON THE WORLD!
Donnageddon @ 124: I, of course, don’t think I’m confused at all; otherwise I wouldn’t be asking questions that need answers before we can come to your conclusion. Why is accepting the simplest explanation confusing? You are critical (and I agree) of Rossi supporters trying to invent non-existent conspiracies about the election, so why no apply the same “don’t invent things that aren’t there” logic to this?
Another question for you: go read the Senate report (including the ‘other views’), and tell me what more investigation will bring?
I don’t have an overwhelming desire to believe anybody; I was in support of President Clinton with his actions in Haiti, Yugoslavia, and Iraq, as he made good arguments for those actions; I believe this president did the same.
All that said, I do appreciate your viewpoint and your sincerity.
117
No no your missing the point on why we went into Iraq. It wasnt so much for avenging the 911 attacks, it was for the purpose of preventing another one from happening. In the fight against terrorism I firmly believe you have to pick your fights carefully. Iraq made perfect sense in invading. We need to spread domocracy to the Middle East for the security of the United States and the rest of the world.
RUFUS,
Wasn’t that the name of George Carlin’s character in “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure?”
Whatever…My real question is what do you mean by spreading “domocracy?” I’d never heard the term applied, and…well…what?
128
Getting the tyrants and dictators out of the way long enough for one country to develope a system of supreme laws that focus on individual rights and a representative government able to defend the law. Hey it may not work which means we will have to fight the Middle East dictators for thousands of years. If it does work in Iraq Iran wont be far behind.
Jon @123
Too many points, too little time. Here’s a quick retort…
“Actually, if you think about it, the wrong intelligence and assumptions that we had about the war’s aftermath bolsters the case for bad intelligence as opposed to out and out lying. I’m not defending the lack of planning for the post-war period, but it shows that many assumptions about Iraq were wrong. You can be wrong without being a liar. It’s the simplest explanation, which is usually the correct one, so why is it so hard to accept?”
If you’ve read the DSM you know the British were concerned about the lack of planning for after the war. Also, I still say why go to war on analysis as opposed to concrete evidence when there was no compelling reason? Iraq was not threatening anyone. Why do it alone?
Yes, I’m critical of LBJ and Kennedy when it comes to Their choices regarding Vietnam. The Gulf of Tonkin is actually an excellent analogy. The incident was faked, yet it succeeded at the time to draw us further into the conflict. Who believed it at the time? Who doubted it?
I think your arguments assume reasonable decision makers acting in everyone’s best interests with no hidden agendas. That seems less plausible to me than thinking our leaders see a big prize here and they need cover to go in and take it. Wars of aggression still work in democracies when the concent is manufactured with the help of the MSM.
This administration muggs for US media by wagging the finger at Putin saying, bad, not transparent, not democratic. Yet this administration is obsessed with secrecy and is very undemocratic. Why won’t Cheney tell the people who met with him and what they discussed? We paid for it I think.
“One of the supposed driving forces of this Bush is not to be like his father and only have one term, so again, why would he risk that?” – Not my argument so don’t attribute that one to me.
It seems clear to me this President has no regard for the majority. And why should he worry about the negative impact of a war? Did he worry about the possible negative impact of not doing something to boost the economy ahead of an election?
I mean, he could have given larger tax breaks to the middle class which would have stood a greater chance of boosting the economy at least in the short run than the giveaway the rich got. Why did he do that? Because he planned on winning the second election. The Reps have a big coalition of voters now (conservative Christians, generational Repubs, angry white guys, the entire southern United States). What did he have to worry about really but Ohio?
Again, has a sitting US pres ever been defeated during war time? Was he worried about that? I don’t know, but I doubt it.
I don’t agree with your assumption that Britain can easily replace the oil they were getting from the North Sea. Replace it how? From where? And most importantly, for how long? Why did Japan announce this year they would begin to drill in the disputed waters off China’s southern coast? Why risk an international incident or probably a war? We may not have reached peak oil yet (it seems hard to believe it could already have happened) but it is only a matter of time. Is it so hard to believe solidifying a stout set of bases in the Middle East is a primary motivator of both Britain adn the US? So what if we have those other bases? Are you aware they are often not willing to allow their use except for specific purposes? Would Saudi Arabia allow us to use the bases in their country to attack Syria or Lebonon if we had some reason to do so? Maybe. Perhaps not. Better to have bases that Iraq’s new constitution recognises as legitimate and sovereign property of the US, no?
So what explanation(s) do you have for Blair’s participation? And why do you think Bush and company wanted this war? Why Iraq and why now?