Another Damaging British Memo: Bush Made Up His Mind On Iraq Two Months Before Invasion
Another Damaging British Memo: Bush Made Up His Mind On Iraq Two Months Before Invasion
The Guardian reports a newly-disclosed British memo provides evidence that Bush had made up his mind to attack Iraq almost two months prior to the war:
A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme.
The new revelations demonstrate that Bush was deceiving the American public about his intentions in the lead-up to the war. On numerous occasions, Bush claimed he had not made up his mind to attack Iraq:
I’ve not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully. [3/6/03]
We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force. [3/8/03]
Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it. [3/17/03]
This is just further proof that you can’t take literally what comes out of Bush’s mouth.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Most of folks residing over here on the “loony left” already knew this of course. Maybe that’s what makes us so damn loony. How many posts will it take before Clinton is mentioned. The “regressives” are becoming so predictable.
Bush lied. People Died. Impeach the bastard.
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:06 pmOMFG
Wow, busted. Tony Balir has 123 of 200 votes to get impeached. This may take it over the top and start proceedings against Bush.
Or the American sheep will just do business as usual.
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:08 pmmanimal!
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:10 pmAs opposed to:
Notice they odd:
Sounds like something a dictator would say.
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:11 pmIs anyone surprised? Really, this was pretty apparently from the get go, it’s just now proven.
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:13 pmNeed actual memo. If this is true, this just might be the camel that broke the straws back.
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:14 pmHang BUSH for TREASON
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:14 pmAs if the Downing Street memos hadn’t provided enough evidence, now we have even more paper trail.
What will the Bush administration come up with this time to obfuscate the facts? If the “He didn’t mean it literally” excuse doesn’t stick, you can fully expect the “The president has moved on” excuse to be brought back.
Or my personal favourite: “Clinton did it too”.
What I think it’s amazing is how Bush & Co still manage to find people who will buy the rubbish they sell.
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:16 pmWell as long as the Republican party just follows blindly there is not much that can be done. One thing that I would suggest is that we as a nation march onto the WH. If a million or more people was to stand out in front of the WH, I think that the publics eyes, as well as the congress, might open up?
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:21 pmSo, just as Bush bold face lied on March 6, 2003, Tony Blair bold face lied to Great Britain on February 23, 2003.
These guys are evil and in cahoots.
Something else interesting. Just as Exxon/Mobile had records profits for an American company last quarter, Shell posted record profits for a British company last quarter.
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:23 pmI didn’t know Bush had a mind.
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:23 pmI’m beginning to realize that corruption is so f**king deep in our country, that truth/consequences mean nothing anymore. We are sold in to be sold out.
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:24 pmWhy - An animation about the war in Iraq.
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Why - An animation about the war in Iraq:
http://ptc.cf.huffingtonpost.com/animations/why.html
Be sure to also check out Bravery:
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:26 pmhttp://ptc.cf.huffingtonpost.com/animations/bravery.html
Think the MSM will pick this up?
BWWWWAAAAAAAAHHHH! No. I didn’t think so, either.
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:27 pmWhat if everyone copied this story and sent it to their local paper and TV channel? Does anyone here think that with that many people demanding coverage of the story, that they just might do it?
Just wondering.
It seems to me the MSM is afraid to dig into the real meat because they don’t want people to go nuts, which is what people will do, it will further divide and challenge people’s core beliefs, which could create great instability. The same reason why the whole 9/11 investigation was a joke, and no other opinions are published. The whole energy of people these days is more on edge, ready to go off, stirring things up would just create a crisis.
I personally would like the truth to come out, and serious issues faced on the MSM.
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:28 pmI’m going to get started.
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:29 pmThis isn’t surprising. We knew this from the Downing Street Minutes.
What _is_ surprising is how the “liberal” media continues to defend Bush by trying to appear “balanced” in it’s fawning over the greedy frat-boy traitor.
Terry Pratchett puts it well in “Small Gods” when he says (paraphrasing) that it’s easy to die for a lie, but hard to live for the truth.
Bush sent thousands of our fine men and women to their deaths in Iraq. And he sent hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians to their deaths for living in Iraq in the first place.
If We The People fail to remove Bush from power and throw he and his henchmen into jail, who will do it for us? Or is that other nations will be happy to see our replublic fall? We must clean up this mess!!!
Impeach Bush NOW! And prepare he and all associated with him for shipment to the Hague!!!
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:30 pmI disagree. Hanging is too good for him.
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:32 pm· Mr Bush told the Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of “flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN coloursâ€. Mr Bush added: “If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]â€.
But then Bush decided that lying was just easier than manufacturing ‘evidence’…
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:33 pmto the pugs, Clinton’s squirt was “the shot heard round the world”. Love to read the right write-up in their future high school History book.
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:33 pm10,000 right wing lies don’t hold a candle to a protien projectile.
JCGOW,
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:34 pmThat’s why I’m suggesting mass emailings to papers and TV channels; because it seems nothing will happen if we don’t.
With ALL of the things TP has put out there, impeachment would be a no brainer - IF MSM picked it up.
So, maybe we do need to copy the story and get it to print & TV.
The media won’t do it because the corporate owners won’t let it happen. Besides, they are complicit in the runup to the Iraq war since they did not present the vast amount of info out there that showed what a crock it all was.
“Our” media have completely and utterly failed us. They are merely tools for the corporatocracy to further their own agenda. Sure, that sounds tinfoil-hatty but hey…the evidence sure points in that direction.
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:36 pm#22 - I completely agree and am participating in the effort to get this out to as many news organizations as I can.
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:36 pmOne or two, they could ignore.
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:39 pmBut all of us is a different story.
Emailings to Senators and others has gotten noticed, so why not now?
Or should I remove my rose colored glasses?
If the media won’t report this, why not wage another grass roots e-mail effort against Deb Howell and target CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, etc? It seems like it’s only way to get the truth out there.
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:39 pmYEA!! It’s a “Movement”!!!
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:42 pmLet’s go get’em
How soon do we forget that W was moving man and material into Kuwait for almost a year before the Iraqi invasion? Kuwait is hardly an ideal staging area for a foray into Afghanistan. I knew that the invasion was fore-ordained before the 2002 midterms.
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:42 pmI’m still convinced that he decided to invade Iraq before he was even president. He was asked repeatedly about Saddam Hussein on the campaign trail and always gave the same answer: he’s a threat, if he does anything I’ll deal with him, and he tried to kill my daddy. He just used 9/11 as an excuse, and I’m sure he knew that Iraq had nothing to do with it. He just trusted in the stupidity of the idiots who voted for him to pull it off. He still does.
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:43 pmSo let’s rally the troops again. I’m still worked up over the SOTU!
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:44 pmWhat if everyone copied this story and sent it to their local paper and TV channel?
Done, and I sent it to my elected neocons also, with a link to Think Progress for more. Let them see how hot the water is getting for them.
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:45 pmI’ll go look up links to connect to all the major outlets.
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:46 pm(I feel so ‘Norma Rae’!)
I just sent to my local paper in Charlotte, NC and the county and state Democratic Party websites.!!!
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:49 pmdurn low brow liberals,
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:50 pmyour behavior is ‘reprehensible’,
you HAVE to Respect ME, IRI says SO,
Faux News is gonna LIE about you guys for sure Now!
digging up Information on me! The Preznit!
How dare you!
How Dare you Uncover My Internecine War Plans with my Empire Building Friend Mr. ‘BlahAir’ Old Blood and Money hisself..
Where are the trolls?
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:52 pmSorry, guys…
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:55 pmFrom 3:46 til now I’ve been waiting for CNN page to download!!!
Someone faster will have to get that info.
Spudge_Boy #35,
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:55 pmThey’re off trying to get their falsehood generator up and running.
Where are the trolls?
Comment by Spudge_Boy — February 2, 2006 @ 3:52 pm
Getting their talking points from whichever spin master is presently in charge of broadcasting them.
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:56 pmI’d love to see Bush twist in the wind. But… will this even make the nightly news? You know… the supposedly “Liberal Media”. Will it be reported. I think not.
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:58 pmHanging George Bush is not a good idea. It is better to let him witness what he has wrought. It isn’t necessary to lift a finger. The damage is done. However, it might be better to string him up by his balls and pour sand up his ass until the rope breaks. That is better than hanging the poor bastard.
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:59 pmI just posted all the links to CNN, but I message saying the spam filter caught it and it would have to be approved by the administrator. What do I do now?
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:59 pmBush has seen the error of his ways and isn’t pussyfooting around about going to war with Iran–not because they have WMDs but because they have “nuclear ambitions”:
“The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions – and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons. America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.”–SOTU speech
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:59 pmshannon, reporting it should work
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:03 pmreposting I mean
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:03 pmShannon - ask the administrator(IT) to cut all; links that end in .gov, .cia and .nsa.
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:04 pmbush cut 39 billion on Education Tuesday, now he wants ANOTHER 70 billion for IRAQ.
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:06 pmFirst, I want Bush out as quick as possible, but..
Should we be so quick to trust the Guardian
Didn’t they report about the missing dolphins after Katrina that proved to be bogus
Lets get the memo, so we have something to wave in the media’s face and maybe gain some credit with the american public before we fly off the handle with our only backup being an article in a newspaper that reported on a reference in a book
Hasn’t Oprah taught us anything in recent weeks?
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:06 pm#29 - Check this out:
http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:06 pm#47, bushllit, it’s also here.
http://www.channel4.com/ news/ special-reports/ special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=1661
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:08 pmGee, you mean they planned an illegal war first, and only then decided to fake the evidence and arguments that Colin Powell presented at the UN? Whodathunkit???
No wonder Colin decided to get the hell outa Dodge; with each passing day, it’s becoming more and more clear what a patsy he was for Bushco and the rest of the Rumsfeldettes…
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:12 pmbush wouldn’t lie now would he.. hell he was in iran for the last year where do you think those little bombs came from .The CIA naaaaa ..OK now we know how the Russian People felt when they lived in a Military State all monies goes to blow up countries notice I didn’t say people
Its the Oil Its protecting others countries according to Negropronte this morning on Cspan gee the only country that Iran isn’t freinds with is Israel who has their own stock pile of Nuke’ems .The world is fast becoming a giant Micro Wave Oven with the Nuke’em chatter…
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:13 pmLooks like i’ll have to post them one at a time. They are “forms” that you fill out and they also have buttons for positive and negative. I’m not sure which would be looked at first.
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form1.html?18 (CNN.com)
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:15 pmThis is CNN TV
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form1.html?39
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:16 pmCNN Headline News
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form1.html?40
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:16 pmCNN News Tips
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form11.html?1
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:17 pmThis is the last. CNN Story Ideas
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form11b.html?1
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:17 pmNot only does this memo further establishes PM Blair’s role as Pres Bush’s poodle, it also reveals the glaring contempt for international law so rampant in the White House: The US thought of “flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours”.
Painting a U2 spy plane with UN colours? And then blame Hussein of breach of UN resolutions if the plane was shot down? That is one Machiavellian move.
It is also evident that the Bush administration’s lack of “good enough pulse” is not restricted to Palestine. None of the scenarios they thought could happen came true: Hussein assassinated? Didn’t happen. A second UN resolution? Nope. Hussein “burning oil wells, killing children”? No, no.
But the winner is: Pres Bush “thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups”. No civil war? Really? Who is in charge of the intelligence in the White House anyway?
Undeclared Civil War In Iraq
Many Iraqi soldiers see a civil war on the horizon
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:17 pmWhy hasn’t this man been impeached? I’m sure this will just be spun into dust like the Downing Street Memo.
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:18 pmShannon,
Click “Positive” because it will be a good thing to get rid of Bush.
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:19 pmI refer everyone to the book “The War for Muslim Minds” by Gilles Kepel. introduction page 5. quote ” The neocons, on the other hand, saw September 11 as a tragic opportunity to sell their radical new deal for the Middle East to the shell-shocked Bush administration.” Read it and see what you think.
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:21 pmSpeaking of Saddam being assassinated. Anybody remember THE BOMB? Remember back on March 23, 2003 the single bomb? That is how the war started, with one bomb in the middle of Bahgdad. They were trying to off Saddam in one shot.
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:21 pmIf anyone here watches The Discovery Times channel, you’ll want to catch a show called Haiti, Democracy Undone. Illuminating piece on how well we reward democracy in other countries. Some parallels can be drawn to the Palestinian situation.
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:24 pmThere are days when I almost miss Nixon. Once the evidence mounted against him, he left town.
There are days when I regret not having completed a move to Canada or Italy. The longer Bush holds power with the strong grip of two greedy hands the more I regret not moving.
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:25 pm“You said we’re headed to war in Iraq — I don’t know why you say that. I hope we’re not headed to war in Iraq. I’m the person who gets to decide, not you.” G W Bush, December 31, 2002.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ news/ releases/ 2002/ 12/ 20021231-1.html
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:26 pmAnd what happened at President Bush’s very first National Security Council meeting is one of O’Neill’s most startling revelations.
“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,†says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic “A” 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,†says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.â€
As treasury secretary, O’Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as “Why Saddam?” and “Why now?” were never asked.
“It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’” says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.â€
And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.
He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’” adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.
——————————————————————————–
Based on his interviews with O’Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq’s oil wealth.
He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts,” which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.
“It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions,†says Suskind. “On oil in Iraq.â€
During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: “If we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we’re going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I’m going to prevent that.”
“The thing that’s most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said ‘X’ during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing ‘Y,’†says Suskind. “Not just saying ‘Y,’ but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election.â€
http://www.cbsnews.com/ stories/ 2004/ 01/ 09/ 60minutes/ main592330.shtml
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:27 pmGeorge W. Bush nothing more than a frat screw off. Just because he’s managed to become president doesn’t mean he’s matured or grown brains. We grew up with guys like GWB. He’s an arrogant bully who has used his family name and money to get ahead in life than takes credit for it. Let’s see how well he takes credit for being the biggest presidental failure of all time.
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:27 pmI thought he made up his mind the day he became Presidnet.
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:29 pmKeith, though I don’t know British programming enough (at all) to know about channel 4’s accuracy, it does add some more gas to the fire (even though it cites the same source, at least they say they have seen it)…I would still urge my fellow Americans to hold off running to the press with this until we get a copy of the memo..just as bush’s eavesdropping undermines cases against terrorism, this can (potentially) undermine impeachment efforts
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:29 pm“I’m the commander—see, I don’t need to explain—I do not need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation.” G W Bush, excerpted from “Bush At War”.
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:30 pmA memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme.
Im interested to see what the excuse is gonna be now, oh yeah, Buschco had to kill 250,000 men women and children for a political War, A Nation Building Agenda for War.
‘It will Solve everything’ George said, He didnt operate alone, Cheney and Netanyahu had come up with a war plan in 1993 called a Clean Break. The PNAC paper of 1998 speaks of war with IRAQ as well, the motto “Might is Right” signed By Rummy Cheney and other ‘Hawks’ for War. Falsified Yellowcake documents, War no matter What.
Screw what the World or the People think?
And the Congress let, and partook with these Neo-Cons, and the Plan to send this Men Women and Children to their Deaths, for, all in all, Empiricism, Profit, Greed The Human life, to Mr Bush it seems, is secondary to Nation Buidling. That Democracy coming from the Rifles end is Noble.
Those Congressmen and Woman, who today hold office Under the Bush Administration, and Whom Knew of Such Plans, How Can you, as a Person, Go to Work each day, and Continue to act as you do today?
I Pity those whom have taken part in this, not for your possible prison terms, or fines inflicted, even careers lost. For those Whom took part and that were privvy too Bushes plan, must Live with themselves and memories of those that Died.
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:32 pmIF you need a few places to send reports of this info to the media this page has a few hundred…
http://www.dogfight04.com/ dogfight04/ 2005/ 06/ massive_media_l.html
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:33 pmMay I make a prediction? My best guess is the next attack on America might be on President’s Day. Just a hunch. I know nuszing, nuszing. It would be a good day to have an attack on America.
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:35 pmit will mark the last presidents day as it soon becomes DubyaDay
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:42 pmIf only you guys lived in a democracy, perhaps this info would be useful.
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:43 pmI thought he made up his mind the day he became President. Comment by Innocent Lite —
I know I made my mind up when he became president. And I was right, too. Phony asshole: cowboy hat, cowboy boots, and no cow.
Correct me if I’m wrong, Innocent Lite in the head, but junior sure is one ignorant prick. At least, many of the progressives here think that. Southwest Bob had it right: he’s an arrogant bully. The kind of rich-kid elitist the jocks used to kick the crap out of in school.
I bet he made a good cheerleader in college, though. Still is one, too. And still rooting for a team of losers.
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:44 pmDoes anyone here think that with that many people demanding coverage of the story, that they just might do it?
Not likely. The DSM didn’t get any play in the media, and it damned near said we were bombing Iraq at the end of ‘02, so, I’m sure there is a missing white woman, somewhere, to cover.
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:47 pmIf W got the shit kicked out of him in HS, he would not be around today. Heck - there would be nothing left to bury beyond a large brown pile on the side walk.
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:48 pmbushllit #73 — that reminds me of what my mother used to say when I asked her why there wasn’t a “kid’s day”…
“Silly boy — EVERY day is DubyaDay!!”
Just keep telling yourself every day, “we’re one day closer to November 2008″…
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:48 pm#71 Gerald,
WOW!!! That site is awesome! (just showed my ‘Boston’ with that phrase…!)
I bookmarked it. Something tells me I’ll be using it a lot…
Thanks!
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:50 pmI’m looking forward to January 2007 when the democrats will hold a 435 vote majority in thje House.
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:50 pm“I’m the commander—see, I don’t need to explain—I do not need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation.†G W Bush, excerpted from “Bush At Warâ€.
Exactly. The rubber-stamp Congress gave Bush full permission to invade Iraq in October, 2002–that wasn’t any secret, was it? Despite Kerry’s later protests, we all knew what this vote meant, didn’t we? Remember how shocked we were (okay, I was) when the Dems just rolled over? It’s pretty hard to hide massive troop transfers to the Middle East, and we all knew that they weren’t going over there for a USO show, didn’t we? When the military commander-in-chief is about to commit military forces to an invasion, we don’t expect him to publicly announce it two months in advance, do we? Wouldn’t that jeopardize the invasion forces? The rubber-stamp Congress, with few exceptions, has continued to support and fund this war, despite the revelations about its rationale, hasn’t it? The corporate media played a giant role in promoting this war, didn’t it?
Yes, Bush is a war criminal, and should be in the dock next to Saddam Hussein, but let’s not forget that he had plenty of help.
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:52 pmWalt,
Not if Diebold has anything to say about it…
and unfortunately, it DOES get a say!
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:53 pmI just posted a Diary over a Kos about getting this story out. Wonder what kind of response I’ll get.
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:54 pmhttp://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/2/165716/8286
Come on you coward democrats and modrate repubs ,if there is such animals .You all gutless politicians call for : IMPEACHMENT .
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:54 pmok - this may be irreverent, considering the severity…
but i just got this email…a little comedy relief:
A man died and went to heaven. As he stood in front of St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, he saw a huge wall of clocks behind him. He asked, “What are all those clocks?”
St. Peter answered, “Those are Lie-Clocks. Everyone on Earth has a Lie-Clock. Every time you lie the hands on your clock will move.”
“Oh.” said the man, “Whose clock is that?”
“That’s Mother Teresa’s,” replied St. Peter. “The hands have never moved, indicating that she never told a lie.”
“Incredible,” said the man. “And whose clock is that one?”
St. Peter responded, “That’s Abraham Lincoln’s clock. The hands have moved twice, telling us that Abe told only two lies in his entire life.”
“Where’s Bush’s clock?” asked the man.
“Bush’s clock is in God’s office. He’s using it as a ceiling fan.”
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:02 pmHeh. Silly people.
This is not news. Bush said at the time we would use force if Hussein did not fully and immediately cooperate with inspectors as required by Resolution 1441. Hussein did not do so. It’s true that not finding WMD evidence would not change his mind, nor would a second resolution, because both of those were beside the point, which was cooperation with inspectors, which never happened *completely*.
What short memories.
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:04 pm… Remember how shocked we were (okay, I was) when the Dems just rolled over?…
What I remember is that the Democrats who sat on the Intelligence Committee and saw what Bush had for “intelligence” all voted against an invasion of Iraq. That’s what I remember.
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:04 pmWhere are the trolls?
Comment by Spudge_Boy — February 2, 2006 @ 3:52 pm
This is freaky - a troll-free thread? Do they lick their own balls or each other’s when they run out of misinformation?
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:04 pmThe Sands memo has to be a fake. I can’t imagine Bush being able to pronounce “internecine”, let alone use it in a sentence.
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:05 pm#84 Perhaps the courage of most americans exist only when they are bombing the crap out of countries without any air defense system. Otherwise, they “wait” for the next “election”.
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:08 pm#89 They were probably paraphrasing, because they didn’t want to type out the whole thing: “Them little brown people might be a feudin wit dem other little brown people. I understand them brown people are not all the same. They’re interesting… that means they fight among themselves.”
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:08 pmThe memo is factual, but Bush lovers will spin away to undermine it! Even if pics of Bush and Blair naked, with Jeff Gannon, in a hot tub were published, his Bushites would deny it and spin it!
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:14 pm“internecine”,
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:15 pmI can hardly pronounce it either, but W is realy good at slaughtering the American tongue. Did he use it in context or incorrectly?
realy = really
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:17 pm#92 Jay Randal: there is nothing to undermine. This was all known at the time. We all knew at the time that Bush was clear that he did not require a second resolution (though he did promise to try, he said he didn’t need it; in the end, they dropped the idea), and we all knew at the time that 1441 did not require finding WMD for material breach, but only required simple lack of full and immediate cooperation.
This is not news!
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:19 pmLOL at the pic #34
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:20 pmMedia .. fair and balanced , when did that happen
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:21 pmJCGOW, to refresh your memory:
YEAs —77, HJ Res 114, Oct 11, 2002
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:22 pmAllard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
On their knees the warpigs crawling, oh Lord yeah.
-GSD
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:28 pm#91
Reminds me of his definition of sovereignty (I’m paraphrasing but not by much):
Sovereignty means…being sovereign.
A circular definition if I ever heard one. And clear evidence (like we needed any more) that dubya is a moron.
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:30 pm“I’m the commander—see, I don’t need to explain—I do not need to explain why I say things.”
When Bush said this to Bob Woodward was he doing an impression of Edward G. Robinson.
“I’m the commander see…and you dirty rats don’t need to nosin’ around in my woik see…What I say goes..see..”
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:31 pmWaltTheMan,
Looks like we have a new troll who is using part of my name.
Poor sad, uninformed, zombie troll:
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:33 pm#98 - … which of these who voted “YEA” sat on the Intelligence Committee? I think you’ll see my point.
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:34 pmI just love your Troll pic, Spudge!
Lets me tolerate them more. It IS nice that they’re not around, though.
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:41 pmThis is freaky - a troll-free thread? Do they lick their own balls or each other’s when they run out of misinformation?
Just reading to get up to speed. Since everyone here as already made up their mind that “Bush lies, sucks, is a Nazi, etc.”, any new information is, not surprisingly, further substantiation of those notions. Since I happen to disagree somewhat, here’s my take … these would, of course, be my opinions.
1) Since Bush and Blair felt confident in a) the case that WMDs were in Iraq, and b) the idea that Saddam wasn’t about to defer to the UN … having a plan of attack or invasion plans isn’t an outlandish concept … remember, Saddam had been playing this game for a while. I’d be surprised if Clinton did not have a similar contingency invasion plan on Iraq.
2) Saying “we are doing everything we can to avoid war” and actively planning for a war that may be inevitable (to them) are not mutually exclusive events … nor is it evidence of malfeasance. It COULD be forward planning. Again, if one hates Bush and thinks the war was stupid and wrong, I can see how the comment coupled with the actions could be seen as an outright lie … that reality existing doesn’t make it the ONLY reality … just one possible (albeit plausible from a certain POV) one.
3) When Bush and Blair made up their mind is not easy for us to judge (although it was casually done in this post) … one can guess and insinuate, but that doesn’t add or speak to the reality or truth of the situation. The statement “provides evidence that Bush had made up his mind to attack Iraq” is rather one sided because one could reasonably infer what I wrote earlier.
I think what I find unfortunate about some of the threads here at TP is that sometimes a pack mentality dominates. I understand people don’t like Bush, but I would hope that everyone’s “trust, but verify” or “rational detachment” “buttons” would allow each blurb to be taken and dissected singularily. An example would be the recent post about a majority of Americans disagreeing with the wiretaps/spying … Judd left out the fact that the question was asked in two different ways with thr opposite results. From reading that entire thread of 200 or so posts … only one person actually read the entire poll and noticed (and noted) the conflicting information … he/she appeared to be a Democrat. It seems that anything that TP posts people are willing to accept largely without question (yes, I know Repubs do this to, but it’s wrong for them as well) … while I may be less likely to take TP at face value (b/c I’m a conservative), I try and take the same approach to Malkin, LGF, Drudge et al.
Lastly, I’ve been considering all the political players we currently have in the USA (both parties). It seems to me that the political process seems to be rewarding those that may be the least beneficial for the population … the uber-wealthy, those willing to be fast and loose with the truth, those who will bend to special interests, those who may not be our brightest (both Bush and Kerry were solid C students), etc. … this description does not encapsulate ALL our leaders, but a lot of them (and not just the Republicans folks).
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:47 pmPost 95 pudge > Bush told the Congress that Iraq had WMD that required immediate actions to neutralize! He lied and he had Powell lie to the UN as well! The memo shows dishonesty by the Bush Regime! It may NOT be news to you, but to most Americans it’s important!
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:47 pmRoberts, Pat (R-KS) , Chairman
Hatch, Orrin (R-UT)
DeWine, Mike (R-OH)
Bond, Christopher (R-MO)
Lott, Trent (R-MS)
Snowe, Olympia (R-ME)
Hagel, Chuck (R-NE)
Chambliss, Saxby (R-GA) Nay
Warner, John (R-VA) , Ex Officio
Frist, Bill (R-TN) , Ex Officio
Rockefeller, Jay (D-WV), Vice Chairman
Levin, Carl (D-MI) Nay
Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)
Wyden, Ron (D-OR) Nay
Bayh, Evan (D-IN)
Mikulski, Barbara (D-MD) Nay
Feingold, Russ (D-WI) Nay
Reid, Harry (D-NV), Ex Officio
So, 1 Republican out of 10 voted nay and 4 Democrats out of 8 voted nay.
That would be 9 Republican ayes and 4 Democrat ayes.
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:48 pmAbsolutely incorrect Giacomo. We spend a lot of time read both sides of everything. We provide links to supporting stories. We try to gather information from non-partisan publications at all costs.
I normally like what you say, but this is utter bullshit. Drudge posts a story with no links that the right wingers lap up like dogs. Think Progress always posts links to back up their claims.
Stop being so partisan. It is pretty stupid. It is one thing to pick a favorite football team and stick with them through thick and thin. It is another thing to follow one political party when they are cheating at the game of politics. They will be ejected from the game sooner or later.
And no, this is not a bi-partisan issue.
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:53 pmAbsolutely incorrect Giacomo. We spend a lot of time read both sides of everything. We provide links to supporting stories. We try to gather information from non-partisan publications at all costs.
YOU do, Spudge. I’m not saying “no one here thinks” … I’m saying that a pack mentality takes over some threads … then you get comments like “Bush is Hitler” which really add nothing. I like that TP posts links … Drudge should as well. I’m not saying TP doesn’t substantiate what they say … but sometimes, they tell only part of the truth. It’s not commission, it’s ommission (I’ll refer you to the “wiretaps” post so you can see for yourself). I understand the “cog” this website plays in the larger wheel … and there’s nothing wrong with it, per se. I just hoped that they didn’t need to obfuscate to make the larger point (again, I know both parties do this) … tell the entire story and let it stand …
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:59 pm“1) Since Bush and Blair felt confident in a) the case that WMDs were in Iraq, and b) the idea that Saddam wasn’t about to defer to the UN … having a plan of attack or invasion plans isn’t an outlandish concept …”
But pumpkin, you must have missed the news today that confirmed that Bush & Cheney KNEW the Niger memo was a fake. The republican partisans who charged to war didn’t KNOW Saddam had weapons, and they didn’t have compelling evidence that pointed at it. They had their own personal and highly partisan bias to guide them - the thing you falsely charge TP with doing.
But I forgive you, and as I’ve stated before - I believe you have great intentions. You are merely a victim of your partisan brain pumpkin. Maybe someday you’ll find a way to put the truth and your country before your partisan politics - I look forward to that day.
February 2nd, 2006 at 6:02 pmIt’s being reported here in the UK that Bush’s plan was to fly a U2 plane painted with UN colours over Iraq low enough to draw Iraqi fire and lure them into shooting down the plane, thus supplying a pretext for war. The life of the pilot didn’t seem to matter much to Bush, either. I don’t know why this isn’t getting more notice in the US, but wouldn’t plotting to sacrifice the life of the pilot to order to fabricate an excuse for war be considered at the very least conspiracy to commit murder?
February 2nd, 2006 at 6:09 pmHey RightPunch … your forgiveness is appreciated … sweetums. I haven’t noticed your “partisan” decoder ring being aimed at anyone other than conservatives … curious … maybe I just missed it.
I have more work to do but I humbly submit that anytime any of us (or any political party) inflates a hypothesis into a foregone conlcusion … it’s dangerous. I agree that I’m more keen at noticing it when “progressives” engage in such a manner, but I turn the same critical eye at my own party. If I didn’t, I truly would be the dreaded partisan RightPunch believes me to be … and, let’s be honest, no one wants RightPunch to think they’re partisan (for fear of being called pumpkin, if nothing else ;-) ).
Cheers.
February 2nd, 2006 at 6:09 pmShit, I trolled one in. By the bye, could you answer my question in #88 Giacomo? I’m curious. Sorry for the delayed response, I was off shucking a peck of oysters.
February 2nd, 2006 at 6:11 pmIt’s being reported here in the UK that Bush’s plan was to fly a U2 plane painted with UN colours over Iraq low enough to draw Iraqi fire and lure them into shooting down the plane, thus supplying a pretext for war.
That’s not what I read … what I thought it said was that they’d put UN colors on it so if Saddam fired at it, he’d be in violation of UN resolutions. It wasn’t an encouragement to fire, but a deterant. The U2 spy plane can fly at 70,000 feet … not many missles can reach it (especially the ones Saddam had). That’s what I thought it said …
February 2nd, 2006 at 6:12 pmhaving a plan of attack or invasion plans isn’t an outlandish concept (…) I’d be surprised if Clinton did not have a similar contingency invasion plan on Iraq.
Comment by Giacomo — February 2, 2006 @ 5:47 pm
This is not about Clinton -don’t change the subject.
I don’t know what article you read, but the one I read had this tidbit: “The diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning”, the president told Mr Blair.
Military planning came first. A diplomatic strategy was put in place to sell the war.
Saying “we are doing everything we can to avoid war†and actively planning for a war that may be inevitable (to them) are not mutually exclusive events … nor is it evidence of malfeasance. It COULD be forward planning.
It could be. But it’s not. You are trying very hard to explain the facts away and leave room for wiggling. The UN inspectors were on the ground, doing their job. European allies asked the inspectors be given more time. The Bush administration did not do whatever they could to avoid a war. All the evidence points to the exact opposite of what you are saying, like when “facts were being fixed around the policy”.
Again, if one hates Bush and thinks the war was stupid and wrong, I can see how the comment coupled with the actions could be seen as an outright lie … that reality existing doesn’t make it the ONLY reality … just one possible (albeit plausible from a certain POV) one.
I don’t hate Pres Bush, but the war is stupid and wrong. It’s been called the “greatest military blunder since emperor Agustus sent his legions into Germany in 9BC, and lost them”.
You blurb about alternate realities makes no sense.
The statement “provides evidence that Bush had made up his mind to attack Iraq†is rather one sided because one could reasonably infer what I wrote earlier.
No, one could not. It is clear Pres Bush and his lap dog were looking for the most marketable way to sell their war. If you cannot infer that from their plan to paint a spy plane in UN colours, I don’t know where your mind is.
February 2nd, 2006 at 6:14 pmBy the bye, could you answer my question in #88 Giacomo?
Our own …… :-).
February 2nd, 2006 at 6:15 pmThat’s not what I read … what I thought it said was that they’d put UN colors on it so if Saddam fired at it, he’d be in violation of UN resolutions.
Comment by Giacomo — February 2, 2006 @ 6:12 pm
Painting a spy plane in UN colours is itself a violation of International Law.
Thinking of blaming Hussein of violating International Law if his troops ever shot at that plane is outrageous.
February 2nd, 2006 at 6:17 pm“That’s not what I read … what I thought it said was that they’d put UN colors on it so if Saddam fired at it, he’d be in violation of UN resolutions. It wasn’t an encouragement to fire, but a deterant. The U2 spy plane can fly at 70,000 feet … not many missles can reach it (especially the ones Saddam had). That’s what I thought it said …
Comment by Giacomo — February 2, 2006 @ 6:12 pm “
Sweetie, the partisan brain disregards facts it doesn’t like. I know you must be trying hard pumpkin, but can you try a little harder to keep up with the program?
They were going to put up FIGHTER jets as bait pumpkin. I forgive you for missing this important information - parsing through complex sentences must be tough when the partisan emotions take control. I know you must be trying because you’re writing lots of defensive stuff that’s kind of silly today. So I forgive you.
February 2nd, 2006 at 6:17 pmYou blurb about alternate realities makes no sense.
I attempted to say that one particular take on a subject is not the only take on the subject. My use of the word “reality” mucked it up.
Back to work … I’ll respond later as needed.
February 2nd, 2006 at 6:18 pmAnother British memo? Here were go again…
February 2nd, 2006 at 6:18 pm#117, Giacomo, thanks for the chuckle (and of course thanks #88, too - funny question, funny answer.)
February 2nd, 2006 at 6:19 pm“Hey RightPunch … your forgiveness is appreciated … sweetums. I haven’t noticed your “partisan†decoder ring being aimed at anyone other than conservatives … curious … maybe I just missed it. Giacomo”
Well, if I went over to a partisan liberal sight that constantly sung the praises of an exalted and perfect liberal leader - I’m sure you’d see lots of my ‘decoding’. And you must have missed the numerous comments I made about bi-partisan votes on issues this week. It’s OK pumpkin, I’m sure you’re a busy man, and such things aren’t where you put your efforts. But then again, I doubt you’d notice even if I plainly pointed it out, because the partisan brain would just see me as an enemy sweetums because I prefer Punch over Koolaid.
And I forgive you for attacking me as partisan - I’m sure you didn’t mean to level a baseless claim - that’s just what happens when partisans get angry pumpkin. You can’t help yourself, it’s OK.
February 2nd, 2006 at 6:23 pm#117 What’s the trick? ‘Cause I always get this sharp pain in my side…
February 2nd, 2006 at 6:33 pmTracy wonder what your going to say if the brits get the 200 votes and bounce Blair they have 123 signed up so far, think Tony will cover for the chimp in chief then?
February 2nd, 2006 at 6:38 pmTracy,
WHy is it that you fail to remember that it was a British Intellegence document that led the US into war in the first place. Maybe you don’t remember the now famous 16 words from Bush’s 2003 SOTU.
So, if you don’t support British documents, why do you support the ones Bush spoke of.
February 2nd, 2006 at 6:39 pmI’m saying that a pack mentality takes over some threads … then you get comments like “Bush is Hitler†which really add nothing.
Obviously, posts that contain that type of material are not augmenting any type of debate, and, it can be safely said, are not intended to. Once again, trollish posts attempting make the loudest noise. Not worth arguing. But comparing TP to Malkin, Drudge, and LGF (a disorganized Nuremberg Rally, a lot of angry ruffians with nowhere to go lacking something better to do- thank you James Wolcott) is unfair. At least here there is an attempt to get some semblance of truth.
1)Since Bush and Blair felt confident…
I’m not sure if that is actually a defense. One can confidently feel 1+1=3, but that doesn’t make it right. There was plenty of contradictory evidence at the time, it just wasn’t allowed to see the light of day, or an NIE, or a NYT front page. And which game are you referring to? Producing WMD?
2)Saying “we are doing everything we can to avoid war†and actively planning for a war that may be inevitable (to them) are not mutually exclusive events …
Fortunately, we have hindsight, and eyewitness accounts (Clarke, O’Neill, DSM, Wilkerson, want more?) that more than suggest that the two were mutually exclusive, or at least one was not an option.
3) When Bush and Blair made up their mind is not easy for us to judge
This I do agree with you on. But, I think O’Neill’s telling of the first days of the Bush presidency really lays it out. I know the wingers have attacked him the way that all critics of the Admin have been, but this guy was an insider and Bush’s (or someone close to him’s) pick.
February 2nd, 2006 at 6:47 pmWayne, see Jane. 69 is a prime number in the sack.
February 2nd, 2006 at 6:51 pmThis latest gets added to the Conyers Report legal analysis WHICH EVERYONE SHOULD READ:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/section4.pdf
(Violation of 18 USC 371: Conspiracy to Defraud the United States)
Support censure (sign the petition).
Everyone should make the effort to at least read the Legal Analysis portion of the Conyers report, so we can further coordinate the accumulation of evidence INTO THE PROPER LEGAL CATEGORIES, for use (hopefully) by an independent prosecutor.
The great value of the Conyers report is that we need to learn to keep on hammering the FACT that there are at least FIFTEEN major federal crimes in evidence. Every time they try to shoot one down by isolating it, we MUST bring up the other fourteen!
Study this Congressional report and learn the statute numbers. When Chris M bloviates on His Wonderfulness, ask him about Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, 18 USC 371. And then tell him there are at least ten other US Codes that have been broken.
Put a little butter in that hot pan — the fish are getting ready to fry.
February 2nd, 2006 at 7:05 pmYou would think that this would actually mean something. You would think that citizens would be incited by such rage at the administration that they would accept nothing less than impeachment. You would think that the media would run with an important story such as this. But they won’t and the likelihood of this story seeing the light of day in any major media market is nil. Welcome to the real world!
February 2nd, 2006 at 7:15 pm#128, Walt–gee, thanks for giving Wayne advice :-o
I think that sharp pain in Wayne’s side is one of our cats!
(Either that or it’s me!)
‘Night, all!
February 2nd, 2006 at 7:25 pmW thinks(I use that term idly) that all Americans are idiots. He is less than half right. It is unfortunate that the rest of the country is more tolerant than the scum in the pond.
February 2nd, 2006 at 7:26 pm#126
A British national security aide’s interpretation of what was said during a meeting is far different than information that has gathered and collaborated by multiple source inside MI-6. As far as I know British intelligence still stands by their information.
February 2nd, 2006 at 7:26 pmOh I see, a person that was in the room with Bush and Blair is less credible than somebody that has researched something.
Bad logic, but then again you’re a troll and always get shit wrong anyway. See below.
Then you know wrong.
February 2nd, 2006 at 7:30 pm[…] Think Progress documents the numerous times that Bush stated he was “not sure” about going to war with Iraq after presenting the idea as a sure thing in his conversation with Blair, i.e. “We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq.” […]
February 2nd, 2006 at 7:36 pm#34, Duhbya – love the picture! Thank you for the laugh.
#111, nonny mouse, nice to see another Brit here, there are not enough of us, just usually myself and the flying scotsman. I agree it’s conspiracy to commit murder and the reason it’s getting very little interest from America media is because Republicans control most of the mainstream media (and even have channels like Fox News which are blatantly pro-fascist. The channel was set up by Repugs for Repugs). Of course, Repugs and their apologists (called trolls) e.g. IRI, Mighty Aphrodite, Giacomo etc. will insist the media is left-wing biased but it’s not true. There was a comment from a bright American recently that I thought summed it all up nicely:
“The American media is big business and as such, the corporate boards want access and influence in the political sphere. Bushco has given it to them with the understanding that real reporting on WH activities and policy positions will not occur.” This comment was made by Southwest Bob.
nonny, please don’t abandon this site, it’s worth supporting as there are many Americans who share our views!
#126, Spudge_Boy, it wasn’t British intelligence that lured America into the so-called ‘war on terror’ in the first place, it was lies from Bush – using any means possible including promises of economic inclusion (bribery) of Iraq’s assets (later denied to France etc.). p.s. love your troll picture too #102.
#134, Tracy, British Intelligence still stand by their information in exactly the same way the NSA does – you don’t bite the hand that feeds you. Bear in mind both MI6 and the NSA will have plan ‘B’ ready to go as soon as the proverbial hits the fan and it will be very different information that comes into the public arena from each of them then. AKA ‘covering your back’.
I hang my head in shame to be British at a time like this.
February 2nd, 2006 at 7:50 pmGary,
I don’t blame the British. I think Blair went along with Bush in hopes of having the same legacy as Bush. Their delusions of grandre are tearing the world apart.
February 2nd, 2006 at 8:00 pmSpudge_Boy, thanks. Blair (Bliar) went along with Bush because he thinks of himself as a ‘Statesman’ and wants to influence your politics. When questioned by the British cabinet in the lead-up to war, Blunkett asked Blair something like ‘tell me, what has Iraq done in the last 3 months that has made [Hussein] a threat to Britain?’ Blair replied something like, ‘do we want to influence American politics?’ This same question/answer was repeated 3 times!
February 2nd, 2006 at 8:10 pmGary,
Blair equals Bush with a different accent.
I wonder how many other heads of states Bush fished this plan to around the world. How many heads of state laughed at Bush?
February 2nd, 2006 at 8:17 pmGary #138,
February 2nd, 2006 at 8:21 pmThat is shocking, link?.
not enough of them, just look at the Mickey mouse countries in the ‘alliance’. Do you remember them lining up when it came to awarding reconstruction contracts time (Halliburton notwithstanding) and Bush precluded them as they were not part of the ‘alliance’? I remember France and Russia were not impressed.
February 2nd, 2006 at 8:28 pm#140, OK will try WaltTheMan - I remember reading it but I don’t know where. It shocked me at the time too. If anyone else can help with this I’d appreciate it. This will take me some time.
February 2nd, 2006 at 8:31 pm#34 Comment by Mr Duhbya
Imaganacopy that.
February 2nd, 2006 at 8:32 pmGood pic. :thumb:
#140, WaltTheMan got it - it was Robin Cook’s (former British Foreign Secretary) memoirs. There are snippets in the following link (I hope it works)
February 2nd, 2006 at 8:49 pmhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2005/ 06/ 27/ AR2005062701584_pf.html
Post 106 Jay Randal: Yes, Bush told everyone Iraq had WMD. There’s no evidence of any kind that he lied, neither that Powell lied. Further, this memo does not show any evidence that anyone lied.
But why do I bother? The main story above makes no sense. The article quoted says Bush said he would invade regardless of whether there was a second resolution, or no evidence of WMD (which we all knew that at the time). So on that it is simply a nonstory.
Worse, the memo does not say that he would invade no matter what; it only says he would not be deterred by those two non-occurrences. Still, the title of the post asserts the falsehood that he “made up his mind” to invade, despite the article not saying that, and you all buy it hook, line, and sinker.
“Reality-based community,” my ass.
February 2nd, 2006 at 8:49 pmAMERICA WAKE UP
DSM - Downing Street Minutes complete text
OTHER Complete Set of Downing Street Documents
February 2nd, 2006 at 8:55 pmwe have to stop calling documents like this “memo’s” as that word does not carry the neccessary weight
for instance, the “downing street memo” should from hence forward be referanced as;
the “official government documentation”
February 2nd, 2006 at 9:06 pmPost 145 pudge > The memo is being published in the British press as factual, so if you have proof otherwise, then post the info links for your proof?
British government officials are punctual about writing everything down in meetings > so go yell at them about it!
February 2nd, 2006 at 9:15 pmGary #144, pudge #145,
February 2nd, 2006 at 9:17 pmGary - good hit, pudge get help.
I’m not sure why anyone would say bush made up his mind ONLY 2 months before the war when Sen. Graham laid out GWB’s position over a year before. Below is a link to a VERY under-reported statement made to CBS news.
http://www.cbsnews.com/